Jordan Hayes jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com
Sun Apr 23 17:50:48 PDT 2000

From JKSCHW at aol.com Sun Apr 23 17:27:19 2000

The law AG Reno was talking about is not family law but

immigration law; the INS said, he kid goes back, and the

family would not comply.

Actually, according to what the 11th says, the INS never accepted his application for assylum, which was why they thought it would be a good idea to wait and see what the outcome of that lawsuit would be, and that sending him back without listeneing to that case (currently on appeal) would be a bad idea. So given that, why did Reno demand he be put into the custody of his father? His father was brought to the US and is staying on an Air Force base (at whose expense?); the INS concluded early on that his great uncle would be an appropriate custodian while the kid is in the US -- why the change of heart?

So we're back to the INS' claim that "the kid goes back" is on hold. It's not clear what the outcome will be. I think the transfer of custody was part of some "deal" that the DoJ wanted to cut but never actually got agreement from. I don't think "the law" has anything to say about the current situation, seeing as how it's all on hold. So one answer is likely to be as good as another, but I'm surprised Reno pushed it like this.


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list