Send Him Back To Papa

Send Him Back To Papa
by Josh London

The other day, while drinking scotch at the bar near work, one of my co-workers began blathering about Elian Gonzalez. Gonzalez, that little Cuban child who is creating a nice diversion from serious matters of state, is a very cute little boy. While I have enjoyed hearing congressmen and politicos waste time arguing the pros and cons of whether or not the child should be sent back home to his father, this was not the sort of topic I wished to hear about after work -- especially over drinks. Still, since my co-worker paid for all of my drinks that night, I told him I'd consider the issue in this column.

Even though, to be honest, I have been unable to fathom what the big deal is. The Gonzales boy is not the first Cuban child to arrive in the United States without his parents. I don't have any stats on how many Cuban children came to this country during the Batista days, but from the earliest days of the Castro regime, Cubans have gone to great lengths to smuggle their children to freedom.

Between December 1960 and October 1962, more than 14,000 unaccompanied Cuban children were carted away -- with their parents' blessings -- in an exodus that came to be called "Operation Peter Pan." Many of those parents never saw their children again. And while I would consider them lucky parents, most agonized over the decision to provide their children a better life and cut them out of their lives.

The argument goes that, all other things being equal, children belong with their parents. It's just desserts. Besides it isn't fair to the rest of us to have children running around without their parents. I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't the time or inclination to chase after the littler buggers.

Yet, in God's master plan, "all other things" have not been equal in Cuba since 1959. In Cuba, children are legally viewed as potential pawns at the disposal of the state. In the civilized world, parents are entrusted with the freedom and obligation of shaping their children's values and guiding their education. But in the Caribbean paradise of Cuba, parents who try to raise their children as they wish have been punished with impoverishment, imprisonment, torture and, in some cases, death.

Cuban law is clear about this. Consider the following from Law16, Cuba's Code of the Child:

Article 3: "The communist formation of the young generation is a valued aspiration of the state, the family, the teachers, the political organizations, and the mass organizations that act in order to foster in youth the ideological values of communism."

Article 5: "Society and the state watch to ascertain that all persons who come in contact with the child ... constitute an example for the development of his communist personality."

Article 8: "Society and the state work for the efficient protection of youth against all influences contrary to their communist formation."

Article 33: "The state grants special attention to the teaching of Marxism-Leninism due to its importance in the ideological formation and political culture of young students."

I know what you're thinking, but at least children in Cuba learn something besides how to conceal handguns, how to benefit from ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder), and the school-yard market value of Prozac. I mean, what kind of a Communist can't read, write or do sums? It may be twisted history, perverted civics and ass-backwards economics, but at least the kids learn some kind of history, civics and economics!

At any rate, if Cuba were a normal country, no one would dispute that the Gonzalez twerp would be better off with his father than anywhere else. But since Cuba is not a normal country, and if the kid is forced to return, he will not enjoy a normal childhood, people of a more sympathetic disposition -- like the coworker annoying me after hours -- argue that the US must keep the kid in this country.

When I made the mistake of asking my coworker to expound on what is likely to become of little Elian if we shipped him back home, I was barraged with the following: he will be allowed to live with his father until he is 11 years of age, then he will be sent to work in a farm-labor camp for 45 to 60 days per year; he will face compulsory military service until he is 27; he will be brainwashed to believe in and relive the glories of "the revolution" and he will be taught to regard any Cubans who reject Castroism -- which would include his dead mother -- as counterrevolutionaries and traitors; he might be allowed to attend college, providing that his "political attitude and social conduct" satisfy the regime in Havana, etc.

But as a non-US citizen, he sure could do much worse in this world. As bad as Castro is, he isn't nearly as bad as the many and varied Communist dictators who have been long forgotten (Feliks Dzerzhinsky, Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Ezhov, etc.) or, in academic circles, long forgiven (Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Stalin). Besides, the western media seem to fawn over him as if he were Grace Kelley of Monaco; as far as they (and much of the liberal and left of center establishment) are concerned, dying for Castro can be considered a romantic, almost noble fate.

True, Cuba holds a more or less permanent spot on Freedom House's yearly tabulation of the most unfree states in the world. As I recall, it is on par with resorts like Afghanistan, Burma, North Korea, Syria, and Vietnam as one of the planet's most repressive nations. And, now that I think about it, it is also one of those countries that people hurl themselves into the sea by the thousands to escape.

I guess it might be considered poor taste for me to mention the deprivations of life in Castro's paradise: shortages of everything from milk to medicine, severe rationing of soap and meat, lack of toothpaste and anesthesia, etc.

But it must be pointed out that a large number of American pundits, editorialists and the Immigration and Naturalization Service all agree that cute little Elian belongs in Cuba. As INS Commissioner Doris Meissner said, "Family reunification has long been a cornerstone of both American immigration law and INS practice."

On the other hand, US law has, for 35 years, generally offered sanctuary to Cubans who escape Castro's clutches. Had the boy's mother survived the trip to our shores, few would have argued that the boy should be sent back. Perhaps my co-worker is correct in feeling that the case for allowing him to remain is strengthened, not weakened, by the price his mother paid to get him here -- discounting entirely, of course, his father's wishes that he be sent back to Cuba.

Hmm? It would probably be best to simply tie little Elian Gonzalez to a piece of driftwood and set him out to sea. This solution is cheap, easy and at least gives the little blighter a chance to make his own destiny in this world without burdening US taxpayers.

I know this is heartless, but, hey, it ain't my kid. Besides, do we really want to be in the position of picking and choosing what refugees we help solely based on how much press coverage they get and how cute they are? No. Papa knows best, so lets send him back to Papa.

Message to my coworker: thanks for the booze.