Who could forget the picture of little Elian Gonzalez, that gun pointed in his direction, and the fear on his face? It’s ugly. I remember the day federal agents stormed the house of Elian’s relatives in Miami. April 22 was the fifth anniversary.
I was a brand new conservative at that time, but I parted ways with other conservatives on this issue. They believed the child should remain in the United States and receive an asylum hearing. I believed the boy’s relatives had no right to make decisions for him and should return him to his father immediately. If a father wants to raise his child in Castro’s Cuba, neither the United States nor the child’s distant relatives had any say in the matter.
I was firmly behind the Clinton adminstration on this one.
I strongly support parental rights, and unless there’s evidence that a child is being abused or some other criminal act has occured, the parents’ rights trump concerns about communism. When O.J. Simpson was found “Not Guilty” in his double murder trial, Nicole Brown’s parents properly, although begrudgingly, relinquished his children, even though they and I knew he killed their mother.
There was a lot of discussion about Elian’s mother. She clearly took the boy without his father’s consent, following her boyfriend on the dangerous journey. Whatever her motives were, they died with her. Out of a group of 14 people fleeing Cuba on a makeshift boat, only Elian and three others survived. For seven months, Elian’s relatives in Miami refused to return him to his father, acting as de facto guardians. Read about the legal battle at U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services and Online NewsHour.
I grew weary of the whole thing, and my frustration mounted each day as I watched Elian’s relatives milk the publicity for all it was worth, especially his cousin, Marisleysis and her fainting spells. After the mess was over, the Miami relatives slipped back into the obscurity from which they’d emerged. Thank goodness.
It’s interesting that you and I are both Christian, both conservative and yet see differently on the Elian Gonzalez issue. Maybe we really are the big tent after all. Good post even if we do disagree!
Comment by GMRoper — 04.23.05 @ 9:12 pm
Elian is now seen with the murdering Castro in many photo ops.
Evil, murderer dicator or Miami relatives who faint? I guess the decision was easy for many.
Comment by Don — 04.23.05 @ 10:17 pm
I guess his father wants to live there, and neither you, I, nor the United States has any right to say otherwise. The decision was not ours to make in the first place, “easy” or not. The cousin’s fainting was just a side comment; what I think of her or her family or Fidel Castro has nothing to do with it.
Comment by La Shawn — 04.23.05 @ 10:27 pm
Right. Living in cuba does not make one an unfit parent. Cubans love their children too.
Comment by actus — 04.23.05 @ 10:28 pm
That’s a tough one indeed. All the more because he became a political pawn.
Obviously Janet Reno’s legal rational is the same as the underlying principle that allowed Michael to kill Terri over her parents’ objection — immediate next of kin.
OTOH, legalmoral.
Comment by Andy — 04.23.05 @ 10:32 pm
OJ didn’t kill Nicole. His son, Jason, did. OJ covered up the murders, because he didn’t want his son to go to jail.
Comment by antimedia — 04.23.05 @ 10:39 pm
La Shawn,
This is why I love your site so much. You part ways with the typical conservative right down the same lines that I do. I agree with you on this one. the only problem that I had with the way it was handled, was that the Justice Department came across as very heavy handed in this. You just don’t see a US Marshal SWAT team intervening in the average child custody case!
Of course this was the result of international politics being mixed into the situation. I also like comments like that by GMRoper, where we can agree to disagree in a civil way.
Comment by Montie — 04.23.05 @ 10:41 pm
Oops, that last sentence should have read:
“OTOH, legal<>moral.”
Comment by Andy — 04.23.05 @ 10:46 pm
Montie, you’re the only conservative I “know” who’s agreed with me on this. And yes, the way it was handled was awful, but that family was not going to hand over Elian. I’m convinced they cared more about the TV cameras and crowds outside their house than the kid. My opinion carried no weight anyway.
Comment by La Shawn — 04.23.05 @ 10:55 pm
Montie, it must be the Floridian water, seeing how the cops handcuffed that 5 year-old the other day
Granted in that case, both mother and child have serious long-term problems.
Comment by Andy — 04.23.05 @ 11:05 pm
I thought if I was the father, I would have allowed him to stay with his relatives here to give him a chance at a better life.I also thought regardless of how awful Cuba may be, the child’s father had a right to have him back.
Comment by seal-lover — 04.23.05 @ 11:56 pm
I changed my opinion about it, for a variety of reasons, starting with a conversation I had with a Cuban immigrant. He said that the community down there was elevating Elian into this kind of saint-kid (I forgot the Spanish word he used), like the incident was a sign or something. Also, I felt manipulated by the conservative media.
So after some time, I decided that this kid happened to be born into a loser situation, and his mom risked their lives to get over here in some ramshackle boat. Well, there are millions of other people in that situation, so why was everyone giving this case attention? Is that fair? Are conservatives in the media tearing their hair out over other parentless refugee kids who are in our country right now?
Comment by mj — 04.24.05 @ 12:18 am
Excellent post!!! I agree with you 100% sister. It is quite wrong to use a child as an ideological pawn when that child is loved, cared for, and has a bonded relationship to their parent. I’ll go further - I believe it is unChristian to remove a boy from his natural parent when he is not abused or neglected. There are those occasions when faith must trump a political line. This is one of them. Cultural relativism would wreak PC havoc otherwise. And those who disagree need to look at the logical extension of their position - it would then be ok to remove children and create one of the most severe traumas a child can expereince because we don’t like the political climate of their country. Absolutely not.
Comment by Catez — 04.24.05 @ 2:58 am
This was a case where the father had the legal right as did Terri Shiavo’s husband. I would have liked to see a hearing, which I’m fairly sure would have had the same result in the end. Elian’s Miami relatives didn’t impress you. Elian’s father didn’t impress me–he didn’t go directly to Miami and try to get Elian back. Instead he went to Washington, D.C. He seemed willing to be a political pawn. Just as some press people seem quite willing to be invited to be on hand in Iraq to see American soldiers killed, some photographer was invited to be on hand to photograph Elian being taken. Think of the different reaction if it had been John Ashcroft who had ordered those armed men to go into that home.
This was a sad case. I pray Elain and his father are happy.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 04.24.05 @ 4:45 am
La Shawn:
Shortly after Elian arrived, a Cuban American friend said that Elian should be returned to his father. This was “due process” - “the rule of law” - something that separates the USA from Cuba and other Communist contries.
But Clinton and Reno et al did not show respect for their own “due process’ and “rule of law” when they forcefully grabbed Elian.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 04.24.05 @ 6:39 am
Aw man, my birthday, too. Nixon died on my birthday, this happened on my birthday, the Shining Path geurrillas got killed by govt forces in Peru on my birthday, and I’ve got that stupid hippie holiday on my birthday.
Still, though Cuba is a horrible country, Elian was a small child (and still is) and no one has a greater claim to him than his father. That said - Janet Reno never knew how to run an operation like this. I’m glad no one ended up dead.
Comment by meep — 04.24.05 @ 7:27 am
Frank - Did you follow the case at all back in 2000? If not, did you at least go to one of the sites in the post that provides links to the court hearings? The due process standard was met. The 11th Circuit held that only the boy’s father had a right to speak for his son, not his distant relatives in Miami or the U.S.
They tried to take it to the Supreme Court, but the court denied cert. After the courts had ruled, the family STILL wouldn’t give him back. What the attorney general acted within the bounds of the law. The rule of law and due process were a part of this case from the beginning.
All this for one child, who was used as a pawn between liberals and conservatives. Regardless of how many people Castro killed, neither the U.S. nor the Miami relatives had ANY right to be dictators themselves and keep Elian from his legal guardian, NONE. How you or I feel about Castro is IRRELEVANT. Do we want to start dictating to parents where to live and raise their kids? Juan Gonzalez’s decision to remain in Cuba and raise his sons as communists is HIS business, not ours. I certainly wouldn’t want to raise my kids there, which is why I won’t.
Comment by La Shawn — 04.24.05 @ 8:04 am
La Shawn has an interesting perspective on the Elian saga.
Pingback by Myopic Zeal :: Elian Gonzalez - Fifth Anniversary :: April :: 2005 — 04.24.05 @ 8:17 am
Of course, the one huge assumption that you make is that Elian’s father “wants to raise his child in Castro’s Cuba†and that it was “his decision to remain in Cuba†as opposed to “was forced to be a pawn in this game by Castro’s Cuba†- and we’ll probably never know for sure whether that is true… though there are many people (myself included) who will put more faith in the ultimate sacrifice of the mother than in the veracity of Castro’s and Juan’s altruistic claims. Again, we’ll probably never know.
Comment by Myopic Zeal — 04.24.05 @ 8:24 am
All that could be true. I’m not denying any of it. But you and I still don’t have a say in the matter. We can trade opinions back and forth on a blog all day long.
That’s how life works. There are limits to what people can do for others, and even though we don’t like someone’s circumstances or decisions, it’s not our place or business to meddle in theirs. That’s between Juan and Castro.
Perhaps if we mixed things up a bit, the image will be clearer. Imagine that Juan and his girlfriend had snatched Elian in the middle of the night to come to the US. Imagine that all hell breaks loose, and Juan, his girlfriend and the others are killed. Let’s say the Miami folks were his relatives and not Elian’s mother’s. The mother wants her son back, whether or not we think she’s being manipulated by Castro. The father took him without consent, and she wants him back NOW. Does anyone really believe that child would’ve been separated from his MOTHER for seven months the way the father was? Notwithstanding our faith in his “ultimate sacrifice,” people would’ve had cows over that.
The question is who is the boy’s legal guardian? That’s where it should have rested.
Comment by La Shawn — 04.24.05 @ 8:36 am
At the time I felt that Reno and the Clinton administration managed the situation badly from the very start: The administration should have contacted the father immediately and said, “you have 72 hours to get here and get your child”.
That said, I was outraged on how Elian was taken.
That his father and grandmothers were pawns was clear to anyone with a knowledge of Spanish. The grandmothers headed to NY, the father to DC, and they had no time to get to Miami but had time to be interviewed for every news program that asked.
To this day Elian’s still being used in propaganda rallies, as this http://www.periodico26.cu/english_new/cuba/elina230405.htm article from a Cuban newspaper in the Las Tunas province shows.
Comment by Fausta — 04.24.05 @ 9:07 am
Thank you for your honesty La Shawn. Some things actually are simple. Elian belonged with his dad. Doesn’t matter if they were going to be in Cuba or on Mars. As a father, I am slightly amused that our rights are given short shrift in this country, but that is for another post.
Evon, if it had been Ashcroft ordering the raid, he would have been correct also. That case, in my mind, was never about politics. Then again, I don’t hate Fidel Castro either. He is a flawed human being just like (gasp!) all of us.
To those that think Elian should have been kept from his father, if you choose to hate Castro, that is on you. Hatred of that man shouldn’t blind you to the truth. Politics don’t belong in family matters.
Comment by Rafael Daniel — 04.24.05 @ 9:12 am
La Shawn:
I, too, am a conservative Christian, and I also agreed with the federal government’s decision to return the boy to his father.
Conservative Christians in this nation ranted about what happened, but not once did they offer a biblical justification for keeping the boy from his father. The Bible doesn’t grant people the right to live in the kind of free society that we have in the USA.
Sometimes we conservative Christians make the mistake of thinking that our beliefs are based on the Bible, when in reality those beliefs are based on the desires of our flesh.
Comment by Dodo David — 04.24.05 @ 9:13 am
La Shawn,
I was (and am) quite amibivalent in regard to the Elian debacle. Yes, undoubtedly, the father has primary inalienable rights concerning his son. But… this case, perhaps only to me, mirrors Michael Shaivo’s rights concerning Terri.
It almost seems that, in Elian’s case, that liberals who usually specify quality of life as a serious consideration denied that principle in this.
You are standing on a solid principle and without enough knowledge to move this issue into another category of principle, you are probably right, but I’m still uneasy concerning the boy.
I pray that he was able to hear the Gospel and that the seeds sown are watered and bear fruit in Cuba.
Comment by Jawbone — 04.24.05 @ 9:26 am
Oh yes parental rights are paramount, and the Clinton Justice department did exactly what they were supposed to do.
The tactics are very similar to what was referred to as Krystal-Nacht in 1938 but after all Elian Gonzalez was an Illegal alien and his father afterall had joint custody. Nobody had any background information on Miquel Gonzalez, but afterall he had to be better than that miserable bunch of low-life relatives who were so self-serving and just trying to get some air time in the process of exploiting a little 6 year old and afterall he would be better off in a labor camp in Cuba. The same people who if a Father in this country wanted his son would have been checked and rechecked to make sure the safty of the CHILD was ensured. They knew no more about Miquel than they did about the man in the moon but this was parental rights but they took the word of lying dictator Fidel Castro.
To say that the family was taking advantage of the media is parallel to the Shindlers using the media to save their daughter but afterall she was married and her name was now Shiavo not Shindler and this is Spousal Rights, don’t ja know, ergo he had every right to fullfil her wishes,whether they even existed or not, as he saw fit and he did.
Yeah I agree Elian is much better off in Cuba with his real father the land of plenty where he can grow up free and do exactly what the government says he can do.
What about the wishes of Elians Mother, her wish was to give her son freedom, but afterall she was now dead , so they don’t even count .
But the Macho Clinton Administration fearing another Mariel boat lift decided to cave in to Castro and return Elian to the gulag in the carribean called Cuba.
But of course SS tactics notwithstanding, this “rescue” was carried out and would be complimented by Heinrich Heydrich himself.
Comment by Mark — 04.24.05 @ 9:28 am
Go ahead, release your frustration. I understand. I will remove myself from the thread so that other commenters can do the same because the back and forth is pointless. But here’s one last blurb:
Elian’s mother died, so Juan was his sole legal guardian. Regardless of what you think about how the US returned the boy or how brutal Castro is, the US did the right thing. If someone had MY kid without MY consent, I’d want the attorney general to make the SAME decision. Storm the house and GET MY CHILD. The Miami relatives are also responsible for what happened by circumventing the law and refusing to obey an order. Elian belongs with his parent, whether that parent chooses to live in Cuba, Siberia, Iraq or Las Vegas.
And you don’t have to like it.
Comment by La Shawn — 04.24.05 @ 9:33 am
“This was a case where the father had the legal right as did Terri Shiavo’s husband.”
Nice try - let’s just totally mix the issues and make law the only prescription. Not. One is about taking a child from his country and parent - and is an international matter. The other is about having the legal “right” to kill some-one. Big difference. One had due process - the other very debatably did not. Without re-opening the whole debate - it’s this kind of thing that is so sickeningly PC, stringing mixed issues together at the expense of true morality which goes beyond political lines.
Comment by Catez — 04.24.05 @ 9:41 am
“The tactics are very similar to what was referred to as Krystal-Nacht in 1938″
Please stop lunching out politically on the holocaust. Good grief - there’s no comparison here. Talk about hyperbole.
Comment by Catez — 04.24.05 @ 9:44 am
The relatives did not circumvent the law. If any one circumvented the law it was Janet Reno.
On Thursday, April 20, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals–the same court that rejected the pleas of Terri Schiavo’s parents last month turned down the Justice Department’s request to order Elian removed from the home of his Miami relatives. Moreover, the court expressed serious doubts about the Justice Department’s reading of both the law and its own regulations, adding that Elian had made a ’substantial case on the merits’ of his claim. It further established a record that Elain, ‘although a young child, has expressed a wish that he not be returned to Cuba.’
“The Reno Justice Department acted the next day to short-circuit a legal process that was clearly going against it.
On Good Friday evening, after all courts had closed for the day, the department obtained a ’search’ warrant from a night-duty magistrate who was not familiar with the case, submitting a supporting affidavit that seriously distorted the facts. Armed with that dubious warrant, the INS’s helmeted officers, assault rifles at the ready, burst into the home of Elian’s relatives and snatched the screaming boy from a bedroom closet.
Many local bystanders were tear-gassed even though they did nothing to block the raid. Elian was quickly returned to Cuba; because he was never able to meet with his lawyers a scheduled May 11 asylum hearing on his case in Atlanta became moot. And so he was gone, that was just it. And so the 11th circuit basically ruled against Reno, ruled against the justice department, and Reno said, “To h*ll with it,” and went and got a search warrant for the home where Elian was, spirited the kid out of there with armed INS agents, and, bam, sent him back down to Cuba.
They just totally ignored the ruling and so that’s why people were asking Jeb Bush to do something to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. But He decided to subscribe to the law which Reno did not.
Comment by Mark — 04.24.05 @ 10:14 am
Sorry Catez, I forgot the Clintonistas were socialists not from the right, NO comparison how about Waco and Ruby Ridge now that was justice Clinton style the same with Elian Gonzalez it was KGB tactics does that make you feel better. Either way it was government run amok.
Ironically it was General Wesley Clark from Fort Hood who loaned the tanks to Reno.
Comment by Mark — 04.24.05 @ 10:20 am
Hi Mark,
I’m going to follow La Shawn’s lead and remove myself from this too now. Good grief - what are you talking about? I don’t even care about Waco and Ruby Ridge. Really I don’t. And if you aren’t making assumptions you’ll figure out why I just said that. Talk about going off the topic.
Comment by Catez — 04.24.05 @ 11:19 am
I side with La Shawn on this. The father expressed his wishes to have Elian returned and as his father it is his right and the US Courts agreed. Maybe if the case had remained “invisible” the father might have left his son in the USA for a “better life”. Maybe Castro would not allow the father that choice. However, we do not know that nor can we just make up those assumptions. The father wanted his son and he got him. That is right. Some see it as a political victory for Castro. I say pick your battles and pick one that is important.
Comment by DaveD — 04.24.05 @ 11:40 am
There was a legal process ongoing. Sometimes we like the outcome of a legal process, sometimes we don’t. Overturning the process by fiat is seldom a good idea. The machine gun goon was way out of line. The law and equity should have slapped down Reno and put the process back before the illegal raid, with guardianship determined in the Florida family court system.
Comment by Walter E. Wallis — 04.24.05 @ 12:26 pm
Getting Honest on Politics and Faith
This is a post I need to write for myself, although of course I’m putting it up for you too. Weblogs are not “Dear Diaries” after all. Which is why I don’t buy the excuse that people try sometimes after they put up a post that seems to have offende…
Trackback by Allthings2all — 04.24.05 @ 1:16 pm
I agreed with sending Elian back too. I thought the right of the father trumps all else. I however did not agree with the way the raid was executed. It was very jack-booted thug style. I thought it could have been done much better, with more respect. The PR on the raid was a work of art. Especially the “low ready” in the photo you show (that’s not low ready - low ready is pointed to the ground). All in all, a difficult situation handled poorly leading to poor results.
Comment by Andrew C — 04.24.05 @ 2:43 pm
I too agree that the father’s rights outweigh the right of other relatives. But, alas, that is not the real issue in this example.
My problem with this case was the involvement of the federal government. Nowhere in The Constitution that I read, or in the writings of the fellas that wrote The Constitution do I see any reference to a federal power to:
1) maintain a police force
OR
2) use said unconstitutional police force to interfere in a States’ right to solve domestic issues as it sees fit..
“conservatives†and liberals missed the real point of this issue. This was a matter for the state to resolve. Not the overbearing, overreaching federal government.
Comment by El Cid — 04.24.05 @ 2:51 pm
I’ve gotten so used to our gigantic federal government, I hardly consider states’ rights when discussing these things. What a shame.
Comment by La Shawn — 04.24.05 @ 3:38 pm
Bravo, El Cid! There still does exist the issue of state sovereignty, the true meaning of which was lost at Appomattox. In addition, the agents of the Federal Gov’t at the time, Janet Reno and Bill Clinton, had motives that went beyond that of returning the boy to his real father; and also the means used to accomplish such was utterly disgraceful.
In the issue itself of Elian’s return, I found myself in disagreement with LaShawn, the Rockford Institute, and a few other conservative organs. Mainly, I wondered, and I’ll never be able to prove, that the father [out of the boy’s life since birth] secretly wished that the boy would be raised in a free land, but could not let on such out of fear.
Comment by Mark Slater — 04.24.05 @ 3:43 pm
Mark,
You are reading an awful lot into what another person might think. Just because you or I might want to do the right thing by our children and get them out of a situation like Cuba, doesn’t mean that Juan Gonzalez had those same thoughts (secretly of course, because he would have to follow the party line by his words and actions).
As I said in the very first comment to this post, I agree with La Shawn on this even though it doesn’t necessarly follow the conventional conservative viewpoint. How many of you have seen those stories on some of the news programs, where a non-custodial parent has removed a child from the custodial parent and fled the country? How many of you thought “by gosh, the government should do something to help that person”? Well, here is a case where the government DID do something to help a custodial parent recover custody of their child.
Of course, as I stated before, the method was very heavy-handed, and the situation definitely could have been handled in a more discreet manner, with a whole lot less force, but the outcome was the right one.
Comment by Montie — 04.24.05 @ 4:44 pm
My whole problem with it was that he got here and could ask for asylum. He should have been granted it, IMO, but I’m not familiar with asylum laws for children that young. It’s obvious what the mother’s intentions were and that his extended family would have taken care of him. As it turned out, his mother died for naught. I’m sure he is fine where he is, but would have ultimately been better off here. I was not convinced that the father wanted to stay in Cuba and I very much wanted him to defect, but Castro is not known for his generosity. It’s okay to disagree.
Comment by RepJ — 04.24.05 @ 5:23 pm
Thank you, Montague, but again Sr. Gonzalez’ thoughts are only a source of ponderment in my mind. And I will never be wholly convinced that the outcome was the right one.
Comment by Mark Slater — 04.24.05 @ 6:03 pm
Juan Miguel Gonzalez was never legally Elian’s father. Juan Miguel never married Elian’s mother. Men do not have parental rights over children born to women who are not their wives, even in Cuba. No court ever award Juan Miguel custody of Elian. Janet Reno should been tried for kidnapping.
Comment by David L — 04.24.05 @ 6:49 pm
David L.,
Do you have a source for that assertion? A claim of such a significant nature to the debate needs to be substantiated with some evidence to be taken seriously.
(The assertion I am referring to is the “never legally Elian’s father” and “never married Elian’s mother.”)
Thanks.
Eric
Comment by Myopic Zeal — 04.24.05 @ 7:54 pm
I agree Catez.
Comment by Mark — 04.24.05 @ 8:01 pm
The trouble is: some of the stuff was done for publicity, some of it might have been from sincerity. I’m sure the Cuban government kept a little in reserve when the dad came to the states. I can’t imagine anyone in there right mind choosing to live under Castro and his thugs, despite free medical care, great literacy, and a couple of other benefits.
Melvin Jones
Comment by Melvin Jones — 04.24.05 @ 8:10 pm
Bill clinton and janet reno wanted to get some good things from their buddy castro so they sent in their imperial storm troopers and kidnnaped him from his reletives and sent him back to cuba
Comment by firebird — 04.24.05 @ 8:33 pm
The Clinton administration was correct in returning him to his father. There was just no way to rationalize keeping a child from his father despite our strong feelings about where he would be better off. I despised Clinton in general, but he made the right call here.
Comment by mikem — 04.24.05 @ 9:03 pm
I guess we can disagree La Shawn. Yet calling him a father he was not . He left Elian’s mother and was living with another woman. I believe he lost his postion to any parental rights. Just as in the Terri Schivo case, Mr. Schivo left Teri for another woman. He should have turned over Teri’s care back to her parents. The courts may say different, but we know they are wrong many times.
Comment by Don — 04.24.05 @ 9:46 pm
LaShawn,
What I don’t understand about your line of thinking is this:
It isn’t difficult to understand that Castro had a stake in this. And Elian’s father was an ordinary poor working stiff who was doubtless in total fear of Castro.
SO why did/does anyone believe a word that was said by the father or by Castro? Guys like Castro never let anything play out naturally; they always exert their influence. Castro would never have just pushed the father into the lights and cameras and told him “say whatever you want”. Not with as much at stake as there was, the political victory Castro could win over the exile community in Florida. “I can reach into the heart of your community and snatch away your symbols of victory over me, and you can do nothing!” It is what he would do, did do. Elian’s father had his thoughts and words preordained by a bloodthirsty dictator, and had no choice in the matter. It is a certainty.
It came down to the two choices; let the boy live in freedom, loved and cared for, or sentence him to a life of fear and want. It is cruelly simplistic to call this a case of “father has parental rights”. It ignores, among many things, the sacrifice made by Elian’s mother. Her desires in this matter are not in doubt; the father’s desires simply cannot be believed, given the shadow of Castro.
Good post, made me think about why I didn’t want that boy to leave. If our side would just try harder to defeat cruel tyrants like Castro, perhaps the lucky ones who make it to America can one day go home and visit the unlucky ones, in freedom, in peace, everyone lucky at last.
thank God for GWBush.
Comment by Dave — 04.24.05 @ 10:43 pm
La Shawn,
Another conservative here who agrees with you on this case. Elian’s father was his nearest BLOOD relative and, adulterer or not, he had every right to his son.
DON:
Elian Gonzales: apples
Teri Schiavo: oranges
Comment by marcus — 04.24.05 @ 11:04 pm
Thanks all for comments. On next anniversary, I will re-check facts.
Both conservative and liberal press distorted facts.
Concerning “States Rights” - if there ever was a case for the Federal courts, this was it. This is a Constitutional role of the Federal Government.
Time to “move on” to more current issues -
like “hate speech” against new Pope because he believes there are some “absolute truths” and “right and wrong”.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 04.25.05 @ 7:52 am
Juan Miguel had no right to any person neither born to his wife nor legally adopted. At no point, prior to Janet Reno’s kidnapping, did Juan Miguel have any legal right to Elian, not by marriage and not by adoption.
Comment by David L — 04.25.05 @ 8:39 am
I don’t have proof, but I believe this child was being abused under Castro (IMHO). I don’t believe a word the father says, just like I don’t believe a word Michael Schiavo says.
Janet Reno was one of the worst Attorney Generals of all time.
Comment by Glamchild — 04.25.05 @ 10:47 am
LaShawn - I also found myself parting from most of my conservative friends on this issue. The real issue is the best interests of the child. Even after a huge haircut for totalitarian manipulation, the evidence is that the primary bond was with Dad, while Mom ran around and then risked the boy’s life on a harebrained escape with her boyfriend. The pack in Miami were the relatives from Hell. While Cuba is a socialist hell, Elian’s celebrity will ensure he gets his basic material needs met, and Dad will take care of the rest. Castro will die soon, and Elian will still have his Dad. While I agree with the outcome, I suspect the Clinton adminstration’s motives had nothing to do with Elian’s best interests. And for Elian’s sake, I am willing to swallow something that let’s Castro posture as a win.
Comment by Greg — 04.25.05 @ 11:10 am
>
Typing that must have hurt! ; ) ~
Comment by Aaron — 04.25.05 @ 11:31 am
What about all the Haiti kids American sends back? Why was Elian so special? Oh, that’s right. He wasn’t black!!
Comment by Keisha — 04.25.05 @ 11:32 am
Dear La Shawn,
Like yr blog very much but i don’t think you understand that not only was Elian not brought up primarily by his birth father, but the man delayed MONTHS in making a claim.
If it had been my child I would have been on the first plane to Miami.
Yes, the Cuban-American relatives in Miami were over the top and embarrassing (to many Latinos as well). But bad taste is not a parental sin. Yes, not attempting to get in touch, writing, or trying to find out about how Elian was doing was far less embarrassing than the melodramatics from the Miami relatives - but their heart was in the right place. I cannot feel the same about the father, and feel that his claim was a result of manipulation by Castro. If not why the delay ?- again it was not days nor weeks but MONTHS before Juan Gonzalez “spoke up.”
Comment by Carol — 04.25.05 @ 11:54 am
Being a father of two boys myself, I have to agree with Miss Barber on this one. While I don’t like Castro or Cuba, nor do I know about Elian’s father, regardless of where they are living he has a right to have his son returned to him. I would expect the same if it were me.
It is easier to demonize the father by way of Cuban Communism than see that this mother was wrong for taking that child from his father. By such logic, a mother, regardless of where she lives, can simply take her children and leave if she feels that she is being oppressed or doesn’t like where she is living, no matter what her husband and/or father of her children wants. As much as I don’t like the circumstances in which this occured, I must agree that this child should have gone back to his father, political pawn or not.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 04.25.05 @ 12:42 pm
I have to disagree with you here, for one simple reason. We do not know how hiw father truly felt. In Cuba, there is only one person who really speaks freely, and that is castro. Who knows what castro could have been holding over Elian’s father’s head. We may never know how his father felt, but we do know how his mother felt. She sacrificed her life so that her son could live freely.
Comment by Michael — 04.25.05 @ 5:18 pm
Once again I agree with you 100% La Shawn.
It is foolish to consider politics over the very natural and basic consideration of family.
The action is one of a very few that Clinton took with which I agree. I am aware that he acted out of political consideration (polls) and not from a sense of basic morality but the outcome was no less just.
Richard
Comment by Richard A. Strickland — 04.26.05 @ 8:15 am
Five years ago, I was a lot more conservative in my politics than I am now, and I thought then that it was wrong to keep Elian from his father. I agree with you 100%. There was no reason not to let Elian’s father have custody and take care of him. Barring credible evidence that Elian’s father had mistreated him, the father should have custody. The disgusting displays put on by the family and right wing pundits were one (of many) reasons that my politics have slowly drifted towards the center over the last six or seven years. (More recently, Tom DeLay’s corruption and the G.O.P.’s changing the rules to let him keep his leadership position if he is indicted are others.)
This was one of the few times that I supported an action by Clinton, although I wish the family had not been so intransigent as to make such an ugly scene possible.
Comment by Orac — 04.26.05 @ 1:08 pm
Freedom and the Christian
During the year 2000, I joined my fellow Americans in watching the drama that centered on a six-year-old Cuban boy named ElÃan. The boy was the rope in game of tug-of-war carried on by two groups of people. One group…
Trackback by Lifelike Pundits — 04.26.05 @ 6:21 pm
Although I agree with you on most things, I have to disagree here. I apologize for the late reply, but I am catching up after being in Guatemala picking up our third adopted child from that country. Our extensive experience with Latin America and our relationships with several Cuban friends, has taught us a truism about communist and socialist societies: there are no rights, so to say the father is the “legal custodian” is incorrect. Everything and every person are property of the state. Therefore, your assumption that the father has any “rights” and is on equal footing with Castro is erroneous. See your post #26.
No offense, but as a conservative, the understanding that the above statement is a fundamental principle of communist and socialist societies is critical to understanding the real choice presented to any legal authority, state or federal, in the US. The real choice was between keeping the child with relatives in America who could establish some legal right to custodianship, and sending him to Castro. So the concept that the child was being returned to his father as a legal guardian is false. The father does not possess that legal right in Cuba. The child was sent to Castro, not the father.
Your argument would hold water with most any other situation or country, but not with Cuba.
My point that the kid belonged with his father and not the Miami relatives still stands, regardless of who has “legal” custody of him once he got to Cuba. - Admin
Comment by Matt — 04.27.05 @ 6:03 pm
LaShawn, I am not one to pick a fight and if I didn’t respect you, I wouldn’t waste time posting. I agree with the concept of the child belongs with the father, but the fact of dictatorships is that the child was not sent back to the father. Therefore, let me rephrase: That child is now in the PHYSICAL CUSTODY of Castro. Any information which portrays the child as spending endless days with his father is most likely propaganda. Castro now physically controls that child’s life and uses it to the utmost political gain.
One may think that Cuba has the same familiar relationships and licit authority that we have come to take for granted, but they do not, so to believe that child was physically returned to his father is erroneous.
Comment by Matt — 04.28.05 @ 12:17 pm