Ana Jarosz. Chicago Tribune. April 3, 2000
BOCA RATON, Fla. -- It is my firm belief that communism is physically harmful to human life. I hold that this should be the fundamental question in the Elian Gonzalez case.
The INS ruled that in the name of "family reunification" Elian must return to Cuba. And most media commentators have praised this decision. But would such a decision be tolerated if it involved, say, a young black boy who had escaped to the North from a Southern plantation 150 years
ago? Or a Jewish boy who had come to America from Nazi Germany during the 1930s? Would he have been sent back if the father--with a gun to his back--declared his desire to have his child returned to slavery or to a concentration camp? Would editorial writers argue that the child's best interests are
served by "family reunification"? Certainly not. Why, then, is Elian's situation any different? Life in totalitarian Cuba, after all, is life in slavery.
I hold that a parent has the right to determine his child's upbringing, but not to inflict physical harm. A parent has no right to beat up a child, or to keep a child imprisoned in a cell. That becomes a violation of the child's individual rights. But a communist state is simply one huge jail,
where the citizens are under the physical control of their wardens. That is what Elian faces if he goes back.
It is absurd for the INS commissioner to assert that the father is "expressing his true wishes" regarding his son. Mr. Gonzalez is not free to say anything else. If he displeases the state, his job, his home--his life--can be summarily taken from him. If Castro orders him to ask for
the return of his son--or, conversely, to renounce any interest in the boy--the father has little choice but to obey. Like the slaves on a Southern plantation, the citizens of Cuba exist at the whim of their leaders.
The INS and its supporters are still trying to pretend that communism is not a system of enslavement, and that the difference between America and Cuba is merely one of "lifestyle." The zealous advocates of Elian's deportation are clinging to a discredited philosophy that refuses to
acknowledge the tyrannical nature of life under socialism. I believe that keeping Elian in America is no violation of the rights of the father (who--if he were free to express any genuine affection for the boy--would announce his fervent desire to have his son live in freedom). It is Castro who is
preventing family reunification by keeping his borders closed to those who wish to flee his dictatorial rule.
I support a demand that Castro permit Mr. Gonzalez to leave Cuba permanently and unconditionally. He can then live here and take custody of his son. Elian's mother willingly risked death on a desperate voyage, drawn by the American principle that each individual has an inalienable right to be
free. This is a principle that I hope this country will defend by ensuring that Elian is not returned to a life of totalitarian slavery in Cuba. |