Elian Gonsales

© Hank Roth

Tue, 25 April 2000 22:19:31 -0400
TheGolem <pnews@gnv.fdt.net>

When the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made the ruling (which was narrowly decided) that a 6 year old boy could not leave until after the asylum hearing, it created a precedent, which may have a far reaching impact on the INS interpretation and on the disposition of thousands of immigrant children who may be enabled to apply for asylum.

INS said and still maintains that only Elians's father may speak for him, but this three-judge appellate panel noted that the statutes stipulate that "any alien" may apply, without taking into consideration competency of a 6 year old to decide anything for him/herself. If competency is at question, then this opens a whole pandoras box regarding children's rights and applying undo weight to child's rights versus parent's rights in other cases. The pendulum is swinging far too much away from parental rights in favor of children's rights. Both are important, but it has always been prudent to consider experience and acquired knowledge, which cannot be attributed to children or at least must be done so on a case by case basis. The ruling would then also consider politics and anything else the court decides may have a bearing.

It may be a question not to be decided in the courts, but by congress, who in many cases have appeared by their judgement to be less competent than even some 6 year olds.

How can "any alien" be interpreted literally, without consideration of age? If six year olds can decide, why not five year olds, or four year olds, and then who is really deciding, except the courts and on what basis, but politics. Who then is minor with respect to other laws and statutes? This seems to me to be a highly dangerous precedent by the appellate court to make.

A little history: In 1999, the U.S. returned 1,218 (unaccompanied) minors to their countries of origin, including 619 to Mexico, according to the INS. Many legal experts were surprised by this ruling. Family courts have given in the past very little or no weight to similar decisions of six year olds. One must question the motives of the 11th Appellate Court and certainly question their wisdom in making this decision, not least of all the Administrative burden they have imposed on the courts and INS in the future.

How do you feel about it?
Post your replies to the legal and other appropriate message boards: