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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (17831)	4/30/2000 9:40:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Yes, if you narrow the definition to that point it seems likely that it hasn't happened before. INS doesn't usually take children and leave the parents, they take the whole family. I was referring to the habit of breaking down doors and pointing guns at people, not claiming that there were other cases where this was done to forcibly return a child to a parent. I still believe that nobody has a right to keep a child away from a parent, unless the parent is clearly incompetent to a degree which endangers the child. The idea of a relative refusing to turn a child over to his own father is fairly repulsive to me; certainly if I were in that position I would be willing to resort to force.

To: greenspirit who wrote (17831)	4/30/2000 11:32:00 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

What do you think the real reason was for storming the house? Obviously, it wasn't the child's well being that was considered. I think Castro threatened another Mariel boatlift, giving Clinton nightmares of Carter II as his legacy. If that scenario is correct, we have Castro dictating American policy and Clinton risking killing the kid for the sake of his legacy. It may sound wild, but I don't think it's too far off the mark.