I have been concerned about the case of Elián Gonzalez, the 6 year old Cuban refugee. He arrived in this country on Thanksgiving Day 1999. His mother died while fleeing from Cuba and little Elián was rescued from the ocean between the two countries by some fisherman. I have chosen to write about this particular event not just because it's result will determine the fate of a little 6 year old boy but also because of the disturbing attitudes it has brought to the surface in this country.
Currently, most Americans favor Elián's return to Cuba. I understand there are competing priorities involved with this case. Let me outline them as I understand them. First of all, Elián was with his mother trying to get to this country. Secondly, she died in the attempt which left Elián's natural father the only surviving parent, but he is still in Cuba. Normally, the boy would be returned to the father without question. Here is where it gets complicated. The father lives in a totalitarian dictatorship with no parental rights as we know them. Elián, once he made it to US shores, falls under the Cuban Adjustment Act which affords him a certain status in this country. He has the right to be heard in court to see whether he should be returned from where he came.
Since it involves custody of a child, the INS originally handed this case to the family courts for ajudication. Shortly thereafter, Janet Reno decreed that the boy must be returned to Cuba. The National Council of Churches, a noted left wing organization, has fought hard to return the boy to his father. They claim the boy should go back to his dad because he is the surviving parent and that relationship is very important. I understand that this is the strongest argument for sending him back.
Let me explain why I think we cannot jump to conclusions regarding this aspect of the case. Elián's father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, lives under a Communist dictatorship. He therefore is not free to speak his mind. He has no parental rights in Cuba, in fact the Cuban constitution says that people are the property of the state. We have no way of knowing what the true wishes of Elián's father are while he speaks under the rule of Castro. There have even been reports that he was aware that his ex-wife and Elián were going to flee Cuba before it happened. Now that he is here in the U.S. he is required to stay with the Cuban consolate in Maryland. He is not even allowed to go to Miami to see his boy which is what I thought he wanted so desperately to do. So to say that we should honor the wishes of the father loses credibility when his wishes are not truly known.
I believe we should be looking for every possible way to find reasons to not only let Elián stay here but to also allow the father to stay here as well. We should allow him to make that choice along with his immediate family. We should consider sending the boy back only as a last resort after all other possibilities have been examined. If the father comes here and we have done all we can to offer him and his family sanctuary and he still insists on taking his boy back to Cuba, then and only then should we relunctantly agree. I must say that I am ashamed of Presidend Clinton and Janet Reno for ignoring the situation in Cuba and making their first option to send Elián back. It would be different if they at least tried to find a way to have him stay, but this child's future despite their rhetoric seems to be a lesser priority in their minds.
This is incredibly messy and I don't claim to fully understand all of the legal maneuvering going on here. I am not claiming to know the "right" answer, because with situtions like this it is usually all one can do to just do damage control. The part that is greatly bothering me is the attitudes of people here in the United States upon which I will now focus.
So many opinions on the side that favor his return seem to ignore the oppression of a totalitarian regime. Yes, you read correctly, they ignore this fact or dismiss it as inconsequential. This is what has me very concerned. How can the people of the United States who have an abundance of freedom and opportunity be so eager to deny it to their fellow human beings? How can they be so ignorant of what it is like to live under that kind of tyranny? Americans go absolutely mad if the cost of their gasoline goes up a few cents but don't give a damn if a little 6 year old boy who's mother died trying to get him to a free society gets sent back to Cuba.
Then I hear people who are very hateful towards the exiled Cuban community for being passionate about this issue; people like Bill Handel a local talk show host here in Southern California. Bill Handel comes from a family that survived Hitler's attempted extermination of the Jewish people. Bill Handel is a person who vehemently supported the bombing of Kosovo to support oppressed people there. Bill Handel is the same person who now wants Elián to be sent back to Communist Cuba, and why? Because his biological father lives there. Did Bill ever stop to think that there is a reason why the exiled Cuban community is so passionate about this issue? Could it be that they know what it is like to lose your basic human rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
I am concerned that we have lost an appreciation for what it means to live in a free society. I am concerned that we have forgotten that this freedom is not automatic but it must be fought for to obtain and diligently defended for it to last. No, I don't think our society will fall next week, next year, or even in the next few decades. But, yes, I do believe that if this kind of ignorance and apathy continues it is only a matter of time.
--Bugs April 10, 2000
< return to home page