Elian Gonzalez belongs in Cuba ...

Great Debates
101

I really don’t care if he stays or goes, but I want the decision tobe made in a court of Law.

But you guys make me sick. 1st it was “it’s the LAW, so he goes back”, but now that the LAW sez different, you’re hauling out all sorts of stupid emotional arguements. Just once, JUST ONCE, I’d like to hear someone spout off w/ an arguement based upon a point, and when that point is solidly disproved, say “Oops, guess I was wrong”, instead of just falling back on some other point, that CAN’T be disproved because it’s based on emotions.

Well, I have one for you types, “Elain should not go back as it is not in his horoscope”. Phui!!

102

We make you sick?! That’s a laugh!

Evidently, you’re the only one unaware that there’s State Laws and Federal Laws. Immigration falls under Federal Laws. Perhaps you’d care to refute that, this time with the appropriate cite from the United States Constitution (the document, not the warship). What’s that? You can’t? Oh, that’s right–the Constitution says immigration is a federal concern.

The appropriate laws and appropriate courts are as follows:

Immigration into the United States - Federal.
Child Custody/Divorce between Cuban citizens on Cuban soil - Cuba.

Get off it, Dannie. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

103

Daniel,

As per usual, you’re making yourself to be an ass.

I’m not using ANY emotions in my posts. I’m simply stating facts:

1- I’m tired of the bullshit
2- Elian’s uncle is using the poor kid
3- this whole thing is causing a HUGE mess in Florida, across the nation, and in Cuba.
4- It’s nothing but a media game to the uncle
5- the kid belongs with his father, should have been returned promptly after he washed up on shore
6- As Monty said, a custody battle should ensue in Cuba, not here. This battle is between two citizens of Cuba, and an opportunistic Uncle in the states who’s now made a name for himself.

And, I made the mistake of misinterpreting the judgement handed down, the law didn’t suddenly change, so the law doesn’t say anything different, did it?

Oh, and BTW, my arguments haven’t changed from the start, law or not.

So…eat me chump.

104

Hi guys…

Don’t care, don’t care, don’t care.

If I ever had an opinion about this circus I don’t anymore. Just don’t want to pick up a paper, turn on the TV news or radio, or walk down the hall of my office and hear this kids name again! Tired of it. Some other names I got really sick of hearing:

OJ
Monica
Jon Benet
Bill
Kenneth

Are we all really THAT bored?

Needs2know …(but not about this)

105

Miscelleanous persons said:

[Moderator Hat ON]

Please cool it a bit, guys. We have the Pit for insults; this forum is for debate. Thank you.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

106

by Danieletc.etc.etc.

Say you have a kid. Say I take your kid. You ask for your kid back, and I refuse to give him back. The police then say, “Yeah, you should have your kid back.”

Are you going to say, “Well, we have this court order … and we need to determine the correct jurisdiction and have further proceedings and determine the correct legal course of action”?

Horse dung. Your child is separated from you against your will; it’s kidnapping. I could give a damn what some South Florida judge fearful of a politically active local ethnic group thinks.

For all the rhetoric in this thread, it goes back to Post Numero Uno: Mother, Father, Child. Child is with Mother; Mother dies. Father wants child back, no evidence of abuse or neglect; Father gets Child. Period.

Give me immortality, or give me death!

107

And even better. Now you have evidence of abuse from the Uncle. The child is being psychologicly abused and used. He should be returned to his father post haste. If the family really cared for him, they would allow him to stay with his father while this was being fought in the courts.

108

See…

the man who started the thread knows what he is talking about. The kid goes where Dad goes.

What actual right to custody do the Miami relatives have?? We don’t give Grandparents visitation rights in this country if Mom dies and Dad doesn’t want Mom’s parents to see the kid.

Why do we even have to go to court? Near as I can figure the kid really does not have a right to be here and the relatives(I assume these are the dead Mother’s blood relatives) don’t have a right to the kid. Its been real, see ya Elian!!!

Also if you don’t believe that Miami will burn if the court rules the kid goes back then you apparently know something we don’t. It’s not the Justice dept. that will light this candle it’s the Cuban-Americans.

Send him back, if he wants to try to float to the USA when he’s 18 more power to him. Odds are Castro will be gone then anyway.

Also don’t forget we told Castro to blow because we were backing Batista and what a wonderful leader of Cuba he was. Kind of like Ho Chi Minh coming back to bite us in the butt.

109

Sledman: And if it comes down to violence in the streets/rioting among the Cuban community in Miami, here’s my solution: Send all the guilty parties packing if they’re not US citizens! So what if they end up in Cuba?

110

Monty: A US Superior Court Judge has ordered that the Kid stays (for now). He has juristiction. The US Constitution gives the Judicial Branch this authority. Do you believe the US Superiot Court Justice doesn’t know the Law?
Milo: A court CAN take someones kid away, legally. There are countless cases of Grandparents winning custody over parents. Altho rare, it happens. And it is not “kidnapping”. unless you also define taxation as “theft”, imprisonment as “slavery”, and executions as “murder”. The kid was not “taken” by the Miami relatives: he was “placed” with them (on a temporary basis).

I am NOT saying Elain should stay OR leave, I am saying we should let the courts decide. Why do you guys have a problem with that?

111

Very good. You’ve incorrectly extrapolated the decision into what you want it to say. The Federal Justice has ordered that the child not be removed from the United States until the appeals are through. That’s not the same as terminating the father’s parental rights.

So you’re now agreeing that the appropriate venue for immigration issues is the Federal court? And still the court with jurisdiction over who has custody of the child is in Cuba.

Actually, the Constitution gives the Judicial branch the authority to hear and try cases brought before them under Federal Law. That’s usually done by the Justice Department; a fact you’ve conveniently been ignoring all along. Well, until now, that is.

Actually, I’ve been sure all along of two things: (1) the Federal Justice is aware of the laws, and (2) you’re not.

{Sorry, Milo; I can’t let this one go without an answer for long.} And the conditions under which that can happen are quite clearly laid out in law; you know, the very definition of “legally.” A convicted & proven violent felon alleging without proof that a child’s father is unfit doesn’t pass the credibility test.

Could be. Please see above about the conditions under which a parent may lose custody. Also, IIRC, there are some cases in which grandparents are suing to have visitation rights over the wishes of the child’s parents.

Is it rare or is it countless? Please clarify.

Those cases to which you refer are, of course, not kidnapping as the parents were proven in court to be unfit. All that’s happened here is a proven and convicted violent felon has alleged the child’s father is unfit. Didn’t I mention something earlier about a credibility test? Apparently, your only test for credibility is if the statement fits into your political view. BTW: the Constitution does define imprisonment as “slavery or forced servitude.”

And that temporary placement has been terminated lawfully by the agency responsible for such decision. Disobeying that termination order and keeping the child is, in fact, kidnapping.

What “you guys,” or at least this one of “you guys,” have a problem with is a very vocal minority flouting the laws of this nation. BTW, are you now saying it’s a Federal issue or a State issue? I anxiously await your posting that the custody issue is a Cuban court issue.

112

Oh sure, Monty, steal my thunder. (Or my little partly-cloudy, anyway.) :slight_smile:

Danieletc.

OF COURSE courts take someone’s kid away … correct me if I’m wrong, but that always and only happens in cases of abuse and/or neglect.

I don’t recall hearing about any court cases where the judge said, “Sorry, Mr. Doe, but you only make $20,000 per year, and these people holding your son make $40,000 and can buy little Johnny all kinds of toys, so he stays with them.”

What, exactly and specifically, are the reasons Juan Gonzalez should even have to go to court to explain his right to be a father to his child?

Does a person’s politics ever enter into child custody issues here? Let alone the politics of his nation of origin.

A court hearing would be far from just a step in the process toward Juan Gonzalez reuniting with his child. With the political circus this has become, and the bizarre vitriol of the Cuban nationals down there, a court hearing could most definitely go either way.

“Let the courts decide”? How incredibly arrogant of America.

Give me immortality, or give me death!

113

Of course, you are all forgeting to mention that Elain’s Mother was divorced from Elains Father, and has been so since before Elian was born. Thus Sr. Gonzalez has never HAD custody, and is “only” Elians biological father. In any case like this, if the Mother died, and Her ralatives wanted custody, there would be a custody hearing.

However, all this is moot. The US Appelate Court just ruled that Elains stays (for now) and that a custody hearing be held. The Law has spoken.

114

Jesus, I’m getting tired of people who know NOTHING about immigration law and NOTHING about family law talking about “if this was any other case…” when the fact is that if it was any other case, Elian would have been back with his Dad months ago.

His parents being divorced makes no difference whatsoever, since (a) there’s no question who the father is, and (b) it has already been demonstrated that he had a significant relationship with Elian. Custody of a child isn’t something you can inherit from a dead relative like jewelry or a house or something; to take custody of a child from his or her natural parent you usually must show that the parent is unfit. Which the relatives have utterly failed to do.

And BTW, Daniel, if you’re really so interested in this case can you at least spell the boy’s name correctly?

115

Send the kid packing. I can see that to Cuban-Americans in Miami, this case is about more than a little boy. It’s about Good V. Evil, Democracy V. Communism. But in the end, it’s about a boy who has lost his mother, no matter how. He has a living father, who is not apparently a murderer or drug dealer, and therefore the child should be returned to him.

It is a tragedy that the kid has had the experience of Disneyworld, and all the treats of capitalism. The U.S. gov’t should have shipped him back as soon as he washed up on the shores. But this is not an argument to keep him. Of course he wants to stay? Let’s see: Propaganda with some weird bearded guy, or Power Rangers.

Doesn’t matter what he wants. His father is still his father. He should take the boy home.

116

Bullshit. As again reported on KGO Radio at approximately 09:15 PM PDT by Bernie Ward (you may call the station at (415) 808-0810 for confirmation), the father was the primary custodial parent. The mother had the child 2 days out of 7; the father had the child 5 days out of 7; the father honoured the custody agreement; the mother absconded with the child.

117

Monty: You’re quoting KGO?!? As a source of FACTS?!? It is to laff. These guys are entertainers and rabble rousers who have often been caught making stuff up in order toget more controversy. Why not quote Rush or Howard while you’re at it? They COULD be right… But I’d like a REAL source, please.

The appellate court ruled yesterday. They chided the Justice dept. “(we)doubt that protecting a person’s day in court, when he has an appeal of argueable merit, is contrary to the public interest”. Later, re custody/asylum: “We need to think long and hard about this case for which no sure and clear answers shine out today”.

But hell, just because 3 respected jurors, representing a broad agenda, and having more combined Legal experience than most have us have been alive, say that Elian should get his day in court, won’t stop you guys from saying NO! And I suppose the fact that these same 3 judges, who have more info on this case than all uf us here combined, and are unwilling to make snap judgements on such a “simple” issue, won’t stop you guys from coming up with “sure and clear answers”, on less info.

118

If you are going to criticize others for the use of facrs at least get your own right. The court said nothing about custody. The government can still give custody to the father, the court was simply addressing the issue of asylum.

119

OLD: If the USA gives Elian asylum, so he stays in the US, that effectively gives custody to the Miami relatives. Barring, of course, Sr. Gonzales deciding to ask for asylum & becoming a resident himself (now wouldn’t THAT be ironic?). If the Court decides Elian does not get asylum, then he goes back to Cuban and his father. So deciding asylum is tantamount to deciding custody, although, strictly the Court is only deciding asylum.

120

Danny: So you’re now saying that the only bar to Mister Gonzales receiving custody of his child is his membership in a particular political party? I’m willing to bet real money that’s illegal in this country!

Next, unlike you, the courts in this country are well aware of the legalities involved. A Federal court granting asylum to someone does not automatically grant custody of the child to anyone at all, no matter who they are. First, the child’s parent is presumed, in law, to be fit until proven otherwise. Second, if so proven, that does not automatically grant custody to a relative. What has to happen is that the appropriate State, County, or City agency, appointed by the appropriate court mind you, must determine who is fit to assume parental responsibilities over the minor concerned. The practice is to examine first the child’s relatives and then, if none is found fit, to place the child elsewhere.

Lastly, not only did I quote KGO, I also quoted Bernie Ward, and I even provided a time he uttered his statement and also provided a means for you to verify that utterance. You, on the other hand, have made an assertion (well, a number of assertions, but let’s just stick with this latest one for now) that KGO “makes stuff up.” Since you’ve not provided proof of that assertion, I can only conclude that you’re a liar. That does not bode well in the matter of me believing what you have to say on other issues. If you fail to provide proof of your latest assertion posthaste, and this time with actual facts {something you’ve yet to do on other assertions, btw}, I can only conclude that you’re a damn liar. What’s next, statistics?