Luis, I don't give a rat's a$$ about yesterday or yesteryear in Cuba.
Yet here you are posting this article.
Kidnapping a child whose father wants him returned home, just because 'you' want him to grow up in the United States is what's naive.
Who "kidnapped" a child exactly?
What I meant was that now that The Great One has normalized relations with Cuba, that perhaps he will be able to visit the USA and/or live here.
English is a second language to me, so I often misunderstand things that other say. You're saying that this:
"Now that he's 21, he can make his own decision on where he wants to spend the rest of his life."... is the same as this:
What I meant was that now that The Great One has normalized relations with Cuba, that perhaps he will be able to visit the USA and/or live here.I can tell you, with no doubt, that NO ONE is allowed to leave Cuba without permission from the government, under any circumstances, and for no reason. What Obama has done here has changed nothing in Cuba or for Cubans who want to travel or leave the Island.
The Castro brothers aren't going to live forever.
The next ones in charge don't seem any less eager to treat Cuba as their private plantation.
And your speculation is no damned different than mine regarding Elian's father's statements regarding the issue at the time.
I made no speculations. I speak from a point of knowledge.
I live in a country founded on the lofty and noble idea that "all men are
created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I think all people are born with their own individual and independent right to be free, and that has Justice been delivered in Elian's case, with "justice" being defied as it was by the Institutes of Justinian over 2,000 years ago and as it is felt and understood by all who understand human relations and human rights, is--
"Constans et perpetua voluntas, jus suum cuique tribuendi.""The constant and perpetual will to secure to every one HIS OWN right."
Elian's OWN right demanded that his inalienable right to Liberty be secured by our government, and it wasn't.
You think that inalienable rights can be modified by legal code, and people aren't necessarily "born" with rights. They only have them when the government says that they are adults.
His custodial parent died trying to bring him to freedom and a better life.
I "side" with her.
His out of wedlock father, whose real opinion on the subject we may never know, and the Clinton/Reno cabal whose illegal seizure of Elian despite a ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that essentially said that since the INS had already designated the boy’s Miami family as his guardian–and they requested political asylum on his behalf–the INS can’t just arbitrarily remove guardianship. By taking the boy away from his guardians without a court order–again, at gunpoint on the Saturday before Easter–the Justice Department (via INS) was violating the 11th Circuit Court’s order and thus should have been held in contempt of court was roundly criticized by most American Constitutional experts, including Laurence Tribe, worked hard to return him to a country were no one's rights are respected.
You side with them.
We understand each other.
"Under the Constitution, it is axiomatic that the executive branch has no unilateral authority to enter people's homes forcibly to remove innocent individuals without taking the time to seek a warrant or other order from a judge or magistrate (absent the most extraordinary need to act). Not only the Fourth Amendment but also well-established constitutional principles of family privacy require that the disinterested judiciary test the correctness of the executive branch's claimed right to enter and seize.
Although a federal court had ordered that Elian not be removed from the country pending a determination of his asylum petition, and although a court had ruled that the Immigration and Naturalization Service could exercise custody and control of Elian for the time being, no judge or neutral magistrate had issued the type of warrant or other authority needed for the executive branch to break into the home to seize the child. The agency had no more right to do so than any parent who has been awarded custody would have a right to break and enter for such a purpose. Indeed, the I.N.S. had not even secured a judicial order, as opposed to a judicially unreviewed administrative one, compelling the Miami relatives to turn Elian over." - Laurence Tribe
I seem to recall much criticism about Obama's unconstitutional power grabs and his over reach of Executive powers.
But you cheer Clinton doing the same?
This incident had nothing to do with "father's rights", Elian's parents never married and out-of-wedlock fathers have few (if any) rights under Florida law, certainly none under Federal law.This was an immigration case, and immigration law was on Elian's side.
