mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/25/85)
In article <11821@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >>> When that 15 yr. old Russian boy wanted to stay in America and not leave >>> the country with his parents several years ago, the ACLU said he must >>> go back. >> I don't agree that the boy should've been forced to go back to Russia. >> (What's the whole story of the ACLU's involvement in this case, anyway?) >I don't know anything more than that the ACLU said it was unconstitutional >for the immigration department to give permission to the boy to stay here >against his parent's wishes. If I remember correctly, the boy in question turned 18 over the summer, throwing a tremendous monkey wrench into the case. Charley Wingate
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (09/29/85)
I just read a predictable column by George Will on this case in the Sunday paper. Yes, Walter Polovchak just turned 18, so the case has become moot: an adult (except for consumption of alcohol) isn't going to be sent to Russia. Will took delight in pointing out that the ACLU is on the opposite side in a similar Maryland case, except that there it's Chile the kid doesn't want to go back to. He claims that it's OK that justice isn't blind in the Polovchak case (ie, the Polovchaks could have taken Walter elsewhere against his will, but the USSR is different) because the USSR wouldn't let Walter leave again if he had wanted to after reaching adulthood, and hence he has to be protected in advance. A valid viewpoint, I suppose, but the Russians would be crazy to keep Walter under those circumstances.
geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (09/30/85)
(I'm moving this to net.legal; I don't really think it's necessary to bring it into 3 different groups.) In article <1679@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >>>> When that 15 yr. old Russian boy wanted to stay in America and not leave >>>> the country with his parents several years ago, the ACLU said he must >>>> go back. > >If I remember correctly, the boy in question turned 18 over the summer, >throwing a tremendous monkey wrench into the case. The boy in question, Walter Povlochak, either just turned 18 or is about to. The ACLU's position has always been that a minor child has no right of free choice with respect to a place to live (even though they support a minor female's right to choose abortions). This whole case is causing tremendous controversy in the ACLU. There is a real conflict of rights here -- a parent's right to keep his children close to him, versus a child's right to freedom of choice. The ACLU heirarchy has sided with the parents, but there are a lot of members who disagree. Compared to the Povlochak case, Skokie was quiet! -- Geoff Kuenning ...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff
wiso@ihwpt.UUCP (Jack Wisowaty) (09/30/85)
> In article <11821@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > > >>> When that 15 yr. old Russian boy wanted to stay in America and not leave > >>> the country with his parents several years ago, the ACLU said he must > >>> go back. > > >> I don't agree that the boy should've been forced to go back to Russia. > >> (What's the whole story of the ACLU's involvement in this case, anyway?) > > >I don't know anything more than that the ACLU said it was unconstitutional > >for the immigration department to give permission to the boy to stay here > >against his parent's wishes. > > If I remember correctly, the boy in question turned 18 over the summer, > throwing a tremendous monkey wrench into the case. > When Walter Polavchak (sp?) turns 18 this October it will not throw a monkey wrench into anything. His battle will be won. As a legal adult he will have every right to stay in the US and apply for American citizenship. Polavchak's lawyers successfully stalled legal proceedings until the outcome of those proceedings became a mute point. Good luck to him! Jack Wisowaty
arens@uscvax.UUCP (Yigal Arens) (10/03/85)
Well, I recently read the ACLU's own account of this case, and it seems that their detractors are attacking a straw man. The ACLU did *not* go to court to argue that the boy's parents had the right to force him to go with them to the USSR. They went to court to ask that an earlier ruling removing the boy from the custody of his parents be set aside. Their reason was that the first hearing took place without the parents having legal counsel. They wanted (and got) the court to rule that a child cannot be removed from the custody of his parents if they want but do not have a lawyer present at the hearing. Sounds reasonable to me. Yigal Arens USC
richl@lumiere.UUCP (Rick Lindsley) (10/07/85)
Although I'd like to say I agree with the idea of allowing a 15 year old Russian to determine he would rather live in the US, I can't abide by any decision unless we are willing to live by it also. For instance, turn this case around. A 15 year old US boy decides, during his parent's trip to Russia, that Russia is the better country, and Russia says "Look, he wants to stay! It's his own choice!". Are his parents going to stand still for that? Now ignore any political differences between the countries. Say we are in England. Is there really any difference? I think not. On that basis alone, I would (reluctantly) tell the 15 year old that if his parents immigrate he is welcome, but otherwise he must go home. I am purposely leaving the politics out of this, because I am considering this from the viewpoint of a parent/child relationship, which I consider to be more important than the pervasive struggle between communism, socialism, and democracy. And for which I will probably be flamed. But we have to start somewhere, and since we have already laid down ground rules for ambassadors and diplomatic immunity, let's next start with parent/child relationships. I'd hate to think that my authority over my child ended because I passed through a foreign country. (Not to say that doesn't happen -- that's my point. I think it is wrong.) Rick Lindsley
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/10/85)
> [Rick Lindsley : richl at lumiere] > For instance, turn this case around. A 15 year old US boy de- > cides, during his parent's trip to Russia, that Russia is the > better country, and Russia says "Look, he wants to stay! It's his > own choice!". Are his parents going to stand still for that? Now > ignore any political differences between the countries. Say we > are in England. Is there really any difference? I think not. > On that basis alone, I would (reluctantly) tell the 15 year old that if his > parents immigrate he is welcome, but otherwise he must go home. Now suppose the parents are taking the boy not to England, nor Russia, but Jonestown. Still the same verdict ? > I am purposely leaving the politics out of this, because I am considering > this from the viewpoint of a parent/child relationship, which I consider > to be more important than the pervasive struggle between communism, > socialism, and democracy. Well, it works for democracy, socialism, monarchy, what not - not for communism. At least not Soviet variety. Yugoslavia, in this case, would be different. The point is that the parents are taking the child into a situation which is not only bad for him, but from which *neither he nor they can extricate him*. Would you recognize their right to sell the child to slavery - into a country whose laws permit it ? The Polovchak case is milder than this, but the same principle applies. > But we have to start somewhere, and since we have already laid > down ground rules for ambassadors and diplomatic immunity, let's > next start with parent/child relationships. Aye, there is the rub : we are on a slippery slope. Playing this diplomatic game would do little harm if we always remembered that it is a pure formality. E.g., we "recognize" some tyrannical re- gime. O.K., we want to deal with them - why not follow protocol. But the words "recognize", "legitimacy", "sovereignty" etc. have other - moral - connotations - which should be resolutely denied here. These regimes do not represent the consent of the governed - at least not free consent, no matter how "popular" they are, if the governed are denied information and freedom of discussion. All we "recognize" here is brute force. There is no *moral* rea- son, for example, why we should not forcibly overthrow the government of, say, Albania. It would be inexpedient, that's all. So let us not "start somewhere", but rather stop right here. Or, better still, break diplomatic relations with the USSR. All the useful negotiations can be conducted via satellite. The diplomat- ic staff normally serves for contact with various circles of society, parties, factions etc. And, of course, for intelligence gathering. In this case all this is *completely* one-sided. And, given the *almost* zero-sum game, their gains are our losses. So, for both principled *and* pragmatic reasons, derecognize the Soviets ! Jan Wasilewsky