The New York Times. March 22, 2000
In dismissing a lawsuit by relatives of Elián González who sought political asylum for the 6-year-old Cuban boy, Federal District Judge K. Michael Moore has essentially upheld the decision of Attorney General Janet Reno and the Immigration and Naturalization Service that the boy
should be repatriated to Cuba to rejoin his father. Judge Moore's ruling should be read as affirming I.N.S. Commissioner Doris Meissner's declaration in January that Elián is too young to make legal decisions for himself and that his father has the sole legal authority to speak for him in
immigration matters.
In seeking political asylum for Elián, his Miami relatives are asking the government to make a judgment about the best interests of a child that contradicts the expressed wish of his only surviving parent. A powerful tradition in American law has repeatedly asserted that parents, not the
state, know what is in the best interests of a child.
Under United States law, the only basis for removing a child from his or her parents is demonstrated abuse, neglect or abandonment by a parent. To date no one has produced any evidence to suggest that Elián's divorced father, Juan Miguel González, is anything but a devoted father.
I.N.S. officials interviewed Mr. González at length in Havana last December and were satisfied that he had maintained a close and involved relationship with his son.
It is now nearly four months since Elián was rescued at sea from the incident that killed his mother and several others. His Miami relatives have indicated they plan to appeal Judge Moore's decision. That is their right. But each passing day further postpones a long-overdue reunion
between a father and his son. In light of the clearly articulated views of the attorney general and the Immigration Service that Elián should return home to Cuba, his relatives in Miami ought to prepare to comply with the law and let him go.
Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company |