Eric Rasmusen, Indiana University, Dept. of Business Economics and Public Policy, Kelley School of Business, Room 456, 1309 East Tenth Street, Bloomington, Indiana 47405-1701, (812)855-9219. [email protected] , Php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse.
A. The Michael Pearson April 12 letter to Lazaro Gonzalez proposed an April 13 meeting. It presents two options, saying, "After the meeting, care and parole of Elian will be transferred to Juan Miguel Gonzalez" or "At that time, the parole of Elian into your care will be revoked, and care of Elian will be temporarily transferred to Ms. Urquiola". The meeting did not occur, so neither of the two conditions were met.
B Elian's lawyers seem to have realized this and told people that they believed nothing had changed. I deduce this from the Michael Pearson April 14 letter to Lazaro Gonzalez, which says, "I am writing to make clear that Elian's parole into your care was revoked at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 13, 2000 when you failed to comply with the INS's instruction to present Elian at the Opa-LOcka Airport tp be be reunited with his father."
That letter, however, does not say that Elian's parole to Lazaro was revoked as of April 14. That is what it ought to have said, but it did not say it. Rather, it made the false statement that the parole had been revoked on April 13.
C. The April 14 letter is odd for another reason. If Lazaro's parole of Elian expired at 2 p.m. April 13, then after that time *nobody* had parole of Elian, and the INS was highly remiss in leaving the boy outside of anybody's control. They should have sent somebody to pick him up, since the INS knew exactly where he was and Lazaro had expressed his unhappy willingness to surrender the boy to any legal authority. Since the INS didn't show up, and in the absence of any documents revoking parole, it was logical for Lazaro to conclude that he still had the parole.
D. Therefore, as far as Lazaro Gonzalez has been told, Elian is still paroled to him. Armed men knocked down his door and took Elian on April 21, but that does not alter the legalities of the situation. Even if Elian was placed under arrest, Lazaro still has parole of him, doesn't he?
E. This is all just legal technicality, since the INS could have revoked Elian's parole at any time by sending someone to Lazaro's house with a letter of revocation to pick up the boy. But the INS didn't do that.
Probably there is no action that could be filed based on this mistake, but the INS lawyers shoudl be embarassed. Even in a high-profile case in which (a) a large part of the population passionately believes that the U.S. government is acting illegaly, and (b) the U.S> government is laying special and public stress on just obeying the law as its written, the INS can't get the legalities right.
To whom is Elian now paroled? It sounds like he might not be with INS agents, but rather with air force people or something like that. I have seen no paperwork on this. Would it be public? I wouldn't be surprised if the INS has forgotten to do the paperwork.
An excerpt from the parole statute: USC 1183 D 5. (5) (A) The Attorney General may except as provided in subparagraph (B) or in section 214(f) [8 USCS � 1184(f)], in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Attorney General, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States.