Replies

"It jumps over/elides various findings by the Department of Justice with regard to Elian's status vis-a-vis Cuba, but, cutting to the chase (as is my wont) absent a finding that Elian was subject to harsh treatment upon return to Cuba, INS had no jurisdiction to keep him here."

That's so bad, it's not even wrong.

The question of jurisdiction doesn't even enter into the matter.

It had long been US policy that anybody who escaped slavery in Cuba and got feet dry could stay.

The problem with your analysis is that you're skipping over the fact that Elian is a minor, thus had no standing to petition for asylum.

Under Florida law, his uncle was not one of the people who were qualified to petition to become his legal guardian.

Thus, the only person actually in the US who had standing to petition on his behalf was his father (remember, he came to the US during the litigation), who did not want Elian to have asylum in the US.

These issues were thoroughly litigated in Florida state courts and US federal courts. You can probably still find the cases online. I downloaded them on my computer at the time and still have them.

Admittedly, there was one instance where Janet Reno could have exercised her discretion the other way, but her decision was within her discretion as provided by law.