We do not grant asylum because adults or children think they would have a better life in the United States than in whatever country they come from. The federal government had to be involved because once Elian was within United States, the INS became legal custodian of the child and had to make decisions as to where the child should live and whether the child was entitled to seek asylum. The federal government had no choice but to be involved to the degree that it has been. Again, I'm not an expert on asylum law, but I believe it is an INS asylum hearing officer. That rule is not based on notions of parental rights, but on the judgment that it's bad for children to be caught in custody disputes.
Custody disputes create uncertainty for children.
They drag on for a long time in the courts. They may create loyalty conflicts for the child, and children 10 or under really don't have the capacity to make a judgment as to where they would like to live and what that entails. So, we protect children from that judgment. I believe that's the way we ought to resolve this case as well. There might be some situations where a child has been persecuted in another country because of gender, race or religion.