What about the father's rights? 

Who is the real villain that prevents the reunification of the family?

Isn't the the U.S. embargo of Cuba the cause of Cuba's economic woes? 

Isn't it in Elián's psychological interest to be sent back to Cuba? 

Is Cuba really that bad a place?

Doesn't free-speech exist in Cuba?

It is my firm belief that communism is physically harmful to human life. I hold that this should be the fundamental question in the Elián Gonzalez case.

The INS ruled that in the name of "family reunification" Elián 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 editorialists argue that the child's best interests are served by "family reunification"? Certainly not. Why, then, is Elián'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 Elián faces if he goes back.

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." This Administration orders the Coast Guard to physically repel Cuban refugees who approach our shores, resulting in the disgraceful sight of American officials firing water cannons upon Cubans to keep them from reaching U.S. soil. The zealous advocates of Elián's deportation are clinging to a discredited philosophy that refuses to acknowledge the tyrannical nature of life under socialism.

The argument of "family values" against "political rights" is a smokescreen designed to cover up the essential issue in the Elián Gonzalez case: his inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty is a fundamental requirement of any kind of values -- family values included. The purpose of a family is to help a child become an independent adult -- not to guarantee a child a life of slavery.

I believe that keeping Elián in America is no violation of the rights of the father (who -- if he has any genuine affection for the boy and were free to express it -- 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.

Elián's mother willingly risked death on a desperate voyage to liberty. She was drawn by the American principle that each individual has an inalienable right to be free. To send Elián back to Cuba would be to place him in the same position that resulted in the death of his mother. This would be a moral crime.  

This is a principle that I hope you will defend by ensuring that Elián Gonzalez is not returned to a life of totalitarian slavery in Cuba. In the name not of Cuban nationalism, but of Americanism in its original and deepest philosophical meaning, Elián Gonzalez must be allowed to remain free in the United States of America.

Signed your fellow Americans.

National Demonstrations to Keep Elián Free!
The intellectual battle for Elián's rights is not over -- thousands of Americans will be holding demonstrations on Wednesday, May 10th, 2000 outside the Federal Buildings of major American cities.

A project started by Capitalism Magazine.