-
Wimps Versus Barbarians
May 21, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Looking Back — And Forward
May 15, 2013 | 19 comments
-
Lies About Libya
May 14, 2013 | 80 comments
-
Bouncing Ball Politics
May 8, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Words That Replace Thought
May 7, 2013 | 57 comments
The Public Policy
Whose Welfare?
Who really benefits from the Indian Child Welfare Act?
If there is ever a contest for the law with the most grossly misleading title, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 should be a prime candidate, because the last thing this Act protects is the welfare of Indian children.
The theory behind the Indian Child Welfare Act is that an American Indian child should be raised in an American Indian culture.
Based on that theory, a newborn baby of American Indian ancestry, who was adopted immediately after birth by a white couple, was at 27 months of age taken away from the only parents she has ever known and given to her father.
Apparently the tribe has rights under the Indian Child Welfare Act. If this child were of any other race, a court would be free to decide the case on the basis of whatever was in the best interests of the child. Instead, the child is treated almost as property, contrary to the 13th Amendment that outlawed slavery.
Fortunately, the legal issues growing out of this case are now before the Supreme Court of the United States. We can only hope that the justices will use their wisdom, instead of their cleverness, to decide this case.
The wisdom of Solomon provided a good example many centuries ago, in a case where two women each claimed to be the mother of a child and each demanded custody. Since he did not know who was the real mother, King Solomon said that he would cut the child in half and give each mother her half.
When one of the women dropped her claim, in order to spare the child’s life, he knew that she was the real mother. Anyone who would ruin a helpless child’s life, in order to assert their own legal prerogatives, or to protect the tribe’s turf, raises very serious questions about what kind of parent they are.
The question is not which home is better, but whether the child will ever feel secure in any home again, after the shock of being forcibly taken away.
The welfare of a flesh-and-blood human being should trump theories about cultures — especially in the case of a two-year-old child, who has been torn away from the only parents she has ever known, and treated as a pawn in a legalistic game.
This little girl is just the latest in a long line of Indian children who have been ripped out of the only family they have ever known and given to someone who is a stranger to them, often living on an Indian reservation that is foreign to them. This has happened even to children who have spent a decade or more with a family to which they have become attached and is attached to them.
There have already been too many scenes of weeping and frightened children, crying out in vain for the only mother and father they have known, as they are forcibly dragged away.
Whatever the merits or demerits of various theories about culture, they are still just theories. But too many people put their pet theories ahead of flesh-and-blood human beings.
One of the rationales for the Indian Child Welfare Act is that, in the past, Indian children were wantonly wrested from their Indian parents and sent off to be raised by non-Indians. But nothing we can do today can undo the wrongs of the past — especially not by creating the same wrongs again, in reverse.
While those who are most victimized by the so-called Indian Child Welfare Act are the children ripped out of their homes to satisfy some theory, they are not the only victims.
Indian children without biological parents to take care of them can be needlessly left in institutional care, when there are not enough Indian foster parents or adoptive parents to take them into their homes.
About the Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (20) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Thomas Sowell
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/30/whose-welfare
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Her Unrequited Letter
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- A Nation on the Edge
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 1.30.13 @ 6:46AM
I tried to adopt children in Georgia in the early 1990s, after the law had been passed that children must not be placed in adoptive homes based on race. The Black Social Workers refused to place Black children in White homes, despite the fact that the social welfare system was teeming with Black children who had no other hope of a permanent family. The Black Social Workers called such placements "genocide." They were adamant that it was better for Black children to stay in foster care with anybody whose skin was not White, or in group homes, for the rest of their lives than to be destroyed as Black children by living in White homes. That was when I gave up the idea of adoption, and one of the reasons I moved out of Georgia.
drudge ette obama| 1.30.13 @ 7:24AM
John Roberts will probably decide that the Court has no jurisdiction and will likely suggest that the remedy lies in Congress' legislative role, as he did in Obamacare.
Appleby, I am not surprised that the Black Social Worker in Atlanta was so candid about the unwritten policy of no whites need adopt black babies. It was about 1990 when I was told by a black judge that she would not hire me as a clerk because she ony hired women of color. She is no longer a judge, thank heavens, but paypack is comin'
Nancy in NC| 1.30.13 @ 8:38AM
It's amazing to me the the right is labeled racist when almost all the racism I see comes from the left. They see racism everywhere. It really must be all they think about.
Common sense is a rare disease and the left is definitely not infected.
Hardcard| 1.30.13 @ 9:00AM
Thanks Doc................Indian Welfare ? That's Senator elizabeth (big stinking bird) warren the casino lizzard and present day fat drunken dead ted (big wheels) kennedy fill-in. Cowa Bonga pail face.
Von Mises Jr| 1.30.13 @ 10:00AM
The liberal Democrats remind me of a woman in my neighborhood when I was a kid who constantly gossiped about everyone else. Her handsome husband was in the saddle with every Philly he could mount. We later heard one of her kids was a drug addict and another in prison.
The Democrats Socialist can't seem to complete a Budget, protect the border or conduct a stable monetary system that they are bound to by Constitutional Law, but if it something not enumerated to them, they cannot leave their hands off it. This is like the busybody whose husband was in everyone else’s bed but hers.
Pecos Pete| 1.30.13 @ 10:13AM
Typical government stupidity. If you think the Indian Child Welfare Act is bad, just wait for KingOcare that's coming down the road.
cicero| 1.30.13 @ 10:44AM
Dr. Sowell hopes that the court rules with wisdom rather than cleverness. Fat chance. I have labored in the legal system for over 40 years, and can think of no other branch of our government that has done more harm to the culture and fabric of this nation. They should plaster that saying carved over the portals of the Supreme Court - equal justice under the law. It has no meaning. They should repeal the 4th and 14th amendments now, and stop the charade. Our children are merely pawns in a great social experiment. How can we so interpret the law so as to maintain ourselves in power? That is the game, and it is not confined to the legislative or executive branches.
Bob K| 1.30.13 @ 6:26PM
Say it isn't so!
Every time we turn on the TV some talking heads are telling us we absolutely need to do something (anything) because it is "for the children!"
markenoff| 1.30.13 @ 10:47AM
We must preserve the stone age way of life of the aboriginal Americans, majestice riding horses across the plain.....oh wait, Europeans brought the horse so no horses. But preserve the aborginal American heritage of hunting out in nature with no companion but their dog....oh wait, Europeans brought the dog so no dogs. But preserve the aborginal American heritage of raising maize by cutting through the hard turf of the prairie with their steel plows.....oh wait, Europeans brought steel so no steel. So preserve the aborginal American way of life by forcing these kids to squat in the dirt around buffalo sh*t fires wearing animal skins and plaining with sticks and stones. That's your aboriginal American heritage.
spike59| 1.31.13 @ 5:52AM
dumbass
markenoff| 1.30.13 @ 10:53AM
I'm reminded of "King of the Hill" and John Redcorn.
Tim Williams| 1.30.13 @ 10:55AM
Only a liberal could believe that there is no physical difference which could possibly preclude women serving in the combat arms, but that the appropriate cultural environment for American Indians is rigidly and genetically circumscribed.
Albertus Magnus| 1.30.13 @ 11:42AM
Who benefits from the Indian Child Welfare Act? The first mistake is to think that this Act is intended to solve any problem. Clearly it has not done so, as Dr. Sowell describes above. So, who DOES benefit? This answer should be obvious by now: Politicians and bureaucrats benefit. Politicians benefit by parading their egos in front of press and constituents and congratulating themselves on a job well done. This generally translates in to votes so politicians can continue to celebrate themselves and worship their own egos. Bureaucrats and other government employees also "feeeeeeel" good about themselves by running the program and ostensibly "improving" other peoples' lives. (It's like the old Round Table Pizza radio ad, wherein the semi-moronic new employee exclaims, "Oh Boy! I'm HELPING!!!") This translates into personal and professional satisfaction and more importantly, into jobs for bureaucrats and other government employees, who might otherwise be unemployable.
The purpose of this Act is not to improve the lives and welfare of Indian children. It is to make politicians, bureaucrats, and activists who lobby for such drivel, feel good about themselves and reward themselves with other people's money. People in government are far too invested in their own feelings and egos and are utterly incapable of seeing the damage they do to society, and if they could see, they would not care.
Bob K| 1.30.13 @ 6:30PM
Historically it always was the "Indian Agents" who benefited. Now we identify them by different names but they do essentially the same things and continue to collect the benefits.
Job| 1.30.13 @ 12:48PM
innocent conversation with a grand multipara about to deliver:
how many children have you had Ma'am;
lets shee (was dipping snuff): the first one it was a boy, the second one it was another boy, the third one it was a girl...do you want me to count the one I give away?
no Ma'am
ok lets shee: the first one it was a boy, the second one it was another boy, the third one it was a girl, the forth one it was another girl...do you want me to count the one some i gut from my neice?
No ma'am
ok lets shee: the first one...uh oh... I gut blud...
Job| 1.30.13 @ 7:34PM
oops should've been yes for the give away one
Ronsch| 1.30.13 @ 1:15PM
Want to hear something really f%&$ up?
My two natural children's mother (full blooded Navajo) abandoned the three of us when my son was 14 months old. My daughter had just turned 4. That was in 1997. I relocated to Alaska (with no dispute from her about seeing the children whom she referred to "white-asses") and remarried in 2003.
My current wife has been more of a mother than their birth mother, indeed, their birth mother could not remember their birthdates, and would call maybe at best, one time every two years.
My daughter wanted to be fully adopted by my wife. When we went to our attorney for the adoption, we were told that the Navajo Nation had to be notified under the ICWA of 1978 because they are 1/2 Navajo, and could object to the adoption. So essentially, we had to go through a long involved process so my wife could adopt my daughter. Finally, as we were nearing the end, their birth mother comes out of the woodwork trying to muddy up the works.
When my daughter turned 18, she elected to have my wife adopt her without all the nonsense, because as an adult, she could be adopted by anybody she wanted.
My son will be 17, and has elected to simply wait until he turns 18 and do the same thing.
Simon Templar| 1.31.13 @ 12:24AM
If you desire to see the future of this nation then you have to look no farther than a federally controlled and managed native American reservation. Take a good look, this is the end result of a large government that progressively cares for and controls every aspect of your life and a picture of the subsequent planned dependence that follows.
spike59| 1.31.13 @ 5:54AM
Progressive social engineering/community organizing at its best...seriously, and sadly