Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (78952)	4/26/2000 1:32:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

INS needs to give him a hearing- I think. I have just been reading over INS guidelines for children. Best interests of the child cannot be used to affect the substantive decision. This case is problematic because the child is allowed a sympathetic adult- but you wouldn't want one in there who would unduly influence him- and the child was essentially brainwashed by the Miami relatives- whether they intended to do that or not. Their emotional hostility to Cuba and to the child's father was clearly strong enough that this child- in an interesting and vulnerable state after his ordeal at sea- would easily pick up on it and be influenced by it. Since his father is (presumably) against the asylum request I wouldn't want him there either. So neutral person with no contacts appointed by the court to accompany the child. Quick hearing. The INS guidelines primarily are for refugee orphan children and "child soldiers" - they deal with children who are applying for asylum on their own, and parents are not an issue. I can't find anything on how to balance the interests of biological parents who are present and against asylum. There may be case law on this that hasn't made it into the guidelines.