April 22, 7th Anniversary of Elian Gonzalez's Reunion with His Father
April 22nd, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
I've spoken before of the massive moral failure of American conservatives during the Elian Gonzalez saga seven years ago. In that case then five year-old Elian Gonzalez's Miami relatives held him de facto hostage for six months and refused to give him back to his father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez.
Some of you may remember the nightmarish video released by the Miami relatives in which Elian defies his father and tells his father that he wants to stay in the United States, as a male voice was heard off-camera directing the boy. In a 2005 60 Minutes interview Elian said that while in the U.S., the Miami relatives were "telling me bad things about [my father]", and "were also telling me to tell him that I did not want to go back to Cuba and I always told them I wanted to."
After putting up with six months of the Miami relatives' nonsense, on April 22, 2000 the federal government went in, got Elian out, and returned Elian to his father. The event is pictured above.
In case anybody could ever have any doubts on my stand on this, I stand with Juan Gonzalez, Janet Reno, Bill Clinton and Fidel Castro, against Miami relatives Lazaro Gonzalez and Marisleysis Gonzalez, Miami-Dade County Mayor Alex Penelas (who defied federal authorities), the Cuban-American National Foundation, and the Cuban exile community. I'm not interested in left or right on this issue--I support anybody who stood for reuniting Elian and his father, whether on the left or right.
As for those who shrieked that Clinton "used force," he only did so because he had no other choice. The force used was measured and appropriate, and the Miami relatives have nothing to complain about.
There were some prominent commentators who did stand up for Elian's right to be with his father--these include feminist firebrand Martha Burk and conservative talk show hosts Mike Gallagher and Larry Elder. Both family law attorney Jeff Leving and Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, were involved in the case at the time and played an honorable role.
"));
19 queries. 0.334 seconds.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:36 am
The Alan Keyes 2000 Presidential Campaign attracted a lot of fathers when Alan Keyes said on a nationally televised debate (January 2000) that we should turn the child over to his father. Alan also said we should demand the father be flown to America where he could make a free decision and abide by that decision. At the time Alan Keyes was the only Presidential candidate to make such a statement as all others demanded the child remain in America. I take personal credit for prepping Alan on this issue by passing it thru his Iowa campaign manager, Tom Hoefling and heard Alan say my exact statement on the following night's debate while sitting next to Tom. Tom gave me a big slap on the back when Alan said those very wise words and the next day we had several father's rights people show up at our HQ. Charlie Romstad, my autodialer guru, drove from Colorado to join us over that statement (and the fact his uncle had just passed away in Iowa). Serioulsy, Charlie remained in Iowa and has been helping me ever since. It is hard to believe sending a little boy back to a communist country was the right thing to do but considering how our children are deprived fathers in this country how much worse could it be for him? Furthermore, if Elain's mother was the one asking for him as his father had tried to steal him out of the country (keep in mind Elian's purpose was to be deterrent to the Cuban Navy's policy of shooting all aboard) Hillary Cliton would have been on the plane to return him! The only reason it was an issue at all is because it was his father asking. Furthermore, nobody seemed to care of her motives for having on that boat as it certainly had nothing to do with their seeking freedom from communism and everything to do with drug & people smuggling.
April 24th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Although I have no love for Janet Reno or Hillary Clinton, and blame them for many of the recently enacted draconian laws designed to destroy the American male (especially fathers), it was only right that Elian should be returned to his father. However, I feel there was a better way of handling the situation without all the grandstanding that took place. For instance, it is quite obvious that the Gonzalez family was abusing Elian, simply because they would do things like wake him up in the middle of the night so they could parade him before reporters. That had to be a traumatic experience for such a small child, on top of enduring a hazardous journey by sea, losing his mother and not knowing if he would ever see his father again. If Ms Reno was so intent on becoming involved in this case, why couldn't she arrange for a few police officers to accompany some social workers to the residence, arrest all the adults in the house for child abuse, handcuff them, then take Elian and put him in a foster home. A team of well-skilled riot police could have quelled the crowd that was camping outside the Gonzalez household. Furthermore, a foster home with one to two strangers to care for Elian would have been preferable to what this poor child was put through by his own relatives, at least until his father could arrive to collect him. I commend our government for wanting to grant custody of Elian to relatives rather than strangers, but in this case it was a horrible mistake. There is also the question of what the Gonzalez's true motive was for wanting to keep Elian. It is a known fact that none of the adults in that family were working at that time. Did that make young Elian a "meal ticket" for the receipt of welfare payments or were they simply using this young child as a vehicle to further their own political agendas? In any case, it was far better for Elian to be returned to his father, even though he lived in a communist country, than to allow him to be continuously abused by distant relatives, who were far more interested in furthering their own political agendas, than in providing a way of life that would be in the best interests of this child.
April 27th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
The problem of tyrannical communism in Cuba is way bigger than the father issue you have fixated on in the Elian Gonzalez case.
It is simply asinine to claim that fatherhood trumps Cuban communism due to the simple fact that, in Cuba, communism is bigger and more important than fatherhood, or motherhood, or anything else in human existence, dumbass.
I'm very disappointed to discover that you are this stupid. I don't think I can ever wrap my head around the idea of someone being for fatherhood but blind to the anti-father, anti-family, anti-everything decent intentions of communism. Communism is the complete denial of all human rights, including father's rights!!!
What a dumbshit!!!
April 27th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Furthermore, I believe my own father loved me so much he would have made sure that I stayed in America and would have shot himself in the head before he allowed me to be dragged back to stinking Cuba after I had successfully escaped.
A real father who really loved his kid would do this, but since you say you wouldn't, I'd say you don't know what loving your kid as a father really means.
Dumbshit.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Mr. Sacks, I am an admirer of your work, but I was appalled to discover your stand on this issue. You are absolutely right that a moral issue is involved; unfortunately, you are on the wrong side of it.
I wish I knew your thought process, step by step and in detail, as you weighed the relative value of Elian's spending the next 13 years with his father against the value of spending his entire life in a free country.
It is not as though Elian will be allowed to decide, when he reaches the age of 18, which country he wants to live in; his mother found that out. Do you think the difference between a free country and a totalitarian one has no effect on a human being's life? Would you choose to live in Cuba, rather than in our country?
As to the father's rights: he hasn't any. It is positively bizarre to claim the "right" to force someone else to live without any rights at all, as the Cubans do, for the rest of his life. There is no such thing as the "right" to violate the rights of others -- let alone, of your own five-year-old child, forever; ditto for Elian's "right" to choose at age five to live in a totalitarian dictatorship.
Of course, it is not possible to know what Juan Miguel Gonzalez really wanted for his son; stating publicly that he wants Elian to remain in the U.S. would have dire consequences for him. But if he really did want to force Elian to come back, then by that fact he is unfit to be a parent, and forfeits his parental rights. If we were talking about the antebellum South, and a little slave boy had managed to escape his plantation, and his father wanted him to return, that father would be a monster; a true father would be (secretly) ecstatic that his son would be spared the life the father was bound in. The same applies to Juan Gonzalez.
You write as though there is essentially no difference between the Cuban government and the American. Is that what you believe to be the case? For instance, you take at face value an interview the child gave in Cuba, where no one is free to speak his mind, yet you deplore his Miami relatives' coaching him, a small child who cannot possibly understand the meaning of the alternatives for his future, in an attempt to secure his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Are these merely empty words to you?
Elian was not shipped home to Great Britain, France, or Canada. The Cubans, at least, know the difference, and Fidel Castro knows they know it -- which is why he can't afford to open the exits.
Like you, "I'm not interested in left or right on this issue." But I am interested in the future of a little boy.
April 28th, 2007 at 6:27 am
Well Glenn, it appears you have a few dissenters. As usual, the Cuban/American conflict has become a hotbed of political activity with everyone using it to further their own agendas. First of all, Juan Gonzalez had no choice but to take his son back to Cuba. The only way he was able to obtain a Visa was to convince the Cuban government of that fact. Secondly, he was probably concerned about what all the media attention, and abuse his son was suffering as a result, was doing to him, not only physically but psycologically. It could not have been good for this little boy to be awakened in the middle of the night for the sole purpose of parading him before countless reporters with their flashing camera lights. In fact it was undoubtedly an extremely terrifying experience. Juan Gonzalez probably wanted to give his son what he believed to be a normal life. He could not know the difference between "freedom" and a dictatorship because Castro's regime was the only life he ever knew. If Elian's "American" family would have treated him like good caretakers should, they would have kept the media out of his face so he could quietly adjust to life in America. Instead they chose to behave badly and use this frightened little boy to further their own political agendas. Fidel Castro has been in power in Cuba since 1959. He is now very ill, and despite the propaganda that is being dished out from his own country, he cannot be long for this world. It is a known fact that his brother Raul (not sure of the spelling) is somewhat more liberal and in favor of more freedoms for the people. A lot has changed since the Cuban/American boat lift that took place during Jimmy Carter's presidency. Furthermore, there is always the chance that Elian can escape again, perhaps this time with his father. People escape from Cuba every day and the population is growing. They have all but taken over southern Florida. That area of the country is already unofficially known as "Little Cuba". What other refugees from anywhere in the world can come to the US and automatically be considered American citizens the minute they land? I cannot think of any.
I would also like to ask Mr. Solbakkan and Mr. Seidel if they have ever been victims of the family court system. Judging from their remarks they have not. If they had, they would know there is very little, if any difference, between how fathers are routinely treated by the courts and how they would be treated as normal citizens in a communist country like Cuba. When it comes to civil rights, is there really any difference between a communist regime like the one in Cuba and the family court system right here in the US? I would like to ask your dissenters to stop a minute and think about that.
June 10th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
[...] odd thing about the picture, is that it may well end up being the next Kim Phuc or Elian Gonzalez type picture– the winner of the most iconic picture of the [...]
August 29th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
[...] To read my views on the original Elian Gonzalez case, see April 22, 7th Anniversary of Elian Gonzalez's Reunion with His Father. [...]
August 30th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Interesting responses - some very "patriotic" people apparently think it's impossible for Elian to have a good quality of life in Cuba. Yes it's not the UK, Europe or the good old USA, but it's also not Rwanda, Somalia, or Ethiopia to name but a few. And Castro's government has ensured a better-than-average lifestyle for this family.
I think that you'll find many fathers would be jealous of Elian and his dad - they would have their kids grow up in Cuba with the benefit of their protection, love and guidance, than what family court has done to them in the USA.
And I very much doubt if Elian is "feeling the oppression" of the communist government as he goes to school, comes home, and plays soccer with his dad. Perhaps when he's 18 he'll realize that freedom of speech, the press etc. is so important that it's worth making a risky escape, but until that time he's just a kid who needs to be with his dad, and there has been NO evidence after 7 years that it was wrong for him to be returned in the first place.
September 1st, 2007 at 2:54 am
It's nice that you "very much doubt if Elian is 'feeling the oppression' of the communist government as he goes to school, comes home, and plays soccer with his dad," but how on earth would you know? What evidence do YOU have? And why do you belittle freedom, as though being able to live and travel where you like, study and work at what you like, earn as much money as you are worth and spend it on what you want, associate with whom you please -- in short, being able to pursue your values -- amounts to no more than such abstractions as "freedom of the press"? How cavalierly you agree that Elian should have to risk his life for freedom, which you aparently do not think is worth risking one's life -- or anything else -- for! I for one would love to hear what Mr. Sacks's father-in-law has to say about life in Cuba (assuming that he has no relatives left there, and thus can speak freely). And what on earth has American family court to do with anything?
September 18th, 2007 at 11:26 am
For a report by Human Rights Watch on what life is like for Cubans:
http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/cuba14886.htm
For an article by a man who supported returning Elian Gonzalez to Cuba at the time, but has since come to regret his position:
http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/tzizza082206.htm
For pictures of Elian Gonzalez before and after he was returned to Cuba:
http://www.therealcuba.com/elian_gonzalez.htm
October 15th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
[...] show host Mike Gallagher (pictured) for his willingness to take tough stands, such as during the Elian Gonzalez saga in 2000, when Gallagher was one of the few conservatives in the country who said plainly and [...]