JKSCHW at aol.com JKSCHW at aol.com
Sun Apr 23 18:43:56 PDT 2000

In a message dated 00-04-23 20:52:32 EDT, you write:

<< ctually, 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.

The TRO/preliminary injunction should not have been issued in the first place. The standard includes, crucially, a showing of a "reasonable probability of success on the merits." The merits involkvea showing that a person who wants political asylum faces a "well founded fear of persecution" because of his political beliefs. No rational person could suppose that Elian has any political beliefs or faces any well founded fear of persucution in Cuba because of any political beliefs he might have.

> So given that, why did

Reno demand he be put into the custody of his father?

Because his father's parental rights have not been terminated. In fact, even if Elian is granteda sylum, he will have to go back unless his father's rights are terminated or his father decides to stay here. The asylum issue goes to the kid's right to stay here, not to whether the govt can keep him away from his dad.

> His father

was brought to the US and is staying on an Air Force base (at whose

expense?); t

Presuambly Castro's. but I don't know.

> he 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?

Beacuse the person who has legal custody of the child is now here; frankly; he kid should have been turned to him in the first place. The INS has noi authority--NONE!--to make any determination about family law.

> 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.

The law seems to have little to do with it, or the kid would already be back.


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list