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: Dayuhan who wrote (79341)	5/2/2000 7:30:00 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

Cubans- as I pointed out before- get interesting treatment- but they are still illegal when they land here. The difference is (because they are from Cuba, and we want to treat them differently for some reason) that illegal Cubans get "paroled" for one year by the INS- after that year is up they may apply for citizenship. This "parole" is the same as the parole a criminal gets- because it IS illegal for them- Cuban or no- to enter this country without permission. Parole is a discretionary gesture and can be revoked at will, as it was in Elian's case. Ta da. And I learned all that by reading the INS regulations. There is quite a bit about revoking parole in the Mariel boatlift cases, IF anyone is really interested. It gave me a headache.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (79341)	5/2/2000 7:37:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

You may be right, but if it were that transparent, why would the Circuit Court waste everyone's time? I don't know what the outcome should be; I do not know the character of Elian's father, or their relationship; I gave up on charges and counter charges, and hope for the court to sort it out. We delegate certain things for the simple reason of that we cannot do all the work necessary to decide properly all matters. One may have an opinion, but one need not. I only have questions and casual reactions. Unlike a lot of people here, I have been preoccupied with other things, not Elian. But things sometimes strike me, like the prejudice against the Miami Cubans, or the readiness to believe Juan's account of matters, and I dig a little......

To: Dayuhan who wrote (79341)	5/3/2000 2:43:00 AM
From: Kid Rock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Steven, Are you o.k.? This looks like it could get out of hand. dailynews.yahoo.com TAS

To: Dayuhan who wrote (79341)	5/3/2000 12:37:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Are you guys still arguing about this? You are correct, U.S. courts don't have jurisdiction over the custody issue. Surprising how many people don't grasp this, including U.S. senators, and Vice President Al Gore, possibly our next president, when the ruling of the Miami Family Court was reported widely, and was available on the net for a while. It still may be, but I can't find it anymore. Here's a report, from the April 14, 2000 Miami Herald (I have bolded the language I find most poignant): >>State judge dismisses Miami family's suit seeking custody BY JAY WEAVER jweaver@herald A state judge delivered a devastating punch to Elian Gonzalez's relatives in Miami by tossing out their lawsuit on Thursday that sought temporary custody of the boy so he could remain here while they pursued political asylum for him. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey said Elian's great-uncle Lazaro Gonzalez had no right to seek custody in family court because he is too distant a relative under state law, and that the federal government's decision to reunite the child with his father superseded her authority to allow an emergency hearing on his custody request. ``Elian Gonzalez's physical presence in this country is at the discretion of the federal government,'' Bailey wrote in her 22-page ruling. ``The state court cannot, by deciding with whom his custody should lie, subvert the decision to return him to his father and his home in Cuba.'' Bailey also lifted an emergency protective order -- granted in a controversial decision on Jan. 10 by Circuit Judge Rosa Rodriguez -- that required Elian to stay in Miami-Dade County with his relatives until the hearing on his temporary custody. Lazaro Gonzalez sued the boy's father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, for custody of the 6-year-old in early January after Elian lost his mother on a boat journey from Cuba in late November. The great-uncle turned first to family court for temporary custody of the child, before heading to federal court to challenge the Immigration and Naturalization Service's decision that denied Elian's asylum application. After the Miami relatives lost their immigration dispute in federal court last month, they appealed it and then rushed back to family court on Saturday to revive their custody petition. This desperate dash was not lost on Bailey. The judge said: ``Only after that loss . . . and only since the father has arrived in the United States to seek implementation of the federal decision, has [Lazaro Gonzalez] returned to state court to aggressively seek a hearing in an effort to continue to keep the child in Miami.'' LEGAL ARGUMENT The crux of the Miami relatives' legal argument was this: Elian's father is an unfit parent because he wants to raise his child under the abusive communist regime of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. They feared that if the government transferred the boy to his father, now staying in a Washington, D.C., suburb, they would leave for Cuba immediately. But Bailey, recognizing Attorney General Janet Reno's broad powers in immigration disputes, said: ``The basis for the custody claim is that the child should not live in Cuba, with his father, and is better off here. The [family] court's ability to reach that decision is derailed by the federal government decision that he must return to Cuba, his homeland, and be with his father.'' Indeed, Bailey, echoing the stand of U.S. officials, said Lazaro Gonzalez ``fails to understand the fundamental nature of his case -- it is an immigration case, not a family case.'' The Gonzalez family's attorney, Laura Fabar, said the ruling was a blow to the relatives. ``It's very disappointing because the child has been left without a legal custodian to provide for his basic necessities, such as medical care,'' Fabar said. ``As long as he is in the country, there will always be the necessity for an adult to take care of the basic needs of this minor.'' The federal government has one adult in mind for that important role: Elian's father, a 31-year-old cashier at a government tourist park, who is married and has an infant son. LOVING FATHER The INS found that Juan Miguel Gonzalez had a loving, caring relationship with his son, and Bailey acknowledged that in her opinion. Under Florida law, custody can be taken away from a child's sole surviving parent only if the parent is proven unfit by ``clear and convincing evidence.'' The child's best interests are considered when the dispute is between two parents -- not between a parent and a nonparent. Bailey went out of her way to stress the societal importance of stopping Lazaro Gonzalez's petition in its tracks. ``This case has inflamed the passions of our community to the point that references to potential riots have been made by our leaders,'' Bailey wrote. ``There is no purpose in prolonging the anxiety of this family and other people who feel so strongly about this case when the law is so clear and when the inevitable result would be ever more crushingly disappointing. ``Holding a hearing would only have raised false hopes that somehow this court could legally act and keep Elian Gonzalez here.''<<