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 : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (6808)	6/1/2000 12:30:00 PM
From: art slott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9127

>I guess the fourth amendment will have to wait for another day.< You sound like a bleeding heart Liberal?<LOL>

To: greenspirit who wrote (6808)	6/1/2000 12:45:00 PM
From: gamesmistress	Respond to of 9127

I think the court made it clear that its role was to determine if the law was applied properly (is "any alien" entitled to apply for asylum) and if the INS's policies and choices in this situation were reasonable. It is NOT the role of the court to determine what is the youngest age the INS should accept an asylum petition from. That's the INS's job. They make that decision based on precedent and circumstances. You can go to court over a particular decision, but it's not likely that the courts will overrule the INS' policies. The Ukrainian kid who applied at 12 got to stay primarily because his case dragged on so long he turned 18 before it was all over.

To: greenspirit who wrote (6808)	6/1/2000 1:16:00 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 9127

The court appears to have given a lot of credence to INS officials who interviewed Juan in Cuba, and filed reports stating the father sincerely wanted his son returned without being under the Cuban governments coercion. It would be interesting to read the reports written by those agents. Michael, I think this was the court's point: The INS first determined that Juan Miguel, in fact, was not operating under coercion from the Cuban government or that, even if he was, his honest and sincere desires were aligned with those of the Cuban government. The court recognized that, even if Cuba was putting pressure on Juan Miguel, it was pressuring him in a direction he wanted to go anyway. Just because you're pressured to do something, doesn't imply that you wouldn't want to do it absent the pressure. One of the invalid assumptions made by the Miami kin and their supporters has been the notion that no one could possibly really want to live in Cuba. The court accepted the possibility. Re the agents' reports, if they don't show up in print somewhere, I would think you could get them through FOIA. It was also interesting to see the court neglected to address the method and process by which the boy was retrieved from the home. It didn't address it because it wasn't relevant to the matter at hand. Maybe it will be addressed in a suit or by a Congressional committee or a show by Geraldo. If it were addressed, however, I think it would come out the same. This is what they said in their ruling on how the INS made its decision on asylum. We have not the slightest illusion about the INS?s choices: the choices -- about policy and about application of the policy -- that the INS made in this case are choices about which reasonable people can disagree. Still, the choices were not unreasonable, not capricious and not arbitrary, but were reasoned and reasonable. The INS?s considerable discretion was not abused. It's quite possible they'd have applied the same logic to the raid. While the pictures of the raid were wildly inflammatory to supporters of Lazaro, and disturbing to everybody else, it seems that the INS went through a thoughtful process and had at least some basis to do things the way they did. Maybe that wasn't the best choice, but it was not capricious or arbitrary so it was within their authority. They spoke of twelve being at the low end, but neglected to specifically define a number. The court properly did not specify a number. It's not the job of the court to do that. The court mentioned in its ruling that there was a gap in the law. It's the role of executive agencies to fill those gaps. If anyone doesn't like the way INS filled it, then the thing to do is for Congress to legislate an age so that the INS no longer has lattitude. Personally, I'd leave it up to the INS. But then, I'm more trusting than you. I was expecting a more substantive ruling which discussed a broader scope of actions taken by the INS. I'm sure you are disappointed. You probably would have preferred a re-do of the impeachment hearings. <g> Maybe some of the talking heads, in the aftermath of this decision, will provide some helpful explanations. Karen