By Mari Watanabe
Matt Moreles (“Freedom at heart of Elian issue,”
Viewpoint, May 10) failed to notice that individual rights cannot
be a reason for allowing Elian to stay in the United States and
that this country’s self-imposed role as a guardian of
freedom is imperfect in protecting freedom for each individual.
Moreles argues that we should allow Elian to stay in the United
States to save him from collectivist Cuba, based on individual
rights. Suppose the Cuban system is a suppressive and undesirable
country for a person to live in. Fine, but we should admit that our
system, which is supposed to respect individual rights, is not free
from defects either.
According to Moreles, Elian has can make the decision on his
own. I doubt this, not only because Elian, as a 6-year-old boy, may
be too young to make such a decision, but also because most of the
juvenile laws in this country do not impose responsibility on
children who are significantly older than Elian. These laws support
the belief that children are not competent to make important
decisions on their own, and this is one of the reasons why the U.S.
government’s decision to give Elian’s father custody
can be justified.
While they recognize that the government’s decision was
logical, many people were deeply shocked by the means that were
employed to separate Elian from his Miami relatives. I personally
think the government could have better managed the issue before it
became so politicized.
In the meantime, however, I still think there was no choice but
to give Elian back to his father, by a strict interpretation of
individual rights. This is because no matter how universally
recognized the value of individual freedom may be, no state ““
even the United States ““ can avoid any dilemma when it comes
to reconciling the ideas of individual freedom and protection.
First off, people are not always wise enough to make decisions
for themselves. If we were all rational, prudent people who took
every factor into account in making decisions, the government might
as well make a lot of exceptions in laws in order to better support
our decisions.
But unfortunately, as has already been proven through media
coverage, neither the emotional statements made by the Miami
relatives, nor the positions of political figures in trying to take
advantage of this case have been consistent. This shows that the
best choice the government can make is to strictly enforce the rule
of law.
The issue of the rule of law leads to the second dilemma for the
government.
In using legitimate forms of violence based on a strict
interpretation of the law, the government has to infringe on the
individual rights of a person in order to protect those of
others.
So, the government cannot protect the rights of every
individual.
In Elian’s case, the clear reasons he cannot stay in the
United States is that he is not a U.S. citizen. Citizenship gives a
person various rights, and he or she performs certain duties at the
same time.
One problem the case suggests is that if Elian was allowed to
stay, it would be hard to answer to the question of repelling other
illegal immigrants.
Another problem is that illegal immigrants are free riders in
the use of public resources that are subsidized by taxpaying
citizens. They do not pay taxes, and therefore they are not given
the rights that are given to citizens.
But they do have the individual right to escape from the country
they seek to emigrate from. Wouldn’t it be a double standard
if Elian could stay in the United States while other immigrants
couldn’t?
I am not perfectly sure which country, the United States or
Cuba, is the best place for Elian’s well-being. Nevertheless,
I do think the decision was the best that government leaders could
have made as administrators of law ““ as long as we expect our
leaders to support the idea of individual freedom even while they
recognize the dilemmas inherent in it.