Posted on 12/06/2001 12:04:43 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Aren't you the presumptous one to lecture me--the FR with your asinine ramblings...if you hurry up and run fast you can jump back on the freak show circus wagon you fell off of and hope they fix the fence on the funny farm you escaped from...maybe you will be confined to the padded cell---the one where you came up with all your legal--moral theories Dr.Menglela!
If you have no better weapons than to cite the fact that I am a relative newcomer and to throw the name of a Nazi in my direction,then you need to work on it. Tell you what - go practice in front of a mirror, and we'll engage in a battle of wits if and when you find yours.
Wrong. That is for the courts to decide, not Clinton or you.
Where are the criminal charges against the relatives? Why was the only arrest warrant during the raid for Elian? Try to reconcile your opinions with the facts of the matter, and quit slandering the Miami relatives because they had the temerity to pursue their LEGAL options for Elian in the matter.
LIE, LIE, LIE. Where is the conviction? You may consider it a crime, but they have never been charged with ANYTHING - and they won a day in court for Elian at the 11th Circuit, a day that was then denied by Clinton's raid.
I just did.
Oh, thats ok, I will allow the courts of a foreign country to decide if I am my child's father?
Juan didn't have much choice - his kid WAS in that country, and we had no idea whether it was his will to get his son back or Castro's. But a day in court would have gone a long way to determine that - a day in court that was denied by the action of the Clinton Administration.
And, regarding the rest of your inane babbling about Clintonism - Clinton was the one in charge when the raid happened. So of course I have to discuss his impact on the matter. And you try and lecture ME about common sense...
The courts and the legal system got involved the day Elian came to this country. That's the rub - and a court just doesn't drop the case without due process once they get involved. But the Clinton Administration destroyed due process with the raid - perhaps you can show ME the legal standing for the raid. Hint - I've studied a lot of the immigration law in the matter, two of my closest friends are award-winning immigration attorneys, so don't just mumble something about parental rights - you also have the fact that Elian was a refugee from another country and the INS and immigration law was also a significant factor, as the 11th Circuit made clear when they explained to the Clinton Administration that the relevant law said ANY ALIEN could apply for asylum. Not necessarily receive asylum, but apply for it. And once an alien applied for asylum, the law prohibited a change in guardianship, to prevent the INS from shopping an alien to a guardian less interested in pursuing the asylum claim. That is why the Clinton Administration had to act - to stop that mechanism.
If your answer is yes, then we can agree to disagree and go our seperate ways. If your answer is no, it's hypocrasy
What if someone lived in the former East Germany - and risked their life to get their son to freedom. And then the Stasi comes to their door and says to use the West German legal system to get him back or else all his relatives would go to prison. If you were an immigration judge in West Germany, wouldn't you consider that relevant towards the child's return? Or would you just rubber-stamp it without an investigation?
That is the point of allowing any alien to apply for asylum - to let the courts sort such matters out. If this were a simple domestic custody issue, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact that Juan was never free to travel around the country without Castro's goons by him speaks volumes - if Juan could have gone to a court on his own free will and spoken his intentions, then I would have a lot less of a problem with the end result. But we will never know, because Reno and Clinton short-circuited due process to appease Castro. Clinton's actions had NOTHING to do with Elian, and everything to do with Clinton's personal political agenda, whatever that was.
If I were from a tyrannical foreign country, it would be in my and my child's best interests to have the matter handled by a country following the rule of law. Now, YOU ANSWER this question - are you absolutely positive that it was Juan's personal intention to bring Elian back to Cuba and was under no pressure from Castro?
Once again, are you absolutely sure that Juan was acting on his own free will in demanding that Elian be returned to Cuba? Castro (and communist regimes in general) have a history of using relatives as hostages and pawns in such matters? Did you ever see Juan free to move about in this country? Did he show up in person at the court to make his case? THAT IS THE REASON for due process and court hearings in asylum matters.
Your answer about your child in a repressive system tells me what YOUR choice would have been. So noted .... Can you grant another parent the right to make a DIFFERENT choice?
Then how do you know that returning Elian was the parent's will? That's your problem - you demand that the parent's will be followed, that it is an absolute right, and then you turn around and claim it is irrelevant to determine what the parent's will is. That is a complete contradiction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.