National Post, Canada. Monday, March 13, 2000
The case of Elian Gonzalez presents decent people with an apparent conflict between two good things. On one hand is our belief that the family should have the primary role in the rearing of children; on the other, our opposition to authoritarian regimes and a desire to help those who suffer
under them. That is why the debate over whether the United States should return Elian to Cuba often seems to play out like an invincible force striking an immovable object.
But the argument is closely balanced only if we assume that Elian's biological father, Juan Gonzalez, genuinely wants Elian returned to Cuba. His repeated endorsements of Fidel Castro's demand for Elian's return might seem to settle the matter. Given the repressive nature of Cuba's government,
however, such pronouncements may well be coerced. And Elian's U.S. relatives claim that Mr. Gonzalez initially told them he wanted Elian to remain in Miami. So there is simply no way to tell whether Mr. Gonzalez's words are heartfelt or were put in his mouth from on high -- at least as he remains in
Cuba.
Last week, a U.S. federal judge, K. Michael Moore, heard arguments in Elian's custody case. At dispute is the right of Elian's great-uncle, who is a U.S. resident, to challenge a ruling from the Immigration and Naturalization Service that Elian be returned to Cuba.
Judge Moore should let the INS ruling stand only on condition that Mr. Gonzalez come to Miami to collect Elian in person. If Mr. Gonzalez does not come to Miami, it is either because he is unwilling or unable. If the former, then there is no reason to return Elian to a father who will not suffer
the slight inconvenience of a visit to Miami for his son's sake. If the latter, then Mr. Castro -- not Uncle Sam -- is the real home wrecker.
Copyright © Southam Inc. All rights reserved. |