Introduction
In 1984, geographer Richard H. Weil identified international adoption as a unique form of migration (Leinaweaver, 2014). Similar to the global market economy, which shares legal frameworks across countries, the process of Intercountry Adoption (ICA) involves push and pull factors of supply and demand that highlight the symbiosis between ICA and other forms of migration. Factors such as war outcomes and poverty motivate (push) people to leave their home country for a seemingly better opportunity (pull) in another country. ICA differs from other migratory practices, however, because the child adoptee has no agency in migration in the same way adult migrants do (Leinaweaver, 2014). In other words, they have not been “pushed” to migrate; rather, they are subject to the demand inherent in “pull” factors—the desire for a child—that pushes an adoptee to navigate the bureaucratic process of adoption.
As ICA is a form of migration, the process largely rests on immigration legislation. For most, the final step in immigration is acquiring citizenship. Many adoptees and natural-born citizens alike may believe that adoption confers citizenship. However, it was not until the year 2000, with the passing of the Child Citizenship Act, that ICA adoptees received automatic citizenship in America (Laybourn, 2018). This guarantee was not offered to those adopted prior to the year 2000, leaving many adult adoptees unknowingly susceptible to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Reports of adoptees being served deportation paperwork have been documented as early as 2015, with some victims, such as Korean adoptee Philip Clay, taking their own lives due to the threat of deportation and lacking any knowledge of their birth country’s geography, language, or culture (Laybourn, 2018).
For adoptees, this lack of knowledge builds extreme barriers between adoptees and immigrant communities. Cultural signals of skin color and ethnic features effectively mark ICA adoptees as immigrants by society, while the naturalization inherent in the adoption process also marks them as “other” from the actual immigrants of their ethnic community. This unique dissonance in feeling at home while being told you do not belong defines the painful social reality of the “Perpetual Foreigner” trope and demonstrates the interchangeability of adoptee and immigrant identity.
Immigrant status and ICA adoptees are increasingly synonymous, with contingency resting solely on citizenship status. For many, the perception of citizenship often prioritizes national identity and membership in said nation. Acquiring citizenship also entails civic rights, however, such as access to government welfare programs and the right to vote (Bloemraad et al., 2008). Recent debates surrounding the SAVE Act further illustrate how citizenship verification systems can reshape access to civic participation, raising concerns regarding barriers for both citizens and noncitizens (Sweren-Becker & Bacskai, 2026).
This article utilized the READ framework of policy analysis to review this act. The READ approach provides a structured method for systematically analyzing policy documents through four stages: readying materials, extracting data, analyzing data, and distilling findings (Dalglish et al., 2020). Overall, the paper demonstrates the link between migration policies and ICA, applies this framework to the concept of citizenship, and concludes with an examination of the strengths, weaknesses, and overall purpose of the SAVE Act.
Policy Overview and Analysis
First introduced in 2024, the federal SAVE Act was passed by the House of Representatives on February 11, 2026. The policy amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to allow states to require Documentary Proof of Citizenship (DPOC) to protect the ballot from noncitizens (Committee on House Administration Democrats, 2024). Under the act, states must mandate DPOC for both voter registration and voting. Standard state identifications are invalid. Section 2a restricts valid identification to REAL ID-compliant documents, military IDs coupled with service records, or standard photo IDs paired with a birth certificate, hospital extract, final adoption decree proving U.S. birth, or a consular report of birth abroad (Orey et al., 2026).
The SAVE Act directs states, with guidance from the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), to create alternative verification procedures for applicants who cannot provide standard documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC), to allow other evidence and citizenship attestations, and to leave final eligibility decisions to election officials. To support verification, the Act authorizes officials to access citizenship-related information from the Department of Homeland Security, including the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system, and the Social Security Administration’s verification services (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, 2025). The legislation also expands potential legal exposure by applying the National Voter Registration Act’s criminal penalties to officials who knowingly and willfully register applicants without required citizenship documentation, raising concerns about increased scrutiny and risks for election administrators (Orey et al., 2026).
These requirements create systemic barriers uniquely unfriendly to complex legal identities. Closed adoptions make obtaining original birth records exceedingly difficult (Field & Pond, 2018). Furthermore, name changes from adoption or marriage complicate verification against birth certificates. Given that states like Michigan charge up to $80 for expedited birth records and impose lengthy waiting periods, these financial and bureaucratic hurdles will significantly suppress voter registration and day-of-voting eligibility (Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, n.d.).
The SAVE Act requires eligible citizens to provide Documentary Proof of Citizenship (DPOC) during voter registration and at the time of voting. A closer inspection of valid forms of DPOC uncovers the policy’s true intention of profiling underprivileged Americans. Section 2a defines valid forms of identification, including photo identification consistent with the REAL ID Act of 2005 (which mandated minimum security standards on government-issued licenses and ID cards in the aftermath of September 11), a valid form of photo identification coupled with a birth certificate, or with a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (Committee on House Administration Democrats, 2024). REAL IDs, however, do not indicate a person’s citizenship status and are equally available to noncitizens. Furthermore, people who have undergone a name change, most notably women and children after marriage or adoption, as well as the entirety of the transgender community, negate the legal validity of a birth certificate, as their certificate name may differ from their current legal name. Notwithstanding the fact that American women were granted suffrage last with the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment. Perhaps this policy hiccup is an unintentional afterthought, but it is not without merit to suggest it is a happy accident by its creators.
Section 2d of the SAVE Act effectively guts voter registration by mail or online, prohibiting states from accepting or processing applications submitted through the Federal Mail Voter Registration Application that accompanied the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), or through the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). While it is within election officials’ discretion to determine voter eligibility, Section 2f requires the Secretary of Homeland Security (SDHS), the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA), and any other head of a federal department to provide election officials with information to assist in verifying citizenship. The SSA, however, has stated that sharing information for voter registration purposes is nonessential to its purpose and is not an authoritative source for American citizenship. Section 5 of the SAVE Act outlines additional duties of the SDHS, requiring it to promptly notify the relevant state election officials when an individual becomes a naturalized citizen. This nor any further section defines “promptly”; nor does Section 2F define “such information” that the SSA is required to provide. In regard to the SDHS, Section 5 requirements do nothing to satisfy the DPOC requirements of citizens in Section 2, as the SDHS is not, in fact, a federal department.
As of 2026, there are an estimated 5 million adoptees in America (McGee, 2026). In their investigation, Galofaro and Tong-Hyung (2024) found that tens of thousands of adopted individuals lack citizenship due to legislative loopholes in the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, which excluded adoptees born before 1983, and to misunderstandings of the naturalization requirements among adoptive parents. Because the SAVE Act mandates DPOC, such as a U.S. birth certificate or a Certificate of Citizenship, these adoptees are entirely disenfranchised from the voting process and are at a heightened risk of deportation under the strict immigration enforcement policies in place during our current administration. Ultimately, despite the pervasive narrative that adoption and foster care programs are designed to place the child first, the political economies and structural violence historically embedded within these systems reveal that the child's true civic and personal rights have almost always come last (Efrat et al., 2015; Virgiel, 2014).
Recommendations of Change
Although the SAVE Act aims to strengthen public confidence in election integrity by requiring documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) for voter registration, policymakers should balance election security goals with potential barriers to civic participation. Existing evidence suggests that documented cases of noncitizen voting and voter impersonation in U.S. elections are extremely rare, raising questions about whether broad documentation requirements are proportionate to the scale of the identified problem (Brennan Center for Justice, 2017; Parks, 2024). Because federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, policy reforms should focus on improving existing verification systems rather than creating requirements that may unintentionally restrict eligible voters (National Voter Registration Act, 1993). Research indicates that strict documentation requirements can disproportionately affect naturalized citizens, older adults, low-income individuals, rural communities, and citizens who experience challenges accessing or updating government documents (Hajnal et al., 2017). Therefore, revisions to the SAVE Act should emphasize evidence-based safeguards, investment in secure voter database systems, accessible documentation pathways, and protections against unnecessary administrative burdens. Ensuring election integrity and protecting voting access should not be viewed as competing goals; effective policy design must promote both secure elections and equitable democratic participation.
Social Work Implication
From a social work perspective, the intersection of citizens, citizenship, human rights, and legal rights touches on both social justice and the rule of law in ways that can complicate social work values. Social workers have an ethical obligation to assist in shaping social policies and institutions. This includes protecting the integrity of the democratic voting process. Social work values also emphasize service and competence, meaning social workers operate within the legal definitions of policies and laws. While social workers do advocate for the rights of noncitizens, this advocacy is distinct from advocating specifically for voting rights; advocating for voter participation rather than eligibility (Lane & Pritzker, 2018). If protecting the sanctity of ballots means ensuring the democratic system is free of fraud, this aligns with social work values of Integrity and Social Justice. As demonstrated through analysis, however, strict electoral requirements often create systemic barriers that disproportionately impact marginalized groups and effectively disenfranchise eligible citizens under the premise of security (Barreto et al., 2022). Therefore, if the methods used for "protection" result in the disenfranchisement of eligible voters, which the SAVE Act has enormous potential to do, it may conflict with the value of Social Justice.
Conclusion
At a surface level, the SAVE Act serves as a protective measure for American citizens. In actuality, however, this Act undermines many Americans who may or may not have voted against Donald Trump and his administration. The establishment of America hinges on the fact that it was immigrants who founded America, and other immigrants who built America. For migrants of the current era, the American message supported by the SAVE Act is one of unwelcoming. For adoptees from abroad, the SAVE Act amplifies the “Perpetual Foreigner” trope by unabashedly profiling adoptees who received citizenship as nothing more than the immigrants of their ethnic communities. While American ideologies of citizenship center around suffrage rights, factors of immigration and international adoption challenge this primitive narrative. To enact the SAVE Act is a costly attack on the suffrage of many American groups who were not granted such sovereignty until almost a century after the founding of America. Given empirical evidence of low rates of documented voter fraud, future election policies should consider whether additional verification requirements yield benefits that are proportionate to their potential administrative and civic-participation costs.
References
Barreto, M. A., Sanchez, G. R., & Walker, H. L. (2022). Battling the Hydra: The disparate
impact of voter ID requirements in North Dakota. The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 7(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2022.1
Bloemraad, I., Korteweg, A., & Yurdakul, G. (2008). Citizenship and immigration:
Multiculturalism, assimilation, and challenges to the nation-state. Annual
Review of Sociology, 34, 153–179. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134608
Brennan Center for Justice. (2017, January 31). Debunking the voter fraud myth. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/debunking-voter-fraud-myth
Committee on House Administration Democrats. (2024). Safeguard American Voter
Eligibility Act (“SAVE Act”) (HR 8281) section-by-section.
https://democrats-cha.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-cha.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/SAVE%20Act%20Section-by-Section_BRANDED.pdf
Dalglish, S. L., Khalid, H., & McMahon, S. A. (2020). Document analysis in health policy research: The READ approach. Health Policy and Planning, 35(10), 1424–1431.
http://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czaa064
Efrat, A., Leblang, D., Liao, S., & Pandya, S. S. (2015). Babies across borders: The
political economy of international child adoption. International Studies Quarterly,
59(3), 615–628. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqv021
Field, J., & Pond, R. (2018). How adoption affects the experience of adult intimate
relationships and parenthood. New Zealand Journal of Counselling, 38(2), 24–55.
http://doi.org/10.24135/nzjc.v38i2.227
Galofaro, C., & Tong-Hyung, K. (2024, October 25). Thousands of children
adopted by Americans are without citizenship. Congress is unwilling to act. AP
News. https://apnews.com/article/adoption-citizenship-immigration-congress-0
c71631786c35f7042ff99726e9dcd23
Hajnal, Z., Lajevardi, N., & Nielson, L. (2017). Voter identification laws and the suppression of minority votes. The Journal of Politics, 79(2), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1086/688343
Lane, S. R., & Pritzker, S. (2018). Planning the political intervention: Advocacy and
electoral campaigns. In Political social work: Using power to create social change.
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68588-5_6
Laybourn, W. M. (2018). Being a transnational Korean adoptee, becoming Asian
American. Contexts, 17(4), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504218812866
Leinaweaver, J. B. (2014). The quiet migration redux: International adoption, race, and
difference. Human Organization, 73(1), 62–71.
https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.73.1.5830005230325411
McGee, L. (2026, March 5). How do Trump's immigration and deportation laws affect
international adoptees? League of Women Voters. https://www.lwv.org/blo
g/how-do-trumps-immigration-and-deportation-laws-affect-international-adoptees
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Order a record
online. https://www.michigan.gov/mdhhs/doing-business/vitalrecords/or
der-a-record-online
National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 52 U.S.C. § 20501 et seq. (1993).
https://www.justice.gov/crt/national-voter-registration-act-1993-nvra
Orey, W., Weil, M., & Lempert, J. (2026, February 2). Five things to know about the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, H.R. 22, 119th Cong. (2025). https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/
Parks, M. (2024, October 11). The truth about voter fraud: An explainer. NPR.
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/11/nx-s1-5147732/voter-fraud-explainer
Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, H.R. 22, 119th Cong. (2025).
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr22eh/pdf/BILLS119hr22eh.pdf
Sweren-Becker, E., & Bacskai, O. (2026, February 2). New SAVE Act bills would still
block millions of Americans from voting. Brennan Center for Justice.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/new-save-act-b
ills-would-still-block-millions-americans-voting
Virgiel, V. (2014). Adoption and child trafficking: Structural violence in the international
adoption system [Honors thesis, Portland State University]. PDXScholar.
https://doi.org/10.15760/honors.116