1. Although I use the terms “international,” “transnational,” and “intercountry adoption” interchangeably, “intercountry adoption” was the term primarily used in the 1950s.

2. Two potentially confusing terms are used throughout this study: orphan and GI baby. Since Congress enacted the Refugee Relief Act in 1953, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has defined orphans as children who are either separated from both parents by death, desertion, or abandonment, or who have only one parent because of similar circumstances and “the remaining parent is incapable of providing care for such orphan and has in writing irrevocably released him for emigration and adoption.” This study employs the INS definition because it most aptly describes the Korean children who were placed into U.S. homes. The term GI baby was also coined during the post–World War II period as a way to describe children in Europe and Japan who were fathered by American soldiers. The media popularized the term during the Korean War, using it to depict the thousands of children with white or black fathers and Korean mothers. See “Oregon Farmers Brings 12 More Orphans from Korea for New Homes in America,” Oregonian, 8 April 1956, 18.

3. Other scholars have also identified this policy vacuum in adoption law although they refer to it differently. For the argument that “cross-cutting jurisdictional responsibilities” in international adoption were an opportunity, see Balcom, Karen, The Traffic in Babies: Cross Border Adoption and Baby-Selling Between the United States and Canada, 1930–1972 (Toronto, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “‘Phony Mothers and Border-Crossing Adoptions’: The Montreal-to-New-York Black Market in Babies in the 1950s,” Journal of Women’s History 19, no. 1 (Spring 2007). For the argument that these “jurisdictional responsibilities” were a barrier, see Choy, Catherine Ceniza, “Institutionalizing International Adoption: The Historical Origins of Korean Adoption in the United States,” in International Korean Adoption: A Fifty-Year History of Policy and Practice, ed. Berquist, Kathleen Ja Sook, Elizabeth Vouk, M., Kim, Dong Soo, and Feit, Marvin D. (Binghamton, 2007), 25–42Google Scholar. Credit goes to Alice O’Connor for suggesting this terminology.

4. I want to thank Karen Balcom for this insight.

5. Jacob Hacker’s definition of a welfare regime as a multifaceted configuration of public and private interests formed through political negotiation particularly influences the way that this project considers child welfare policy development and implementation. See Hacker, , The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States (Cambridge, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Klein, Jennifer, For All These Rights: Business, Labor, and the Shaping of America’s Public-Private Welfare State (Princeton, 2006)Google Scholar; and Katz, Michael, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America (New York, 1996).Google Scholar

6. Postcolonial theorist Ann Laura Stoler examines imperial sites where moral policies developed to police racial boundaries. She envisions an informal policy space where intimate matters are decided through domestic interactions that blur cultural and racial lines as well as lines of dominance. In similar ways, international adoption occurs on “contested terrain” where races and cultures mix and definite power structures emerge. See Stoler, , “Tense and Tender Ties: The Politics of Comparison in North American History and (Post) Colonial Studies,” Journal of American History 88, no. 3 (December 2001): 829–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. According to historian Mae Ngai, this codified a framework of immigration that relied on quotas and racial hierarchy, drove future conflicts with “illegal aliens,” limited Asian migrants’ attempts at citizenship, and created a system that simultaneously excluded and included. See Ngai, , Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (Princeton, 2004), 230.Google Scholar

8. Klein, Christina, Cold War Orientalism: Asia in the Middlebrow Imagination, 1945–1961 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2003), 225.Google Scholar

9. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Final Report of the Administrator of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, As Amended, 85th Cong., 1st sess., 156 November 1957, 1, 15. The RRA defined a refugee as “any person in a country or area which is neither Communist nor Communist-dominated, who because of persecution, fear of persecution, natural calamity or military operations is out of his usual place of abode and unable to return thereto, who has not been firmly resettled, and who is in urgent need of assistance for the essentials of life or for transportation.”

10. Davis, Michael Gill, “The Cold War, Refugees, and U.S. Immigration Policy, 1952–1965” (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1996), 99–100Google Scholar; and Bruce Nichols, J., The Uneasy Alliance: Religion, Refugee Work, and U.S. Foreign Policy (Oxford, 1988), 84–85, 99.Google Scholar

11. Displaced Persons Act, Public Law 774, U.S. Statutes at Large 1009 (25 June 1948). This legislation was the first to provide relief to victims of persecution.

12. Senate Committee of the Judiciary, To Permit Certain Displaced Persons Under 14 Years of Age Orphaned as a Result of World War II to Enter the United Sates as Non-Quota Immigrants: Hearings on S. 830, 18 July 1947, 28–30, 51; and Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=I000050 (accessed 12 February 2008).

13. Senate Committee of the Judiciary, Certain Displaced Persons Hearing, 5, 47.

14. Displaced Persons Act, sec. 2(e).

15. Senate Committee of the Judiciary, Certain Displaced Persons Hearing, 17.

16. Weil, Robert H., “International Adoptions: The Quiet Migration,” International Migration Review 18, no. 2 (Summer 1984): 280–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

17. Act of August 19, 1950, Public Law 717, U.S. Statutes at Large 464 (1950).

18. Immigration and Nationality Act, Public Law 414, U.S. Statutes at Large 163 (27 June 1952), sec. 323.

19. To Permit the Entry of Certain Eligible Orphans, HJ Res 228, 83rd Cong., 1st sess., Congressional Record 607, no. 605 (21 July 21 1953).

20. To Permit the Entry of Certain Eligible Orphans, 2–3.

21. Refugee Relief Act, Public Law 203, U.S. Statutes at Large 400 (7 August 1953), sec. 5(a).

22. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Final Report of the Administrator of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, 57. For a list of the voluntary agencies, see p. 134.

23. To Permit the Entry of Certain Eligible Orphans, HJ Res 228, 83rd Cong., 1st sess., Congressional Record 607, no. 605 (21 July 1953).

24. Michael Gill Davis, “The Cold War, Refugees, and U.S. Immigration Policy,” 78.

25. May, Elaine Tyler, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era (New York, 1988), 121, 125.Google Scholar

26. The New York Times reported that petitions to adopt increased 30 percent from 1944 to 1953. “New Laws Sought by Adoption Units,” New York Times, 25 June 1956, 24.

27. Because the desire for children was so acute, differences in race and religion became less important than in the past, as noted in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Final Report of the Administrator of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, 57.

28. Letter from Scott McLeod to Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, 3/29/1955, box 2, RRA, National Archives II, College Park, Md.

29. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Authorizing Additional Visas for Orphans, 84th Cong., 2nd sess., 1956, S. Rpt. 2684, 3.

30. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Final Report of the Administrator of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, 62.

31. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Authorizing Additional Visas for Orphans, 3.

32. For more on this, see Dubinsky, Karen, Babies Without Borders: Adoption and Migration Across the Americas (New York, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. chap. 2.

33. Scholar Christina Klein asserts that the international adoption of GI babies served as a symbolic extension of Cold War foreign policy, highlighting the reciprocal relationship between cultural constructions of family and political prerogatives. See Klein, , “Family Ties and Political Obligation: The Discourse of Adoption and the Cold War Commitment to Asia,” in Cold War Constructions: The Political Culture of United States Imperialism, 1945–1966, ed. Appy, Christian G. (Amherst, 2000), 35–66.Google Scholar

34. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Final Report of the Administrator of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, 65.

35. Much of the “unavailability” resulted from adoptive parents’ specific criteria. From the early twentieth century, adoptive families classified the ideal “adoptable” child as a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, healthy infant. Most available children, however, did not meet this narrowly prescribed category, making this shortage more acute during the baby boom. Social workers faced continual difficulty in locating adoptive homes for domestic nonwhite or older children. See May, Elaine Tyler, Barren in the Promised Land: Childless Americans and the Pursuit of Happiness (Cambridge, Mass., 1995)Google Scholar, chap. 4; Melosh, Barbara, Strangers and Kin: The American Way of Adoption (Cambridge, Mass., 2002), 160Google Scholar; and Wayne Carp, E., Family Matters: Secrecy and Disclosure in the History of Adoption (Cambridge, Mass., 1998), 34.Google Scholar

36. Memorandum received from American Council of Voluntary Agencies for Foreign Service, Inc., January 1955, p. 1, box 10, folder 29, ISS papers. “Mixed-race” was the terminology most often used in the 1950s.

37. “Holt ‘Babylift’ Slows Only for Diaper Shift,” The Oregonian, 7 April 1956. The UN speculated that the total number of orphans in Korea to be approximately 100,000 children. “Amendment of Refugee Relief Act of 1953,” Congressional Record, 84th Cong., 2nd sess., vol. 102, part 6 (30 April 1956): 7247–49, as cited in Oh, “A New Kind of Missionary Work,” 161–88; and Susan Pettiss, Report of Meeting with Dr. Pierce of World Vision, 13 March 1956, box 10, folder 29, ISS papers.

38. The Korean War introduced a mixed-race population to an Asian nation that valued racial purity. See Report of Meeting with Dr. Pierce of World Vision, 13 March 1956, box 10, folder 29, ISS papers. Holt, Bertha and Wisner, David, The Seed from the East (Los Angeles, 1956), 25Google Scholar.

39. Holt and Wisner, The Seed from the East, 27. The Holts’ close relationship with World Vision indicates that they shared a like-minded purpose of meeting physical needs as well as spiritual ones.

40. Ibid., 25.

41. H. P. Sconce, “Lenten Guideposts,” The Vidette-Messenger (Valparaiso, Ind.), 19 April 1957.

42. Holt, Bertha, Bring My Sons from Afar (Eugene, Ore., 1986), 9Google Scholar. An alternate take on it comes from Bob Pierce, who bluntly explained to ISS assistant director Susan Pettiss, “For four months, Mr. Holt changed diapers on babies, waiting for the red tape to unwind . . . he was bound to be a little bitter.” Report of Meeting with Dr. Pierce of World Vision, 13 March 1956, box 10, folder 29, ISS papers.

43. Holt, Bring My Sons from Afar, 17.

44. Ibid., 156.

45. Arissa Oh has completed the most thorough research on the Holts’ religious motivation and how it gained support amid a surge of, what she calls, Christian Americanism. See Oh, , “Into the Arms of America: The Korean Roots of International Adoption” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2008)Google Scholar.

46. Ibid., 156.

47. For more on the Progressives and child adoption, see Berebitsky, Julie, Like Our Very Own (Lawrence, Kans., 2000)Google Scholar; Herman, Ellen, “The Paradoxical Rationalization of Modern Adoption,” Journal of Social History 36, no. 2 (2002): 339–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kunzel, Regina, Fallen Women, Problem Girls: Unmarried Mothers and the Professionalization of Social Work, 1890–1945 (New Haven, 1993).Google Scholar

48. Holt and Wisner, The Seed from the East, 221.

49. Henry Chang, “From Korea to Creswell: Waifs, ‘Aboji,’ Eye Departure,” Register-Guard, 5 October 1955.

50. Eves, Richard, “‘Black and White, a Significant Contrast’: Race, Humanism, and Missionary Photography in the Pacific,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 29, no. 4 (2006): 739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51. The Holts’ bias toward American culture also shaped their definition of orphans and treatment of birth mothers. Throughout the Holts’ writings, they minimize the birth-mother relationship with Korean GI orphans, a topic that I will explore more in the larger dissertation project.

52. Holt, Bring My Sons from Afar, 21.

53. Holt and Wisner, The Seed from the East, 240.

54. Section 5 of the RRA permitted a foreign child to be adopted by an American couple sight unseen as long as the child qualified as an orphan under INS policy. This policy effectively circumvented professional social workers’ approval and state welfare departments’ oversight, only requiring a State Department health test to get the child’s visa.

55. Susan Pettiss, Memo to Files regarding ISS trip to visit County Department of Public Welfare, World Vision, and Holt family, box 10, folder 29, ISS papers.

56. Holt, Bring My Sons from Afar, 9. Throughout her book, Bertha refers to ISS as the American Social Agency and Susan Pettiss as Miss Perry.

57. Letter from Holts to supporters, February/March 1956, p. 2, box 10, folder: Independent Adoption Schemes, 1955–57, vol. 1, Harry Holt, ISS papers. See “Adopted Korean Kids Cleared for U.S. Entry,” Register-Guard, 25 September 1955. See also Holt, Bring My Sons from Afar, 12; and “89 Korean Orphans Here for New Homes,” San Mateo Times (Calif.), 17 December 1956. This article refers to the airlifts as “novel.”

58. Christ is the Answer Foundation and Everett Swanson Evangelistic Association are two other groups studied by Choy, “Institutionalizing International Adoption: The Historical Origins of Korean Adoption in the United States,” in International Korean Adoption: A Fifty-Year History of Policy and Practice, 25–42.

59. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Final Report of the Administrator of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, As Amended, 85th Cong., 1st sess., 15 November 1957, 135. In 1956, HAP processed 179 adoptions. “Holt Annual Report,” 1965, folder: Independent Adoption Schemes, 1955–57, vol. 3, Harry Holt, box 10, ISS papers.

60. A DOJ report from 10 July 1958, calculated that from 11 September 1957 to 30 June 1958, 916 orphan visas were issued to Korean adoptees. An estimated 500 of these children arrived through HAP’s efforts. See folder: Independent Adoption Schemes, 1955–57, vol. 3, Harry Holt, box 10, ISS papers.

61. Holt, Bring My Sons from Afar, 8. The total number to greet the flight was estimated at 1,000. See “Holt Plane Arrives at Portland Airport,” Register-Guard, 14 October 1955, 1.

62. Holt and Wisner, The Seed from the East, 54.

63. Richard Neuberger, “What Has Happened to American Spirit?” Washington Calling IV, January 1958, as cited in Holt, Bring My Sons from Afar, 61.

64. Certain Korean War Orphans Act, 84th Cong., 1st sess. (28 July 1955).

65. Holt and Wisner, The Seed from the East, 124–26; and Barone, Michael, Ujifusa, Grant, and Matthews, Douglas, The Almanac of American Politics (au: Chicago?>Gambit, 1972), 675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66. Ibid., 114.

67. The International Social Service–American Branch website, http://www.iss-use.org/site/subsection.asp?IdSection=1&IdSub=19 (19 accessed January 2008). “Expediting Adoption of Korean Orphans,” Christian Century, 11 July 1962, 857. Using Jane Russell’s organization World Adoption International Fund (WAIF) as an intermediary, ISS also conducted international placements.

68. Working with the CWLA, the USCB, and State Departments of Welfare, ISS primarily served as a facilitator between agencies. See ISS website, http://www.iss-use.org/site/subsection.asp?IdSection=1&IdSub=19 (19 accessed January 2008).

69. Another reason the Holts’ distrusted social welfare authorities was the confusion surrounding an adoption by the Colliers, close friends of the couple. Holt completed the Colliers’ adoption by proxy with his own eight children because he claimed that the state welfare authority never forwarded their home study to Korea and inaccurately construed the status of the Colliers’ approval. See Letter from Andrew Juras to Susan Pettiss, 4 May 1956, ISS papers.

70. Witmer, Helen L., Herzog, Elizabeth, Weinstein, Eugene A., and Sullivan, Mary E., Independent Adoptions: A Follow-Up Study (New York, 1963), 43Google Scholar. See also Child Welfare League of America Standards for Adoption Service (New York, 1958), 4; and Schapiro, Michael, A Study of Adoption Practice: Adoption Agencies and the Children They Serve (New York, 1956).Google Scholar

71. Witmer, Herzog, Weinstein, and Sullivan, Independent Adoptions, 35–37. Prospective parents who wanted to adopt a highly demanded white infant or toddler needed to demonstrate a family history free of disease and a prudent use of financial resources. Neither parent could be older than forty and each family needed to pay the required fees. See Schapiro, A Study of Adoption Practice, 75, 76. Of course, social workers frequently waived requirements for couples that were willing to adopt an older child or a child of mixed-race background. For an example of this, see Doss, Helen, The Family Nobody Wanted (Chicago, 1954).Google Scholar

72. Witmer, Herzog, Weinstein, and Sullivan, Independent Adoptions, 255. For more on that status of social workers, see Kunzel, Fallen Women, Problem Girls; and Solinger, Wake Up Little Suzie.

73. AP, “Differences in Religion Held No Bar to Adoption,” New York Times, 25 January 1957, 45.

74. UP, “Baltimore Couple Lose Plea for Boy,” New York Times, 26 November 1957, 35.

75. For more on the legal implications of adoptive family construction, see Cahn, Naomi and Hollinger, Joan Heifetz, eds., Families by Law: An Adoption Reader (New York, 2004)Google Scholar.

76. Pearl S. Buck, “The Children Waiting,” Woman’s Home Companion, September 1955, 131.

77. Joseph Reid of CWLA did write a letter to the editor of Woman’s Home Companion, objecting to Buck’s arguments about available children. There is nothing in the letter, however, that refutes Buck’s assertion of a leadership vacuum. See Letter from Joseph Reid to Mr. Paul C. Smith, Editor-in-Chief of Woman’s Home Companion, 15 September 1955, box 23, folder: Welcome House, ISS papers; and Buck, “The Children Waiting,” 32–33.

78. Child Welfare League of America Standards for Adoption Service, 19, 24.

79. Ibid., 23.

80. Gordon, Henrietta L., Adoption Practices, Procedures, and Problems: Report of Workshop Material and Proceedings of the Adoption Conference, May 19–21, 1948 in New York City (New York, 1949), 25–26.Google Scholar

81. Child Welfare League of America Standards for Adoption Service, 68.

82. Holt, Bring My Sons from Afar, 11.

83. Ibid.

84. Holt Newsletter, n.d., box 10, folder: Independent Adoption Schemes, 1955–57, vol. 1, Harry Holt, ISS papers.

85. Pettiss, Memo to Files, box 10, folder 29, ISS papers.

86. Ibid.

87. Ibid.

88. Fradkin, Helen, The Adoption Home Study (Trenton: State of New Jersey, Department of Institutions and Agencies, Division of Public Welfare, and the Bureau of Children’s Services, 15 August 1963), 65.Google Scholar

89. Laurin and Virginia P. Hyde, “A Study of Proxy Adoptions,” 1958, box 17, folder 1, Child Welfare League of American papers, Social Welfare History Archive, University of Minnesota, 1 (hereafter CWLA papers). This language was also picked up in the press; see UP, “Agencies Urge Bill to Prohibit Proxy Adoptions,” Albuquerque Journal, 1 August 1958, 45.

90. Also 1954, see Senate Committee on the Judiciary, To Amend the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., H.R. 3005 (7 April 7 1954).

91. List of Prospective Adoptive Parents, 4 April 1956; Mrs. Henry Luehr to William Langer, 1 April 1956; and William Langer to Mrs. Henry Luehr, 9 April 1956, all in box 4—Subcommittee on Immigration, 1955–59, National Archives I, Washington, D.C. (hereafter Archives I).

92. Letter from William Langer to Jocelyn Ames, Adoptive Parents Committee, 6 July 1959; Letter from William Langer to Richard Neuberger, 18 May 1959, re: Mr. & Mrs. P. N. Haakenson; Lawrence Newhouse to William Langer, 30 July 1957; and Lawrence Newhouse to Eleanor Guthridge, 23 December 1958, all in box 4—Subcommittee on Immigration, 1955–59, Archives I.

93. Letter from George Wooley to William Langer, 12 May 1959, box 4—Subcommittee on Immigration, 1955–59, Archives I.

94. Letter from Susan Pettiss to ISS Headquarters and Branches, 28 July 1958, box 10, folder: Children—Intercountry Adoption Seminar (1960), ISS papers; and Holt and Wisner, The Seed from the East, 169.

95. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Final Report of the Administrator of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, 65.

96. This language often has been directed at wealthy citizens who avoid paying taxes through loopholes. Pettiss once referred to Harry as an “Oregon backwoods millionaire,” implying that he not only lacked the experience and sophistication necessary to spearhead an international adoption program but that only his substantive wealth permitted him to do so. See Letter from Susan Pettiss to Lorena Scherer, 8 January 1957, box 10, folder 29, ISS papers.

97. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Authorizing Additional Visas for Orphans, 84th Cong., 2nd sess., 1956, S. Rpt. 2684, 2–3; and Holt, Bring My Sons from Afar, 17.

98. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Authorizing Additional Visas for Orphans, 2–3.

99. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, A Bill for the Relief of Judy-Ellen Kay (Choi Myosoon), 85th Cong., 1st sess., S. Rpt. 914 (14 August 1957), 1–3.

100. DOJ Report, 19 July 1958, box 10, folder: Independent Adoption Schemes, vol. 3, Harry Holt, ISS papers.

101. Refugee-Escapee Act, Public Law 85–316, U.S. Statutes at Large 639 (11 September 1957), sec. 101(e).

102. Memo from Susan Pettiss to ISS HQ and Branches, 28 July 1958, box 10, folder: Children-Intercountry Adoption Seminar (1960), ISS papers.

103. President Eisenhower, Message to Congress Recommending Certain Changes in the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, on 27 May 1955, 84th Cong., 1st sess., 3.

104. “Lane County Tuberculosis Assn. Hears Mrs. Holt, Salem Doctor,” Register-Guard, 25 April 1958.

105. Refugee-Escapee Act of 1957, Public Law 85-316, U.S. Statutes at Large 639 (11 September 1957), sec. 6. When Oregon refused to admit the GI children into its state tuberculosis facilities, sectarian organizations like Denver’s Jewish hospital and a handful of Catholic hospitals in California took the children instead.

106. Letter from William Kirk to Eugene Carson Blake, ISS Board Member, 17 June 1958, box 10, folder: Independent Adoption Schemes, vol. 3, Harry Holt, ISS papers.

107. Letter from Susan Pettiss to Lorena Scherer, 8 January 1957, box 10, folder 29, ISS papers.

108. This is an industry term frequently used to refer to a failed adoption.

109. Letter to Harry Holt from Wilmer Tolle, 20 March 1958, box 10, folder: Independent Adoption Schemes, vol. 2, Harry Holt, ISS papers.

110. Laurin and Virginia P. Hyde, “A Study of Proxy Adoptions,” 1958, box 17, folder 1, CWLA papers, SWHA.

111. Letter from William Kirk and Joseph Reid to Member Agencies, 28 July 1958, box 17, folder 1, CWLA papers.

112. Letter from Joseph Reid to Harry Holt, 15 July 1959, box 10, folder: Independent Adoption Schemes, vol. 2, Harry Holt, ISS papers; and Elsie Carper, “Hearing to Air Refugee Needs,” Washington Post, 22 June 1959, A9.

113. Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Hearings on S. 1468, S. 1532, S. 1610, S. 2004, 86th Cong., 1st sess., 23 June 1959, 56.

114. Ibid., 41–43.

115. Amendment to Refugee-Escapee Act of 1957, Public Law 86-253, U.S. Statutes at Large 490 (1959); Internal memo, 16 September 1959, box 10, folder: Independent Adoption Schemes, vol. 2, Harry Holt, ISS papers; and Holt, Bring My Sons from Afar, 102. This legislation extended Section 4 of PL 85-316 until 30 June 1960.

116. Holt, Bring My Sons from Afar, 98. The Holts failed to specify whom INS designated to perform these home studies.

117. Amendment to Refugee-Escapee Act of 1957, Public Law 86-648, U.S. Statutes at Large 504 (1960).

118. HAP Annual Report, 1965, box 10, folder: Independent Adoption Schemes, 1955–57, vol. 1, Harry Holt, ISS papers.

119. Ibid.

120. Act of September 26, 1961, Public Law 87-301, U.S. Statutes at Large 650 (1961), sec. 25(b); House of Representatives, Amending the Immigration and Nationality Act and for Other Purposes, 87th Cong., 1st sess., 12 September 1961, H. Rpt. 1172; and Holt, Bring My Sons from Afar, 144.

121. President Eisenhower, Special Message to the Congress on Immigration Matters, 31 January 1957.

122. The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview/ international.html#22 (accessed on 3 March 2008). Domestic adoptions also rose steadily in the 1950s and 60s, rising an average of 10 percent to 15 percent annually, showing American families’ increased cultural acceptance of adoption. See Penelope L. Maza, “Adoption Trends: 1944–1975,” Child Welfare Research Notes #9 (U.S. Children’s Bureau, August 1984), pp. 1–4, box 65, folder: “Adoption—Research—Reprints of Articles,” CWLA Papers, as cited on the Adoption History Project, http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adoption/archive/MazaAT.htm (accessed on 3 March 2008).

123. “Editorial: Classic Compassion,” Oregonian, 29 April 1964.

124. Dan Sellard, “Heart Attack Kills Father of Babylift,” Register-Guard, 28 April 1964.