After aiding the CIA in turning Greece into an American Vassal state, AHEPA began publicly lobbying for "reform" of US immigration and adoption law.

I apologize for the length of this post (it's continued in a comment chain). But it details exactly how the adoption system was "reformed" which actually means codifying legal kidnapping.

Given the previously established context (AHEPA's close ties to the CIA), it's clear that AHEPA lobbied to have unregulated orphan adoptions. I believe this is in exchange for silence for basically spying on and being traitors to their mother country Greece.

https://books.google.com/books?id=lVmeDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Best Possible Immigrants: International Adoption and the American Family

Chapter 2 “An International Baby Hunt”: The “Gray Market” in Greece

Displaced Persons Act

The combination of agency initiative, constituent demand, and cumbersome independent bills led both houses of Congress to pass the Displaced Persons Act in 1948, providing an unprecedented 3,000 non-quota visas to orphaned children-a move that signaled U.S. policymakers’ commitment to caring for foreign orphans. Offering 205,000 visas for displaced persons, this legislation was the first to provide relief because of persecution. But it was the orphan provisions that seemed te most permissive. According to an official legal report from the Displaced Persons Commission, attorneys argued that “the Congress by its legislative treatment of orphans has given very clear evidence that it was intent of Congress to be as liberal as possible as far as this group was and is concerned.

Prompted by a wealthy constituent’s desire to adopt an identified orphan from Poland, Senator Irving M. Ives (R-N.Y.) introduced the orphan provision of the bill to help the “innocent victims of war.” Ives stipulated that “this is not an immigration bill but an expression of the great heart of the United States which always went out to children” and should be kept “separate and distinct from the overall problem of the refugee, the persecuted, and the displaced person or the immigrant.” He also urged the committee not to discriminate on the basis of race or nationality since his bill was intended as humanitarian relief. Yet Ives did not realize his desire for an orphan law that transcended national and racial boundaries, which representatives from both the State Department and the Department of Justice argued would prove extremely difficult to accomplish in light of current immigration law. The DPA’s final version provided three thousand orphan visas apart from standard immigration quotas. It defined orphans as under the age of sixteen, from Italy or the British, French, or American sectors of Germany, and Austria, who were missing both parents-strikingly omitting Japan. Ive’s advocacy, however, had opened the legislative door to orphaned children and brought to the Senate’s attention the plight of children outside Europe.

In the DPA hearings, legislators considered orphan provisions in light of U.S. parents’ demand for adoptable children. Committee members specifically asked, “do you think there will be a sufficient number of citizens...who will qualify in order to adopt a reasonable percentage of these orphans who may desire to come to the United States?” Without the reassurance from the State Department representative, Ben Brown, that their office believed both parents and organizations could care for these orphans, senators were hesitant to bring additional children into the country. This exchange illustrates that the DPA’s orphan provisions partially rested on the existence of a U.S. market for orphans.

U.S. legislators framed the Displaced Persons Act as a beacon of U.S. benevolent intervention, reinforcing the connection between war orphans and national interests. As Rep. Frank Chelf (D-Ky.) gushed, “it is a pleasure indeed to see the law we passed last year is operating and is helping to bring these youngsters into the United States, where we can mold strong, good, substantial, God-fearing, God-loving American citizens of tomorrow from the little, tired, lonely, friendless orphans of teoday.” Spoken during a period of severe immigration restrictions, Chelf’s comment, reminiscent of Emma Lazarus’s “tired, poor, and huddled masses,” signaled the privileged status of orphans and some refugees. Lawmakers extended the popular DPA in 1950 and again in 1951. While the original DPA did not recognize Greek children as displaced persons, Congress modified the 1950 Act to include chidren up to sixteen years old from Greece, and up to ten from European countries not under Soviet control. A significant policy shift, this not only enabled U.S. couples to adopt Greek children but also secured the immigration mechanism for a long-term program in Greece, where orphan estimates were especially high.

The amendment did much more than just extend the provisions governing the age and origin of permitted children. It also crucially redefined the term “orphan” to include children with surviving parents, making it arguably the most significant building block in international adoption. In the original DPA, and all prior temporary measures, orphans were strictly defined as children whose parents had both died or disappeared. The revised law added that a child would also be considered and orphan if he had “been abandoned, or deserted by, or separated or lost from both parents, or who has only one parent due to the death or disappearance of his other parent and the remaining parent is incapable of providing care for such orphan and agrees to release him for emigration and adoption or guardianship.”

When considering lawmakers’ intent behind words like “abandonment” and “separation,” State Department General Counsel James McTigue argued against employing a strict construction of such categories. He contended, “the statutory use of the almost synonymous terms of ‘abandonment,’ ‘dersertion,’ ‘separation,’ ‘loss,’ and ‘disappearance’ is evidence of the fact that the Congress was seeking to cover as many situations...pages 45-46 are not shown in this preview….1947. As the Children’s Bureau repeatedly explained to prospective adoptive parents, European countries were “anxious to keep their children,” even those born and raised in displaced persons’ camps. By mid-1951 the supply of adoptable European children had become so low that the Displaced Persons Commission stopped taking requests for unnamed children unless the family was open to adopting a “negro or Greek child.” The high degree of demand for foreign children who simply were not available for adoption influenced more creative-and potentially more exploitative-avenues for generating a supply of adoptable children. All this became possible because of the DPA’s overly broad directive

….Using emergency provisions as the basis for long-term policy structures helped to produce a climate receptive to the consumer paradigm with only spotty oversight from licensed child welfare practitioners-one that by the late 1950’s would provoke Ernest Mitler to shift his gaze from domestic markets to those in Greece.