My take on Elian back in 2000: Before and After April 22nd

We remember

On Tuesday, April 25, 2000 at 7:30pm over a thousand Cubans peacefully marched together from Ocean Drive to the border of the Holocaust Memorial in remembrance of the 936 Jewish, men, women, and children sent back to Nazi Germany in 1939 after being denied asylum by both Cuba and the United States. We prayed to God, and asked for his forgiveness at committing such a horrific act. The march was organized by members of the Free Cuba Foundation. We did this because many had compared Elian's return to sending a child back to Nazi, Germany but had forgotten that Cubans had done just that to scores of Jewish children aboard the SS St. Louis. We remembered and called on others to do so as well.We were still angry at the violent taking of Elian Gonzalez three days earlier on April 22nd, but it was tempered by our reflection on what had happened decades earlier. Mention of the march were made in The New York Times and by the Associated Press.

Below are some of my thoughts on what had happened and how it was interpreted at the time. 

The Washington Times, August 16, 2000

Awards for a 'shameful chapter of American history'

Upon hearing that Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Commissioner Doris M. Meissner was holding an awards ceremony for the INS agents involved in the April 22 raid on the home of Elian Gonzalez's Miami relatives, I remembered the prophetic words of George Orwell. "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." The Clinton administration is attempting to rewrite a shameful chapter of American history with this awards ceremony ("Snatching Elian has its reward," Aug. 10).

Laurence H. Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard University, described the raid as having "violated a basic principle of our society, a principle whose preservation lies at the core of ordered liberty under the rule of law."

According to Mr. Tribe, under the Constitution, the executive branch has no unilateral authority to forcibly enter people's homes to remove innocent persons. Mr. Tribe has said that the agents who stormed the home of Elian's great-uncle, Lazaro Gonzalez, did not have a warrant to seize the child, but only to search the home.

A second constitutional lawyer and expert on civil liberties, Alan Dershowitz, denounced the raid as an illegal operation, stating that the raid created the "terrible precedent that the administration can act without court approval and break into the home of an American citizen. It's a dangerous day for all Americans."

Shame on the Clinton administration for ordering civil servants to carry out illegal actions that do violence to our Constitution and our way of life. Shame on those men and women who followed illegal orders rather than the law they are sworn to uphold. It was not only the home of the Gonzalez family that was attacked on April 22, but also our Constitution. Let us use these awards of shame to remember, speak the truth and defend our fundamental freedoms.

JOHN SUAREZ
Miami

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2000/aug/16/20000816-011833-2669r/



Chronicles Magazine, June 1, 2000

On Elian

JUNE 01, 2000

 

Thomas Fleming is wrong when he writes (Cultural Revolutions, April) that, by Cuban law, Elian Gonzalez belongs to his next-of-kin, his father. According to Cuban law (specifically the Codigo de Familia Ley, No. 1289), parental authority is subordinated to "inculcating" the "internationalist spirit and socialist morality." According to Article 95, section three, of this so-called family code, government tribunals can "deprive both parents, or one of them, parental authority," when both parents fail to indoctrinate their children in communist morality. Under Cuban law, Elian has one "father" who ultimately decides what value system he will be raised in, and his name is Fidel Castro.

Secondly, Dr. Fleming is guilty of an Orwellian use of the English language. He stated that Elian's mother "died in an illegal attempt to enter the United States." One may agree or disagree with current U.S. immigration policy, but one cannot dispute that, under Lyndon Johnson's 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, Elian's mother is given automatic residency upon reaching U.S. soil. How can her attempt to enter the United States be illegal if, upon entering, she would be granted residency a year and a day later? The Clinton administration's 1995 circumvention of the spirit of this law, without repealing it, in a migration agreement with the Castro regime is just another example of the lawlessness of the Clinton administration, not of Elian's mother. The claim that "by American law, the boy is simply an illegal alien who can either be returned to Cuba or stuck in a concentration camp" is just wrong. Under U.S. law, the child was granted humanitarian parole and was on his way to receiving residency a year and a day later before Castro's tantrum led to the INS reversing its decision.

Dr. Fleming cites the American abortion rate, declaring "it is hard to believe [Cuba] begins to approach the American level." Pax Christi sent a delegation to Cuba back in 1998 and was profoundly disturbed to report that, according to the Cuban minister of health, there is one abortion to every birth in Cuba. Pax Christi claimed that, at a "rather large nearby hospital, that we visit often, approximately thirty abortions take place daily. It is not unusual for women to be forced to have abortions. To rebel against the practice is futile."

Dr. Fleming's observation that "recent visitors to Cuba have not returned with stories of massive oppression and executions" should be placed in a larger historical context. I'd recommend that he obtain a transcript of Daniel Wolfs BBC2 documentaries. Tourists of the Revolution. It's amazing how visitors to some of the most brutal and murderous tyrannies of this century failed to mention mass murder and wholesale oppression. George Bernard Shaw visited the Soviet Union in 1931 and returned with stories of "an atmosphere of hope and security as has never before been seen in a civilized country on earth." Another visitor to the "worker's paradise" built by that wonderful humanitarian Stalin, Barbara Castle, then a journalist, reported "no atmosphere of repression" in pre-war Moscow, only glorious opportunities for women. Meanwhile, millions were being starved, massacred, and banished to gulags in Siberia.

There is a paradox at work in Cuba. The more foreign investment in joint partnerships with the regime, the greater the shrinkage in the Cuban private sector. Reuters reported in 1998 that "current and former members of the private sector blame the falloff on excessive state controls and taxes imposed after the introduction of some market-oriented features in 1993." This clampdown on the private sector coincided with the arrival of hard currency from European and Canadian investors.

This hard currency has been used to sustain the Cuban police state. Dropping sanctions and providing U.S. credits and hard currency to prop up the regime will only earn the enmity of the Cuban people.
Reports of massive repression in Cuba have appeared in the Economist, in which Pedro Betancur reported on the brutal January 22 beating of human-rights activists by a government mob. Sixty-eight-year-old Gloria Gonzalez described the attack: "They hit one of my sons on the head with a stick, cutting him badly. They broke another's rib. They kicked me hard and knocked me over." Seven of the victims of the beating were arrested. According to the independent Human Rights and National Reconciliation Commission in Havana, almost 600 people have been temporarily detained since November, and the commission has documented 350 political prisoners. They call it the worst crackdown in a decade.

Dr. Oscar Elias Bisect, a medical doctor, was fired from his job after protesting late-term abortions at a government hospital where he worked and continued to enrage the dictatorship by carrying protest signs charging the regime with being "child murderers." Dr. Biscet was sentenced to a three-year prison term for his activism. This culture of death was manifested on July 13, 1994, when agents of the regime massacred 41 men, women, and children whose sole crime was trying to flee the island.

Whole families were murdered. Agents of the Castro regime destroyed the parental rights of the fathers and mothers along with their lives, and the lives of their children, without mercy. In Dr. Fleming's rush to expose the shortcomings of American domestic and foreign policy, he has committed the error of whitewashing the last Stalinist dictatorship in the Western hemisphere.

        - John J. Suarez
          Coordinator Free Cuba Foundation
          Miami, FL

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2000/July/24/7/magazine/article/10828567/

Miami New Times, January 27, 2000

Elian: Cuba's Own Toy Story

Let's pause for a moment in the middle of this media circus surrounding the tragic situation of Elian and look at what life is like for children in Cuba, and the role the Cuban government plays in that.
In Cuba it is almost impossible for families without hard currency to buy toys and gifts for their children. Corriente Martiana, a Cuba-based civic organization, initiated a national and international campaign to collect toys and clothing to be distributed to the neediest children on the Day of the Three Wise Men, which traditionally falls on January 6.

If the Cuban government claims to have mobilized its people out of humanitarian concern that a boy be reunited with his father, then how can it explain the confiscation of toys obtained legally in Cuba for distribution to economically disadvantaged children?

On Saturday, January 8, Victor Rolando Arroyo's residence was searched by Cuban state security and 150 toys confiscated. He was immediately arrested. His home was being used as a distribution center in Pinar del Rio for the Three Wise Men project. He had already distributed more than 100 toys.

Arroyo was tried and sentenced to six months in prison for "hoarding toys."

We demand that justice be done, that an act of charity by people of goodwill on both sides of the Florida Straits not end in such an ugly manner. Free Arroyo and return the toys and clothing so they can be distributed to those in need.

John Suarez, coordinator
Free Cuba Foundation
Miami

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/letters-to-the-editor-6356900

Phyllis Schlafly, conservative activist and ally of free Cubans

Requiescat in pace

August 15, 1924 – September 5, 2016

Phyllis Schlafly, American constitutional lawyer, founder of the Eagle Forum, and a long time conservative political activist passed away yesterday at age 92. She was a conservative icon who strode across the political scene for more than sixty years shaking up the consensus on political, cultural and foreign policy questions that on more than one occasion altered the status quo. One constant theme that she touched on for five decades was her defense of a free Cuba.

On April 9, 2015 Phyllis Schlafly offered the following critical analysis of the Obama administration's new Cuba policy.

Without the approval of the American people or even of Congress, President Obama made the unilateral decision to normalize relations with Cuba. His decision is bad for freedom and an outright concession to Communist tyranny, for which we got absolutely nothing in return, either for ourselves or for the Cuban people.

America has always been the beacon of hope for oppressed people all over the world. Obama’s decision makes it look like we have abandoned our support and encouragement for freedom. Obama’s decision certainly does not support freedom. Instead, it rewards tyranny. Communist Cuba will not have to give up any of its dictatorial policies in order to be recognized by America.

This sends a bad message to the world. It appears to say that our new policy will be to help dictators even though they refuse to reform human rights. This decision is an offense to the Cuban people who have been hoping that their country, with America’s help, will one day be free. Alas, Obama’s decision financially supports the current Communist dictatorship and gives it access to American dollars and economic aid without any concessions whatsoever for freedom.

We could have demanded, for example, free speech, the legalization of other political parties, and the immediate stoppage of terrorist activities. This decision was made by Obama unilaterally without any discussion or debate by Congress. This decision is bad for America, bad for Cuba, and bad for freedom all over the world. It is inconsistent with American principles and policies.

On the Cuba question Phyllis Schlafly was always ahead of the curve foreseeing how U.S. policy would perpetuate the Castro regime.  At the same time she was calling for a policy of liberation in Cuba. Following the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis she observed that “Cuba is now the headquarters of the Communist conspiracy in the Western hemisphere... Our policy should be to liberate Cuba." In 1964 Phyllis looked back at the legacy of the Kennedy Administration taking it to task for capitulating to the Soviet Union and abandoning the goal of a free Cuba:

"the Kennedy administration presented the Cuban crisis to the American people as a great victory and as evidence that we made Khrushchev back down! - whereas the truth is that the deal was a defeat for the United States, binding us to give up our bases in Turkey and Italy, guarantee Castro against any invasion, and accept Khrushchev’s word on how many missiles he withdrew."

When the mainstream media was demonizing Cuban American during the Elian affair in 2000 Phyllis Schlafly acknowledged the mother's sacrifice for her son to live in freedom and made the case as follows:

The mother of six-year-old Elian Gonzalez sacrificed her life so that her son could grow up in America. Her dying wish, according to a Cuban man who survived for two days on an inner tube, was that Elian could reach the United States and freedom. A reporter for the socialist Madrid newspaper El Pais investigated and learned that Elian's father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, had wanted Elian to go to America. Elian's relatives in Florida know very well that Elian is far better off in free America than in Communist Cuba where people are denied the everyday liberties we take for granted, including freedoms of speech, travel, and education.

One person, however, disagrees: Fidel Castro, whose apparatchiks no doubt "persuaded" Mr. Gonzalez to change his story. Elian's escape, like all defections, is an acute embarrassment to Castro. Communist suppression of the right to travel has long demonstrated the inhumanity of its system. The Berlin Wall, guarded by sharpshooters ordered to kill anyone who attempted to escape, symbolized the terror of Communism for an entire generation.

Flight that risks death constitutes the ultimate repudiation of Communist regimes and is often followed by vindictive attempts at retaliation by the humiliated dictator. KGB files newly opened to the West are full of examples.

[...]

Like all dictators, Castro is used to getting his way. He deliberately raised the political stakes of this controversy to the point where Elian Gonzalez is unlikely to have a normal life if he were returned to Cuba. The arguments about father's rights and family unity are phony when it comes to Elian's predicament. If U.S. authorities send Elian back to Cuba, it won't be to Elian's father; it will mean sending him back to be paraded around as a Castro trophy and raised, perhaps in a daycare center, to be a good Communist. The only persons the United States has forcibly returned to Cuba are criminals, and Elian surely is not a criminal. Does anyone believe that, if Elian's mother had died in the act of throwing her son over the Berlin Wall that we would have forcibly returned her boy to East Germany?

The mystery is why Clinton has sided with Castro. Perhaps his corporate friends are salivating over the potential for investments in tourism, gambling and other industries in Cuba where forty years of Communism have depressed the economy to the point where the ultimate luxury is a 1956 Chevrolet. Perhaps the Clinton Administration considers deporting Elian as necessary to appease Castro and facilitate open trade relations. Based on Clinton's policies toward Communist China, "follow the money" is usually a good explanation of his foreign policy. 

The first time I saw Phyllis Schlafly was at Florida International University on January 29, 1988 was when she was debating Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who defended "Jane Roe" pseudonym for Norma Leah McCorvey in the case that legalized abortion in the United States: Roe versus Wade. 
Schlafly was brilliant in her defense of the pro-life issue and leftists in the audience hated her with a passion.

Five years later in 1993, as president of Young Americans for Freedom at FIU successfully lobbied student activities to bring Phyllis Schlafly to speak at Florida International University. FIU Yafers took her out to dinner prior to the lecture. At the university lecture itself, I had the honor of introducing the conservative icon. She was a gracious guest and delivered an excellent lecture.

Years later met Phyllis Schlafly once again at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington DC she signed a copy of her book, A Choice Not an Echo and was once again friendly and approachable.  Over the internet, all kinds of leftists are slandering and libeling this great lady now that she cannot defend herself, but we Cuban Americans should honor her not only for her patriotic defense of America but also for her steadfast truth telling on Cuba and advocacy for Cuban freedom.

FIU YAF founder Craig Herrero, Phyllis Schlafly, Cesar Vasquez, John Suarez (1993)