ision depends upon whether or not the parent is fit. "Florida family court ruled that Elian would conceivably be in danger if he went back to Cuba," she stated. She concluded with the question of which court has jurisdiction. In the United States, federal statutes dictate that custody disputes are to be decided by the courts in the childs home state. Ms. Scott emphasized that Cuba is not a U.S. state and therefore no statutes exist concerning proper jurisdiction. No precedent has been established for a case such as Elians.David Martin concluded the panel discussion with a brief overview of immigration and human rights law and policy. A former member of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) general counsel, he presented a few issues which have bearing on this case. The technical question remains, "Is this child actually applying for admission to the United States?" he said. "Who speaks for the child?" he added. The INS ruled that the father appropriately speaks for the child, meaning that he has legal standing.Although the INS ordered that Elian should be returned to Cuba, Elians relatives living in Miami and many Americans are fighting to grant him political asylum. Professor martin specifically addressed the concern that remains in the minds of many, whether Elians father can express his free will in a country where freedom of speech is extremely limited. He acknowledged that human rights situation in Cuba is less than preferable, by American standards. Despite this fact, "I think that he should go back," he said under his breath....
