A child's asylum claim merits consideration.
Published Thursday, April 20, 2000, in the Miami Herald
More than relief came in the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling yesterday. It raised the hope that Elian Gonzalez -- and all refugee children -- have the right to seek political asylum independent of parents.
The three-judge panel commendably questioned the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service's refusal to consider the asylum petition filed for 6-year-old Elian by his Miami relative, Lazaro Gonzalez. And it expressed skepticism of how the INS could have done so without speaking with or
examining the child.
Both points are a deserved slap at the Justice Department's fixation on parental rights to the exclusion of other factors -- namely a child's future in Cuba. The reality is that the INS has developed greater expertise in deporting children than in protecting the welfare of those that arrive.
Had the agency stuck to its initial inclination -- made hours after the boy was rescued -- to let a family court sort out Elian's fate, legal processes designed to protect the child's best interests could have given due process to everyone, including father Juan Miguel Gonzalez.
Instead, Attorney General Janet Reno and the INS took it upon themselves to act as judge, jury and guardian for a child they never had met. In deciding that only his father could speak for him, they treated Elian no differently than if he had arrived from, say, Canada.
And to mollify public opinion they ordered up the ad hoc interviews with the father in Cuba, the ad hoc panel of medical experts and the ad hoc meetings at Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin's home.
The agency apparently ignored its own rules that envision circumstances where a child's desire for asylum may clash with his parents' wishes. The appellate panel correctly exposed that shortcoming. Quoting INS guidelines, the judges noted that when ``it appears that the will of the parents and
that of the child are in conflict, the adjudicator `will have to come to a decision on the well-foundedness of the minor's fear on the basis of all the known circumstances, which may call for a liberal application of the benefit of the doubt.' ''
If a child can't apply for refuge independently, as the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children has pointedly asked, then what happens to kids abused, sold as sex slaves or threatened with genital mutilation by their parents? Surely the INS shouldn't deny such children the chance to
seek safe haven.
While the ruling gives merit to the arguments of Elian's Miami relatives, the boy's fate is far from certain. Though it orders that the boy remain for what could be a lengthy appeals process, nothing bars Ms. Reno from reuniting Elian with his father in the United States.
We support that reunion. Here, too, the court offered wise counsel. The judges suggested to the feuding members of the Gonzalez family that they seek help from the court's own mediation service.
A skilled, independent mediator could soothe the anger and calm fears enough so that those who most love the boy can be with him. Juan Miguel Gonzalez and the Miami family should accept the offer for the sake of this boy.
Copyright 2000 Miami Herald |