Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Friday, April 7, 2000Elian must be reunited
with his father soonNOW that Elian Gonzalez's father has come to the United States, it would be unconscionable for his Cuban-American relatives to obstruct the boy's reunion with the father. But it appears that they will do just that.The issue: Elian Gonzalez's father has arrived in the United States from Cuba to join his son.
Juan Miguel Gonzalez arrived in Washington yesterday and, as would be expected of any father, said he hoped that he "will soon be able to embrace my son." They have been separated since Elian left Cuba with his mother last November on a boat bound for Florida, a voyage that ended with Elian's rescue while his mother and 10 others drowned.
As the father said, his son had been forced to live for 137 days with "some distant relatives who had never seen him before."
The 6-year-old has become a political pawn in the conflict between Fidel Castro and his opponents in the Cuban-American community, most of whom are refugees from Castro's Cuba and cannot abide the thought that Elian may be taken back there.
Government talks with the Miami relatives broke down yesterday. To entice the relatives to give up the boy, officials offered assurances that Juan Miguel and the boy would remain in this country until a federal appeals court rules on the case, probably in late May.
The government has oral assurances but no written promise from the father that he will stay in this country with Elian until the appeal is completed. However, officials noted the government could prevent Elian from leaving, if necessary. This assurance should be sufficient.
But the relatives, bolstered by boisterous support by the Cuban-American community, are adamant in their refusal to give up the boy, which could mean that the government might have to resort to force to effect the turnover. That would be most unfortunate, but the government cannot ignore defiance of the law.
A decision by the father to bring Elian back to Cuba would be a propaganda victory for Castro. But neither that consideration nor the vehement demands of the Cuban Americans should dictate the government's decision as to who should be awarded custody.
As for the question of remaining in the United States or returning to Cuba, that must be the father's choice, although we agree he would be better off in this country.
This is a little boy who has lost his mother and whose father has now come to claim him. It is cruel for anyone to stand in his way.
Issues in Rice ruling
must be resolvedHAROLD "Freddy" Rice and the state have agreed that U.S. District Judge David Ezra should bring Rice's lawsuit to an end by entering the U.S. Supreme Court's judgment. The agreement moves related issues to the state Supreme Court.
Governor Cayetano has asked the state court to rule on the status of Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees who were elected under a system that has been found to be unconstitutional. The court should be asked further whether non-Hawaiians may run for trusteeships.
OHA Chairman Clayton Hee has expressed concern that others may ask Ezra to broaden the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in February that the voting restriction for OHA trusteeships to native Hawaiians violated the Fifteenth Amendment guarantee of nondiscrimination at the polls. Rice's lawsuit dealt only with the voting restriction. Peripheral issues should be decided apart from the Rice lawsuit.
However, questions about the status of current trustees and the racial restriction of trustee candidates are directly related to the Rice decision. The unconstitutionality of the process resulting in the election of current trustees should make those elections void.
Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in the majority opinion in the Rice case that "race cannot qualify some and disqualify others from full participation in our democracy."
Although the ruling pertained only to voting, it cannot be ignored in determining whether the racial discrimination that was ordered removed from voting requirements could be included as a qualification for candidates. The state Supreme Court should be called upon to make that interpretation and avoid a costly and potentially lengthy legal battle with a predictable outcome.
Rice and Cayetano have properly asked Ezra to simply enter the Supreme Court's reversal of Ezra's initial decision against Rice. The state Supreme Court should decide the immediate consequences of that decision beyond simply opening the OHA voting booth to all races.
Holo I Mua
The Star-Bulletin gathered 10 Hawaiian
Hawaiian Roundtable
leaders for a timely dialogue about what's next for
Hawaiians in the wake of Rice vs. Cayetano.Representing various views within the Hawaiian
community, the participants were provocative and
candid during a 90-minute discussion on March 13, 2000.To read a full transcript of the discussion, Click Here
You can also hear the audio recording of the discussion as well as view a panoramic photo of the participants.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
