There was no policy in effect requiring the INS to reject Elian's asylum application. The INS made the policy up as they went along.
Perhaps because this particular "applicant" was only 6 years old. That is a material fact not applicable to other cases as far as I know, such as the Ukrainian boy about 15-20 years ago. He was 12 and I believe the court stated that he was of an age to apply for asylum on his own, but at the low end of the age range.
Indeed, the Court acknowledged that the policy "may not harmonize perfectly with earlier INS interpretive guidelines." Without question, the INS could have enacted an entirely different policy and would have been reasonable in doing so. "We, however, do not mean to suggest that the course taken by the INS is the only permissible approach."
Of course you need guidelines, but a case by case approach, not one size fits all, is not a bad idea.
The bottom line, folks, is that if Clinton hadn't been in such a hurry to placate Fidel Castro, Reno could have granted Elian an asylum hearing or a family court hearing to determine his best interests.
This just doesn't make sense to me. This author is stating definitely that Clinton would want to placate Castro (why?), assuming that Elian made the asylum application on his own knowing what he was doing (he can't even read Spanish yet, but he signed this long complicated legal document in English understanding what it meant?) and family court is the right venue (as Steven Rogers last pointed out, it DOESN'T HAVE jurisdiction.)
But what is "legal" is not always what is right.
Nope. Sometimes it's a Hobson's choice. I personally agree with the result, but the jury is still out on how "right" it will be in the long run.
Good night all... |
