Stupidity explosion on Twitter yesterday, a social media platform famous for them.

It seems that former President Bill Clinton politicized Father's Day by criticizing the Trump administration for separating children from their families.

So, how did Trump's supporters respond? By invoking Elian Gonzalez as an example of Bill Clinton separating a child from his family.

There are plenty of things you could attack Bill Clinton with, even making inferences about his parenting skills if you want to tie it into the Father's Day theme. But returning a child being unlawfully detained to his only living parent is not one of them.

This is the piece I've been waiting for -- with all the nuances -- on the sickening issue of children being separated from their parents (who illegally entered the country). By @IlyaSomin at @Reason

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/17/enforcing-the-law-cannot-justify-forcibl

n sum, no law requires the administration's policy, and it is highly unlikely that legal considerations are the true motives for it. But even if the law really did mandate the family separation policy, and legal reform were politically infeasible, that still would not be enough to justify family separation.

I agree. Send the entire family back immediately when caught.

I agree. Send the entire family back immediately when caught. ~ Cousin Dave at June 18, 2018 6:27 AM

When I first moved to California, it was the Clinton Administration. I worked for a bank and sat in a management cubicle adjoining the workspace of three women, two of them immigrants.

The women handled paperwork and treated their workspace as a kaffeeklatsch, filling the day with discussions on many subjects, mostly whatever was in the news that day. I used to listen in and sometimes throw something over the wall for them to chew on. The subject of illegal immigration came up (yes, we've been discussing it for that long).

The two immigrant women, one Dutch and one Japanese, had zero sympathy for illegal immigrants, amnesty, even most claims for asylum. And they refused to call illegal immigrants "undocumented" - as if their non-citizen status was merely a matter of some lost paperwork.

That reason article certainly shows a lack of it. Yes there is no law requiring families to be separated. But changing that policy does require enacting a new law. Essentially judges have ruled you can't keep these kids in jail for more than 20 days. And you can't keep them in the same jail their parents are typically sent to. At the same time asylum cases take years to resolve. The judges thought they were being slick and could force the cases of immigrants with kids to the front of the line and get them into the US faster. But things didn't work out that way. Instead the kids get separated from their parents and placed in group homes that don't technically qualify as prisons.

This situation is entirely the fault of 'pro immigrant' judges. And no it is not a new policy Trump and Sessions came up with. This practice is well over a decade old. The people at reason should show some reasoning and suggest how they think these families should be kept together since they find this policy so odious. Mind the families will be reunited as soon as the parents give up their asylum claims and accept deportation.

But returning a child being unlawfully detained to his only living parent is not one of them.

No. It's that famous picture of an agent of the state pointing an MP-5 submachine gun at Elian's head, who looks to be in mortal terror.

Not to mention that returning Elian meant returning him to the tender mercies of the Castro Brothers, since the State is your father.

Mass shooting this weekend in New Jersey. Did you hear about it? or was it scrubbed from your news feeds?

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/06/art_all_night_trenton_shooting.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured

Remember: Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.

https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/332494589934047234?lang=en

Wait...free speech for thee, but not me? it's not like he made a major disruption...

“Whoever the low life scum bag who thinks it’s ok to post their political views at a Broadway show and disrespect everyone there who paid to watch a show that is ALL ABOUT INCLUSION was thankfully removed from the theater Saturday night,” Strumwasser wrote Sunday on Instagam.

https://nypost.com/2018/06/18/trump-supporter-disrupts-de-niros-play-with-keep-america-great-flag/

For Patrick: Mizzou is still having problems related to the 2015 student revolt on campus.

White students were harassed, threatened and intimidated. The resulting bad press led to a 35% decline in freshman enrollment and a loss of tens of millions of dollars in revenue.

It hasn't gotten any better since then.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/u-of-missouri-continues-to-bleed-students-and-money-after-2015-protests/

Heh.

https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/1008346480191688704

Uh huh.

https://twitter.com/theslumflower/status/1008428272663883777

I R A Darth Aggie: No. It's that famous picture of an agent of the state pointing an MP-5 submachine gun at Elian's head, who looks to be in mortal terror.

I just turned up the Harsh-o-matic to 12, and the dial only goes to 10.

You want to know who to blame for the SWAT response?

The Miami Gonzalezes. They sought to attain asylum for Elian, and the court, quite reasonably, concluded that only Elian's father could ask for asylum on Elian's behalf. The appellate court upheld the decision and the Supreme Court denied cert, which means that the appellate court's decision stands as final. Reno gave them a reasonable deadline to surrender Elian. They Miami Gonzalezes not only refused, but Marisleysis, a delusional, emotionally unstable woman who imagined herself to be Elian's adoptive mother, threated the Justice Department.

"You think we just have cameras in the house? If people try to come in, they could be hurt."

Turns out there were no weapons and she was bluffing, but guess what? The Justice Department has to take these threats seriously.

I have absolutely no sympathy for those sick fucks in Miami who tried to steal a child from his own father. The child belongs with his parent. Not some distant relatives he's never even met who were feeding the child lies about his father and tried to detain him, not only against his father's wishes, but Elian's own wishes.

With the arrogance of the state of Cuba that you so vehemently denounce, they thought of no one but themselves and decided they knew what was best for everyone.

They didn't give a flying fuck about Elian's own desires, or the desires of his father (and they're supposed to be his family). And before you start blathering about what a great life Elian might have had in the U.S., go pay a visit to Little Havana someday, and tell me what a paradise it is.

I don't mind adding that I think it's disgusting that you would even consider taking a child from his own natural father. Because unless you can prove that Juan Miguel would make a terrible father, he has the right to his own child. And fuck the Miami Gonzalezes.

If you want someone to blame for the show of force used to take Elian (which was done without loss of life or even serious injury to anyone), blame them. They chose to kidnap a child in defiance of international law, agreements between Cuba and the U.S., and court orders.

I wouldn't have shed a tear if a single one them had gotten hurt or even killed, including Donato Darymple, the histrionic busybody who rescued Elian from the water (along with his cousin) and chose to inject himself into their lives, looking for his 15 minutes of fame, to the disgust of his own family. There is no penalty harsh enough for someone who kidnaps a child.

I feel like a lot of what we’re struggling with under Trumpism is that before him, everything was “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Now it’s full-frontal exposure of every damn thing we’ve been ignoring or managing quietly for the past 50 years.

https://twitter.com/arttavana/status/1008547923431342080

Shhh!

If the boy crisis were a girl crisis of these proportions, a national emergency would be declared. This book should be read without gender prejudice at the highest policy levels.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-the-male-crisis-thats-ruining-our-boys-and-no-one-cares-about

Hillary Clinton says climate change is sexist because

you wimmens gone have to do the hunting in our dystopian future.

Stupidity at its finest.

https://twitter.com/QuantumTakes/status/1008528123523158016

Law of SJWs #2: SJWs always double down.

> Law of SJWs #2: SJWs always double down.

It's a strategy that generally works.

Because unless you can prove that Juan Miguel would make a terrible father, he has the right to his own child.

His fitness as a parent was immaterial, as the Cuban government will tell you that children there belong to the state.

Meanwhile, I'm detecting crocodile tears.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/299711/

Of course, Joy Reid is just a terribull person.

Instead the kids get separated from their parents and placed in group homes that don't technically qualify as prisons. ~ Ben at June 18, 2018 6:53 AM

The manufactured furor over this is serving more to obscure the truth than expose it.

As I understand it, this stems mostly from a change in the nature and composition of illegal immigration. For a long time, illegal immigration to the US was mostly young men and our laws were written for that.

Then, women began making the crossing. And they often brought their children with them. Illegal immigrants soon discovered the presence of children greased the skids for entry, adults with children being released into society to await their deportation hearing - and often disappearing once so released. As a result, illegal immigrants began bringing children with them, theirs or someone else's.

The Trump Administration, however, stopped the practice of releasing adults with children, preferring to detain all illegal immigrants as a message of zero tolerance for breaking US immigration laws.

Immigrants suspected of illegal entry are turned over to the US Marshalls to await trial. The Marshall Service does not take care of children in any case, instead turning them over to HHS.

The Flores Consent Decree of 1997 said that unaccompanied minors can only be held for 20 days. After a surge of families from Central America began arriving at the United States’ southwestern border in 2014, the Obama administration opened family detention centers. That prompted more lawsuits, which argued that doing so had breached the Flores settlement by not releasing children swiftly.

In 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court expanded Flores to include minors crossing over accompanied by adults but overturned a Federal District Court’s decision that the government must also release the parents.

The Trump Administration decided on a zero-tolerance policy for illegal immigration, preferring to adjudicate each adult, rather than just the childless ones - resulting in the expanded detention of the minors they brought with them.

Asylum hearings can take years to adjudicate and the Flores clock would run out long before the hearing was resolved, so separation and detention was the only alternative short of opening the borders to all crossers with children.

Trump is wrong about many things on this - mistaken or intentionally lying is up to each individual to decide - but he's right about one thing. Congress can fix this, either with more money for more family detention facilities or a new, perhaps comprehensive, immigration law that abrogates Flores and speeds up the asylum hearing process.

========================================

As for "Illegal Elian," his mother drowned trying to get him into the US. As a result, his only remaining parental relative was his Cuban father. However, his mother's desires were clear - to get her son to the US. That is the desire seized upon by the paternal relatives who wanted to keep him in the US.

The whole thing should have been resolved without an armed BORAC raid, but both sides were intransigent and duplicitous in negotiating a settlement.

Elian's choice - one freely made by him - should have been the guidepost in this, but everyone was too busy arguing over him to ask him what he wanted. A seven-year-old boy should never have been made the pawn in an international game of chicken.

This was just one more example of Janet Reno's heavy-handed incompetence.

Conan: Elian's choice - one freely made by him - should have been the guidepost in this, but everyone was too busy arguing over him to ask him what he wanted.

Well, no. Even though, by your standards, I would have won the argument, since Elián González has stated that he told the Miami Gonzálezes repeatedly that he wished to go home to his father, the guidepost is not Elián's preference.

If you let seven-year-olds make decisions as to how adults should care for them, parents would be eating chocolate candy for dinner every night.

First, Juan Miguel was in no position to ask his son what he wanted.

Then there is the matter of international law, the rights of the parent and the wet-feet/dry-feet agreement that the U.S. had with Cuba up until the end of the Obama administration.

Then there is also the matter of the suitability of Juan Miguel's Miami-based relatives to care for a seven-year-old. Given Marisleysis's emotional instability, the question of whether she should be, as she considered herself, Elián's adoptive mother, should be answered with a resounding "No!"

If Elián's preference were to remain in the care of this woman, I would strenuously object. She is not fit to be a mother to anyone. And their conduct since this incident only confirms their unfitness to care for a child. Marisleysis did not hestitate to devolve into histrionics, depicting herself as a martyr fighting for the welfare of an innocent little boy, insisting that they would have died if they refused to give up the little boy. (Doubtful, since the agents never fired a single shot, but successfully employed massive amounts of pepper spray. I'm sure the same tactic would have kept the Miami Gonzalezes at by if they got a little too frisky.)

She also didn't hesitate to lie about what Elian wanted. According to Elián himself, they were feeding him lies about his father (their cousin) and Marisleysis claimed that when Elián was told his father was coming, "All he asks me is 'Please don't let them take me.'"

Elián claims that's a lie, and has also stated that the only way he'd be willing to reconcile with the Miami Gonzálezes is if they admit they were wrong.

That doesn't sound like Elián was ever comfortable with them.

They even resorted to coaching him in videos to say that he didn't want to go back to Cuba. This is all according to Elián himself.

Given what we know about the Gonzalezes (and Darymple, who isn't related, but injected himself into their lives seeking his 15 minutes of fame, calling himself Elián's "savior" and "spiritual father"), I wouldn't be okay with letting Elián's preference rule the day if he decided he didn't want to go home.

We don't get to decide to say "Fuck the rights of fathers," when they live in countries with systems of government we don't like. We either stand for parental rights, or we do not. If the people of Cuba were all starving to death and Juan Miguel had no hope of being able to provide for Elián, then we might call into question his ability to properly care for Elián. But that isn't the case; Juan Miguel actually has a very good job.

Then there is the matter of the wet feet/dry feet policy we have with Cuba. Elián was plucked from the ocean and given to the Coast Guard, meaning he has wet feet, which means he goes back. (Ironically, had Darymple taken Elián to shore himself, instead of giving him to the Coast Guard, Elián might have met the "dry feet" requirement.)

It's a very charming, if extremely naïve position you have, Conan. The idea that you would seriously consider violating agreements with a neighboring country less than three hundred miles from the U.S., breaking international law, and flip the double-bird to parental rights, all to accommodate the preferences of a seven-year-old boy (who had just lost his mother, was living in a strange country and was in the process of being brainwashed by very unstable distant relatives that Elián had never even met) is just … too fairy tale.

But thankfully, even if Elián's desires were the deciding factor, the outcome would have remained the same. That is, assuming that the Gonzálezes even allowed Elián to state his preference without their undue and unethical influence.

I'd be curious as to how you think Elián's deliverance would have been accomplished without the show of force. Your hatred of Reno has colored your perspective. And again, I must point out, Marisleysis must take sole blame for that. Not Reno. Not Clinton. Marisleysis. She could have recognized that she went to court and lost, and given up the child to her cousin without fuss, but instead, she threatened the Justice Department.

You condemn Reno, but I'll remind you that they accomplished the rescue with no loss of life and no serious injury to anyone.

Maybe you think they should have just stalked her for weeks on end, biding their time, and then abducted Elián from her clutches. Maybe that would have worked. And maybe Elián might have come to harm in the meantime.

I view the Miami Gonzálezes as completely disgusting people. "Sorry, cuz, but we think your son is better off here, and Marisleysis wants to play mommy, so we're keeping him for ourselves and you're never going to see him again."

The guidepost -- if we're going to say "Fuck the law, fuck the courts, fuck international agreements, and fuck parental rights," as you seem to think we should have -- should come down to the suitability of both families to care for a small child.

And that also would have undoubtedly resulted in Elián's return to Cuba.

If you let seven-year-olds make decisions as to how adults should care for them, parents would be eating chocolate candy for dinner every night. ~ Patrick at June 18, 2018 4:14 PM

I said guidepost, not hitching post. He was 7. I am, in no way, suggesting that the wishes of a seven-year-old trump international agreements, common sense, or established law and custom.

I view the Miami Gonzálezes as completely disgusting people. ~ Patrick at June 18, 2018 4:14 PM

You've already made your hostility to Cuban-Americans well known many times on this blog, so you'll excuse me if I don't share your disgust at the people who were trying to prevent a family member from being extradited to a socialist dictatorship, even if his father did live there and had a good Party job.

His mother risked his (and her own) life to get him to the US. Her desires should also have carried some weight in the final decision.

There may have been no reason to suspect Juan of being a bad father, but courts have considered additional factors in determining custody in the past. And Elian did have family in America that wanted him and was willing (and able) to take care of him.

You condemn Reno, but I'll remind you that they accomplished the rescue with no loss of life and no serious injury to anyone. ~ Patrick at June 18, 2018 4:14 PM

The lack of violence was not due to Reno, but to restraint shown by the personnel on the BORAC unit.

Reno's record is full of contradictions. Just ask Francisco Fuster about her respect for the law. And the Branch Davidians could tell you a little about her propensity for non-violence.

...all to accommodate the preferences of a seven-year-old boy (who had just lost his mother, was living in a strange country and was in the process of being brainwashed by very unstable distant relatives that Elián had never even met) is just … too fairy tale. ~ Patrick at June 18, 2018 4:14 PM

Brainwashed? Unstable? Really. Hyperbole much?

Let's see, a seven-year-old who'd just lost his mother after a harrowing escape was living in a strange country with distant relatives he'd only just met and was asked what he wanted - of course he wanted something familiar like his father. He was seven!

Even so, I think his preferences should have had some influence in the determination of his fate. Judges determining custody have been known to ask the children if they have a preference and weigh that preference in their decision.

Then there is the matter of the wet feet/dry feet policy we have with Cuba. ~ Patrick at June 18, 2018 4:14 PM

I lived 15+ years in Florida, Patrick. I'm well-acquainted with the wet feet / dry feet rule. And, yes, had Elian been brought to shore, he'd have had dry feet and his Miami relatives a better argument that he should be allowed to stay.

Your hatred of Reno has colored your perspective. ~ Patrick at June 18, 2018 4:14 PM

I have no hatred of Janet Reno. I have said, in the past, that she was the worst Attorney General we've had in modern times and I've backed that assessment up with arguments and facts. Despite that judgement, I don't hate her. In fact, I have no personal feelings about her whatsoever.

The guidepost -- if we're going to say "Fuck the law, fuck the courts, fuck international agreements, and fuck parental rights," as you seem to think we should have -- should come down to the suitability of both families to care for a small child. ~ Patrick at June 18, 2018 4:14 PM

And both families were suitable for him and willing to care for him. In the end, he was returned to a socialist dictatorship to live with his father. And that was probably the right decision, though problematic for a variety of reasons.

Conan:

I said guidepost, not hitching post. He was 7. I am, in no way, suggesting that the wishes of a seven-year-old trump international agreements, common sense, or established law and custom.

Glad and relieved to hear that.

You've already made your hostility to Cuban-Americans well known many times on this blog, so you'll excuse me if I don't share your disgust at the people who were trying to prevent a family member from being extradited to a socialist dictatorship, even if his father did live there and had a good Party job.

No, I've never made my soi-disant hostility to Cuban Americans plain on this blog, since I don't have any. I've visited Florida since childhood, and lived here for the past 19 years. I actually know some Cuban-Americans. I prefer foreigners who try to assimilate, not those who isolate, then demand that U.S. be adjusted for what they're used to in whatever country they come from.

You want to live in a foreign country, your first order of business is making sure you're a productive citizen; part of that is learning the language and customs, not demanding a whole segregated community to adjusted to your languages and customs.

And I actually know a good number of Cuban Americans, including one unfortunate friend of mine who is a doctor in his country, but doesn't even qualify to be a medical assistant in this country. In discussion this with him, I speculated how much training it would take to make a qualified physician in his country into a qualified physician in this country.

It would be nice (and beneficial for both him and the U.S.) if some such program were in place.

If I decided to move to Japan, I would certainly make an effort to adapt, not insist they set aside a special community for me.

There is a difference in asking for accommodations to help you learn to assimilate and insisting that an entire community be set aside to do things your way, because fuck the customs and traditions of the country you've moved to. I'm in favor of the former, not the latter.

Now that I've clarified my position on the smear you unjustly laid upon me, let's get one thing perfectly clear: the Miami Gonzálezes were not family to Elián; the two camps were total strangers to one another.

You might have obscure relatives that you've never met; they ain't family. You might have blood-ties to them, but there was no interaction at all as you grew up. They don't even know you.

His mother risked his (and her own) life to get him to the US. Her desires should also have carried some weight in the final decision.

Disagree completely. She absconded to the U.S. with the intent of depriving his father even visitation with his own son. And Elián obviously loved his father. She gave no consideration whatsoever to the desires of her own son.

Kind of strange that you think so much consideration should be given to what Elián wants, yet you side with the woman who had no consideration whatsoever for his wants.

"Yes, Mommy knows you love your daddy, but I want to live in the U.S. and I'm going to risk your life to make sure you join me as I cross over 250 miles over shark-infested waters to bring you with me, so fuck your desires, honey. You're never seeing your father again."

Sounds like Mom-of-the-Year material to me.

She intended to deprive a father of his rights to his own son, to say nothing of Elián's desires. Her wants mean jack and shit and Jack just left town.

Conan:

Brainwashed? Unstable? Really. Hyperbole much?

No, not at all. Ignore the facts of the case much? Yeah, I think you do.

In Elián's own words, they told him lies about his own father. You keep insisting that you care so much about Elián's desires. I don't see it.

Elián has just lost his mother and is now staying in a foreign country with total strangers who are feeding him lies about his own father that, by all accounts, Elián adores. I view that as sick, cruel and child abuse.

Nothing escaped Marisleysis's self-serving reprogramming of Elián. Even when giving him something as simple as chocolate milk, she took the opportunity to turn Elián against his home. Telling him that he should want to stay in the U.S. because they don't have a wonderful treat like chocolate milk in Cuba.

(Psst. Yeah, they have chocolate milk in Cuba. Marisleysis can't tell the truth about anything.)

And then there is this freak Donato Darymple who was constantly hanging around. He is one of two fishermen who plucked Elián from the ocean and gave him to the Coast Guard. He called himself Elián's "savior," strangely, never his rescuer. And insisted that Elián was his "spiritual son."

He also announced that he fully intended that he would stay involved in Elián's life, even if Elián were returned to Cuba. That he and Elián now have a special bond that Juan Miguel should respect.

Darymple had never met Elián's Miami-based relatives prior to this, but to the disgust of Darymple's cousin (who had jointly rescued Elián from the sea with Darymple) and Darymple's own mother and sister, Darymple inserted himself into the lives of this family. All three agreed that Darymple's involvement was entirely self-serving. Seeking his own fifteen minutes of fame.

And when you consider that Darymple's own brother was sent to prison for beating his son to death ... well, is Darymple setting off some red flags for you yet? Any reservations at all about him being around Elián?

Let's not forget that Darymple's been married to three different women, one of whom he married twice, never had children and has a history of domestic abuse...

Doesn't seem at all odd to you that Darymple is injecting himself into the lives of this family? Doesn't it concern you at all that they're letting him hang around?

So, no, there's no hyperbole at all. Or even exaggeration. Elián's Miami based relatives are fifty types of batshit crazy. Surely Marisleysis's own histrionics and lies during interviews following Elián's return to Cuba should have clued you into that fact.

And both families were suitable for him...

Nope.

Nothing escaped Marisleysis's self-serving reprogramming of Elián. Even when giving him something as simple as chocolate milk, she took the opportunity to turn Elián against his home. Telling him that he should want to stay in the U.S. because they don't have a wonderful treat like chocolate milk in Cuba. [...] (Psst. Yeah, they have chocolate milk in Cuba. Marisleysis can't tell the truth about anything.) ~ Patrick at June 18, 2018 7:27 PM

I went back and read a few articles archived about that era and they don't show her "programming" Elian with threats of a chocolate milk shortage.

I did, however, come across a Time story that Fidel Castro pushed "chocolatin," a powdered chocolate milk drink to Cuban children, beginning in 2005 and that milk was rationed in Cuba for children over the age of 7 at the time of the Elian Gonzalez saga. So, Marisleysis may have been right and there may not have been much milk, chocolate or otherwise, for Cuban children over the age of 7 at that time.

The only people who "programmed" Elian were the Cubans. He now blames the US sanctions for his mother's death and says he considers Fidel Castro, brutal dictator of Cuba, as a good person and a friend, addressing him as "Grandpa Fidel."

She absconded to the U.S. with the intent of depriving his father even visitation with his own son. And Elián obviously loved his father. She gave no consideration whatsoever to the desires of her own son. ~ Patrick at June 18, 2018 7:27 PM

Well, in an interview at the height of the controversy, Juan Miguel told reporters that Elizabeth love Elian very much and was a good mother. That doesn't sound like the anguish of a man whose wife "absconded" with his child with the "intent of depriving his father of even visitation with his own son."

But you go ahead and interpret these things with the meanest possible coloring that makes the Miami family (yes, family) look like monsters. You've been highly emotional about this in previous posts - it's almost like it's personal to you.

No, I've never made my soi-disant hostility to Cuban Americans plain on this blog, since I don't have any. [...] Now that I've clarified my position on the smear you unjustly laid upon me, ~ Patrick at June 18, 2018 7:27 PM

Unjustly? Smear?

In one of this blog's prior threads about a US election - I forget which one and I was not able to look it up - you made several disparagingly ugly remarks about Cuban-Americans in Florida. I believe the majority of them were supporting a ticket you loathed - McCain-Palin, if memory serves.

What's more, your earlier diatribe defending yourself from claims of prejudice against Cuban-Americans simply reeked of hostility toward them.

Nonetheless, I agree with you about assimilating into a country to which you freely emigrate. Although one can argue that the Cubans did not "freely" emigrate from a revolution which gleefully put its enemies, real and imagined, to death (see Guevara, Che and La Cabaña prison).

And then there is this freak Donato Darymple who was constantly hanging around. ~ Patrick at June 18, 2018 7:27 PM

He was never in any of the comments I made - I basically ignored him and his role in this.

Donato is apparently, when viewed through the lens of later interviews with him, an evangelical Christian type who thanks God for everything and believes God guides his life and "destiny" - and that God guided him to go fishing in bad weather that day and find Elian. Hmmm, that's just the kind of person about whom you are usually so warm and kind-hearted.

Donato's weird, so I'll give you "freak," but I don't believe he had any hostile intent toward Elian. I think he was caught up in a situation for which he was unprepared to deal - one not covered in his "God has a plan for me" world view.

Conan:

I went back and read a few articles archived about that era and they don't show her "programming" Elian with threats of a chocolate milk shortage.

I did, however, come across a Time story that Fidel Castro pushed "chocolatin," a powdered chocolate milk drink to Cuban children, beginning in 2005 and that milk was rationed in Cuba for children over the age of 7 at the time of the Elian Gonzalez saga. So, Marisleysis may have been right and there may not have been much milk, chocolate or otherwise, for Cuban children over the age of 7 at that time.

So, when the United States gives Nestle's Quik to its children (which originally only came in a powdered form to be mixed with milk), it's chocolate milk. But when Fidel Castro does it, it's not. Got it.

Conan:

The only people who "programmed" Elian were the Cubans. He now blames the US sanctions for his mother's death and says he considers Fidel Castro, brutal dictator of Cuba, as a good person and a friend, addressing him as "Grandpa Fidel."

With no evidence whatsoever of this "programming," other than Elián's apparent affection for a man who returned him as a helpless child to his rightful parent.

Conan:

Well, in an interview at the height of the controversy, Juan Miguel told reporters that Elizabeth love Elian very much and was a good mother. That doesn't sound like the anguish of a man whose wife "absconded" with his child with the "intent of depriving his father of even visitation with his own son."

Okay, pray tell us all, that if Elizabeth had survived and remained in the U.S. with her and Juan Miguel's son, just how he was supposed to get visitation with his own son? You think Fidel's going to let him hop a plane to Florida on alternate weekends?

We're waiting.

And "at the height of this controversy" sounds like Juan Miguel had time to recover from the shock of his ex-wife's betrayal and may have been putting on his best demeanor.

In one of this blog's prior threads about a US election - I forget which one and I was not able to look it up - you made several disparagingly ugly remarks about Cuban-Americans in Florida. I believe the majority of them were supporting a ticket you loathed - McCain-Palin, if memory serves.

I voted for John McCain, much to the consternation of my more liberal friends. I said plainly that I will not for a racist. And I consider Obama to be a racist. And when Glenn Beck came under fire for his "deep-seated hatred of white people" comment, I remarked rather dryly on an AOL discussion board that Beck got in trouble for telling the truth.

You don't sit in the pews and lapping up the bile of a repulsive race-baiter like Jeremiah Wright (who grew up in rather affluent circumstances, despite his pretense of identifying with impoverished black people oppressed by the evil white man), and not be a racist. Wright is simply exploiting and stoking the resentments of his congregation to line his own pockets. Basically, he discovered that turning people against one another is good business. What a Christian!

John McCain, by contrast, opened up his heart and home and adopted a Bangadeshi girl, Briget. (Which Karl Rove, true to form, exploited in his push-poll to get Bush the nomination, by suggesting Briget was McCain's illegitimate child with a black woman.)

I haven't looked very hard for any posts of mine that you might be speaking about. Although I did enter Cuban and McCain into Amy's search engine and came up with nothing. I might keep trying.

Though I will give you this: I do loathe Sarah Palin. And as you might have guessed, I also loathe Karl Rove and George W. Bush.

What's more, your earlier diatribe defending yourself from claims of prejudice against Cuban-Americans simply reeked of hostility toward them.

Nothing I said was in any way hostile to Cuban-Americans. When you choose to read-into instead of read (something you are notorious for, let's face it; you're easily the most egregious offender on this blog when it comes to inferring things that were never said), there is no way to even defend myself against this. Basically, you're being unfair, quelle surprise. "You didn't really say anything bad about Cuban-Americans, but your comments just reek with hostility towards them."

Basically, what I find shocking and galling in your attitude is the idea that you think the Miami Cubans had even a pretense of a claim to a six-year-old child that they never even met, over the child's natural father.

Do you have evidence of any kind that Juan Miguel was an unfit parent, other than the fact that he happens to be employed by a government you don't like?

Lacking such evidence, it is simply no contest as to who had rights to Elián. The idea that there is even a discussion about whether Elián belonged with non-family relatives or his own father is simply too preposterous. Honestly, if anyone thinks there's even a question, it makes me question their sanity. No, scratch that. I don't have any questions about their sanity; it's all perfectly clear.

It brings to mind a sign-language poem I had learned in college as I was studying ASL. It was written from the perspective of a deaf person and directed to a mother of a deaf child. The portion that left me absolutely dumbfounded was when the deaf person rhetorically asked the mother, "So, whose child is it? Yours or mine?"

The child belongs to the mother, for those that are stumbling over the obvious answer. The fact that it shares a disability (yes, disability) with the narrator of this poem does not give the narrator a claim on someone else's child.

Some bonus footage. Here's Marisleysis Gonzalez and Donato Darymple making the most of being the center of attention.

My favorite part is when Darymple wails histrionically, "My God, America! What did you do this boy?"

Took him from people who were unlawfully detaining him against his will and returned him to his father.

And as for all the sobs and boo-hoo-hoos about the guns, again, Marisleysis has no one to blame for that but herself. She threatened the Justice Department; they responded accordingly. When you're on the receiving end of a police action (brought about your own refusal to comply with a court order) and you imply that you have weapons and will hurt people who try to come in to enforce the court order, the police will up their game.

Promise.

By the way, Conan, you never answered my question as to how you think the Justice Department should have taken Elián if not with the show of force. Which again, Marisleysis must accept the blame for this.

Silly me. I forgot the link. I thought I put it in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKcE3iQ0480

And here's a press conference with Marisleysis and Darymple.

Notice anything about Marisleysis's eyes as she appears to be crying? Like a lack of tears, maybe? Yeah, I noticed that, too.

But I enjoyed the part where Marisleysis demanded audience with Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, which was appropriately ignored, and it didn't hurt Clinton a bit. On the contrary, Clinton rode a wave of popular support at the end of his term and could have defeated both Bush and Gore for President if he had been eligible.

I refuse to feel any sympathy for these lunatics. You don't care for a child for six months, then pretend you have more rights to the child than his own father who has been providing for that child's needs and visiting with that child throughout the child's entire life. That, in and of itself, proves to me they are certifiably insane.

"Sorry, cuz, but I'm really enjoying playing mommy with your seven-year-old son that I only just met six months ago, so I'm going to keep him."

Oh, and here, Conan. Have some chocolate milk. It's a really wonderful treat.

In the weeks that followed Elian's rescue, Juan Miguel watched from a distance as his son was ushered into the American Dream. Congressmen like Dan Burton flew to Miami to meet him and report to the waiting media circus that they had discussed every Yankee virtue from the Federalist papers to 401(k)s. Elian went to Disney World, hugged Barney, celebrated his sixth birthday with the gift of a toy gun. He fell in love with chocolate milk; a Florida cousin who visits regularly told TIME that whenever Elian's cousin Marisleysis poured him a glass, she made a point of adding that "Fidel Castro won't let his grandmas make that for him in Cuba."

I'm not sure why you don't think that's extremely sick, but I guess you won't be persuaded.

Think about that. Seriously. Every single time this sick woman (who is conducting a vigorous campaign to steal a child that isn't hers from her own cousin), pours Elian's favorite treat, she takes that opportunity to remind him that if goes back to Cuba, he won't get it any more.

It's actually a very interesting article. You find that out that Elian actually spent more time with his father than his mother.

By every standard, from legal to agreements between Cuba and the U.S. to Elian's own preferences, he should have gone back to Cuba to be with his father. But you actually think that relatives - who are total strangers and not family - actually have the footing to even contest Juan Miguel's claim to his own son.

When you choose to read-into instead of read (something you are notorious for, let's face it; you're easily the most egregious offender on this blog when it comes to inferring things that were never said), there is no way to even defend myself against this.

Most egregious offender? Pot, have ya met Kettle? Your entire argument against my post was what you wanted to argue about, not what I actually posited. I have politely tried to disagree with you on some elements of your argument and you've responded by leveling personal attacks. Calm down, chill, and maybe take a walk.

Patrick, every time this subject comes up, you declare with no possibility of counterargument that the Miami Gonzalez family are evil and sick. Obviously, I don't concur with you on that. So, as a defense, you accuse me of horrendous transgressions against the rules of polite debate to shut down anything I might have to say.

Despite our disagreement on this, I do concur with you - reached through different reasoning - that returning Elian to his father, even in a socialist dictatorship, was the right thing to do, although problematic in that a seven-year-old was returned to socialist dictatorship. I just don't agree with you on the evils of his Miami family members trying to get the government to let him stay in the US. And, yes, both sides played tug-the-heartstrings in the battle for public opinion.

Frankly, I don't care that you voted for McCain, or that you loathe Sarah Palin. The McCain-Obama election may not have been the one in the background when you spoke hostilely about Cuban-Americans, but there was an election in the background. You were openly hostile to Cuban-Americans in Miami in your comments and I remember commenting on it.

Oh, and here's another passage from your linked article, one that you seem to have omitted. It supports what I referenced from the Time article earlier about milk being rationed for children over 7 in Cuba then, "...and did [Juan] really, truly want to raise his child in a country where milk is rationed for children over 7...." It's hard to have chocolate milk anytime you want when milk is rationed for kids your age.

The New York Times had an interesting article with this to say about Juan Miguel and Lazaro's relationship, "What is, in fact, clear about that first call, and the flurry of others that followed it, is something that was easily lost in the ensuing controversy: Juan Miguel Gonzalez did not hesitate to turn to his aunts and uncles in Miami for help in the crisis, and they did not hesitate to help him." Yeah, what you said, they're not family.

The article further characterizes the Miami family's zeal to keep Elian as a desire to see the whole family reunited in Miami, using Elian as a catalyst to bring Juan Miguel, Tony, and the others to the US.

By the way, Patrick, the NYT article has an interesting history of the Gonzalez family and the fault lines that Cuba's revolution spawned in the family matrix; perhaps the real catalyst for the spirited fight over Elian.

The article also talks about why Juan Miguel spent more time with Elian in Cuba, "It made it worse that Juan Miguel seemed to meet lots of other women and that his job gave him a little more time [than Elisabeth's] to spend with Elian."

As for how the issue should have been resolved instead of armed standoffs, how about the family, "Manolo's wife, who sat beside him, started to try to explain what he meant, but she, too, found herself at a loss. 'From the beginning, this has been a family problem,' she said. 'Why could it not be resolved within the family?'" But neither side was willing to compromise and too many government officials on both sides got free publicity in exaggerating a family problem into an international incident.

Oh, and here's another passage from your linked article, one that you seem to have omitted. It supports what I referenced from the Time article earlier about milk being rationed for children over 7 in Cuba then, "...and did [Juan] really, truly want to raise his child in a country where milk is rationed for children over 7...." It's hard to have chocolate milk anytime you want when milk is rationed for kids your age.

Rationed does not mean excluded. It means he gets milk, but in a limited supply. Also, the article I linked noted that Juan Miguel enjoyed a certain degree of privilege due to his job with the government. Quite possibly, his job allowed him to bypass the milk-rationing. To say nothing of Fidel Castro's active interest in Elian's life.

The New York Times had an interesting article with this to say about Juan Miguel and Lazaro's relationship, "What is, in fact, clear about that first call, and the flurry of others that followed it, is something that was easily lost in the ensuing controversy: Juan Miguel Gonzalez did not hesitate to turn to his aunts and uncles in Miami for help in the crisis, and they did not hesitate to help him." Yeah, what you said, they're not family.

I unironically agree with you. The fact that they tried to steal his son from him shows a profound magnitude of betrayal. So, yeah, I'll stand by my statement: they're not family.

Juan Miguel thought they were. They proved they weren't.

And incidentally, Elian himself agrees with me, since he has stated that he would like to return to the United StateS and would be willing to reconcile with his Miami-based non-family, provided they admit they were wrong.

Doesn't sound like Elian has fond memories of them.

The article further characterizes the Miami family's zeal to keep Elian as a desire to see the whole family reunited in Miami, using Elian as a catalyst to bring Juan Miguel, Tony, and the others to the US.

Which confirms my contention that the Miami-Gonzalezes are certifiably insane and cruel. You don't kidnap someone's child and use that child as a hostage to compel his father to live in a place he doesn't want to.

How can you say they even cared for Elian if they were willing to use him this way? To keep him from his own father, until he did what they said? Are you even thinking about what that would have done to Elian?

You keep defending these people, and you only succeed in making them look worse and worse.

Why you're trying to depict this as an act of kindness instead of perverse blackmail is beyond me.

There are moments like this, Conan (and I'm trying very hard to be nice about this), that I wonder what universe you're living in. Elian is Juan Miguel's son, and they basically decided to use him as their bargaining chip. "Come to the U.S. with us, or you'll never see your kid again! He's ours now!"

Do you have even the slightest glimmer of an idea of just how sick and evil that is? And how cruel that is to Elian?

As for how the issue should have been resolved instead of armed standoffs, how about the family, "Manolo's wife, who sat beside him, started to try to explain what he meant, but she, too, found herself at a loss. 'From the beginning, this has been a family problem,' she said. 'Why could it not be resolved within the family?'" But neither side was willing to compromise and too many government officials on both sides got free publicity in exaggerating a family problem into an international incident.

I'd like to send you a postcard with a picture of the solar system, Conan, with an arrow pointing at the earth, saying, "Wish you were here!"

There is no compromise. Juan Miguel is Elian's father. The Miami Gonzalezes are Elian's distant (and ill-intended) relatives, and they don't have a place at the bargaining table.

And I find myself with a newfound respect for Bill Clinton and Janet Reno for spelling it out in no uncertain terms. No one has to make a single concession to the Miami Gonzalezes. They were completely in the wrong.

And if you watched the video I posted earlier, with Marisleysis's crocodile-teared press conference, you'll hear her make the claim that if Elian wanted to go to his father, she would have brought him.

Even you know that's a naked lie.

Rationed does not mean excluded. It means he gets milk, but in a limited supply.

Oh, I see. It's readily available, but in a limited supply. Elian could have had chocolate milk in Cuba any time he wanted. So Marisleysis lied when she said he couldn't have it any time he wanted there like he could in Miami.

I guess I just don't understand what "rationed" and "limited supply" means. I thought it meant that you can't just go to the store and get more when you run out. I guess you can. Hay leche para todos en La Habana! Viva Cuba! Viva Fidel!

/sarcasm

Quite possibly, his job allowed him to bypass the milk-rationing.

It's possible, but that's an assumption not supported by the facts in evidence.

No one, up to this point, has claimed that Juan Miguel received any more privileges than the higher salary that working in a tourist hotel provides.

And such a claim opens up a pretty slippery moral slope to say it's okay to consign a seven-year-old to life in a brutal dictatorship because his father is one of the jailers.

The Miami Gonzalezes are Elian's distant (and ill-intended) relatives, and they don't have a place at the bargaining table.

Ill-intended? Again, you impute hostile intent to something with no evidence; with only your own assumptions and interpretations.

Distant (and well-intended) relatives have been known to sue in a family court to remove a minor relative from a bad or potentially bad home situation. And the courts grant those distant relatives standing to file the suit because they are related and the child's welfare is the main concern.

And incidentally, Elian himself agrees with me, since he has stated that he would like to return to the United States and would be willing to reconcile with his Miami-based non-family, provided they admit they were wrong.

Elian agrees with you? Well, I didn't know you two were buddies.

Adult Elian has become an apologist for a brutal dictator, calling Fidel Castro "Grandpa Fidel" and "a good guy." Are you really alleging that he has any objective credibility after that?

The thousands of prisoners murdered in La Cabaña would probably disagree with him on Fidel's being a good guy. The hundreds of thousands of Cubans who risked, and sometimes lost, their lives fleeing Fidel's socialist paradise on rickety rafts and leaky boats since 1959 (including his own mother) would probably disagree, as well. Are all of them "ill-intended," too.

Is everybody who disagrees with extraditing small children to the custody of party hacks in a brutal dictatorship a child abuser with ill intentions?

Do you have even the slightest glimmer of an idea of just how sick and evil that is? And how cruel that is to Elian?

Do you have even the slightest glimmer of an idea just how sick and evil the Cuban government is? And how cruel sending him back there could have turned out?

You would happily consign a seven-year-old to return to a government that, according to a Miami Herald article, "extracted most of the blood from the victims before they were shot, then sold it to other communist countries for $50 a pint."

Like Lenin's "useful idiots," you don't seem to grasp just how evil socialist dictatorships actually are.

I don't pretend to know what the inner motives of Marisleysis and Lazaro and even Donato Darymple were. I won't assume their motives were born solely of purity and light, nor will I assume their motives were entirely base either. There are plenty of solid and non-selfish reasons to oppose the return of a young family member (even a distant one) to a brutal socialist dictatorship, even if it means separating him from his father.

As for what you call Marisleysis' "crocodile tears" and lies about believing Elian wanted to stay, small children have a tendency to want to keep the adults around them from getting upset, so they often tell them what they think the adults want to hear. Avoiding that while questioning children was something we didn't understand back then; it caused havoc in Reno's Francisco Fuster case as well. If Elian believed Marisleysis wanted him to want to stay, he very well could have told her that he did while also telling those who wanted to return him to Cuba what they wanted to hear.

Now, Patrick, I've agreed with you on the rightness of returning of Elian to his father, despite my considerable reservations about the morality of extraditing a seven-year-old to a brutal socialist dictatorship. However, I cannot agree with your assertion that his Miami relatives were sick and twisted. I believe they did what they thought was best for Elian, as did his father.

All the other various officials that got involved later turned something that should have been a family matter or even a matter left to the family courts into an international incident. They're the ones who deserve your condign imprecations.

I had no idea Elian Gonzales was so important.

Meanwhile...

"This is the piece I've been waiting for -- with all the nuances -- on the sickening issue of children being separated from their parents (who illegally entered the country)."

Ahem. We seperate criminals from their progeny all the time.

This is only a disaster if the criminal is an illegal immigrant, or the minor was sent unaccompanied, right?

Look at your own neighborhood's police procedure. You might not know this: some states refuse to transfer probationary custody across state lines, so, in such cases, the convicted or family members are forced to move to remain in contact.

All the other various officials that got involved later turned something that should have been a family matter or even a matter left to the family courts into an international incident. They're the ones who deserve your condign imprecations.

No, they don't. The Miami Gonzalezes intentionally kept a child from his father in defiance of the law. They went through the courts and found they had no standing to request asylum for Elian. And when their guardianship of Elian was revoked, they refused to surrender him.

Time for law enforcement to involve itself.

"Oh, why can't we all just sit down and work this out among the family?"

Because you've kidnapped a child.

I based my responses entirely upon what you submitted as factual information regarding the case. I even took you at your word without even bothering to check it.

You said, "The article further characterizes the Miami family's zeal to keep Elian as a desire to see the whole family reunited in Miami, using Elian as a catalyst to bring Juan Miguel, Tony, and the others to the US."

Ah, so Elian was being used as a hostage to force his father to move to Florida against his will.

What makes you think Castro would have even allowed this? Or are you suggesting that Juan Miguel should have made the trip the way his ex-wife did? And risk the same fate?

And even if he wanted to do this, what makes you think he could have? I imagine that when this story made the news, Castro would have kept a much closer eye on Juan Miguel.

And even if he could, Elian was one of three survivors on a boat with 14 passengers. Doesn't sound like good odds.

As for how the issue should have been resolved instead of armed standoffs, how about the family, "Manolo's wife, who sat beside him, started to try to explain what he meant, but she, too, found herself at a loss. 'From the beginning, this has been a family problem,' she said. 'Why could it not be resolved within the family?'" But neither side was willing to compromise and too many government officials on both sides got free publicity in exaggerating a family problem into an international incident.

Ah, I see. So, even though they had no standing to request asylum, no legal status as Elian's guardians, you think Juan Miguel should compromise with his son's kidnappers?

Hey, Conan, your cousin has just stolen your kid and intends to keep you from him forever. It's just a family problem, right? You should just sit down with your family and make some nice compromises, like uprooting and moving to a place where you don't want to live.

A compromise is an agreement reached by mutual concessions. They are criminals. They are kidnappers. They don't get concessions. What they should have gotten is to be figuratively stomped into the ground.

Conan:

Do you have even the slightest glimmer of an idea just how sick and evil the Cuban government is? And how cruel sending him back there could have turned out?

Nice dodge. Way to avoid condemning the Miami Gonzalezes for what is undoubtedly cruel and abusive behavior toward a child. Let's take a kid who just lost his mother, then torment him by keeping him from his father. The fact that you ran from the question shows me all too well that you recognize this. But you simply can't find it within yourself to condemn them for it.

As for what you call Marisleysis' "crocodile tears" and lies about believing Elian wanted to stay, small children have a tendency to want to keep the adults around them from getting upset, so they often tell them what they think the adults want to hear. Avoiding that while questioning children was something we didn't understand back then; it caused havoc in Reno's Francisco Fuster case as well. If Elian believed Marisleysis wanted him to want to stay, he very well could have told her that he did while also telling those who wanted to return him to Cuba what they wanted to hear.

/smirk I love how you are so quick to condemn me for making assumptions about what Juan Miguel could have gotten for his son. But you turn around and make all kinds of benign assumptions about what Elian told his captors to placate them?

#hypocrisy

Are you really suggesting that Elian told Marisleysis, "Oh, no! I don't want to see my daddy at all! I want to stay with you, whom I've only known for five months!"

And you couldn't bring yourself to watch that video of Marisleysis's press conference, could you?

What I call Marisleysis's crocodile tears? Had you watched the video, I don't think you could have come to any other conclusion. I hear sobbing but see dry eyes.

And yes, I count numerous lies from Marisleysis.

2:20 "We've never broken the law." Snort. Says someone who came to the U.S. illegally and held a child against his will in defiance of court orders and kept him from his father.

"We've always tried to negotigate [sic] for something like this never to happen." Says someone who thinks she's in a position to negotiate. "I'm holding someone else's kid hostage in defiance of the law, and I think the father should negotiate with me."

What I think is that Marisleysis and Lazaro and the rest of the family belong in prison for kidnapping and obstruction.

Something I've apparently had trouble impressing upon you, Conan, is that the Miami Gonzalezes seemed to think that people should "compromise" with them or "negotigate [sic]" with them.

Kidnappers do not have a place at the bargaining table and it's superlative arrogance to think their position should even be given consideration, or that anyone should negotiate or compromise with them. Why they weren't criminally prosecuted is beyond me. They should have been.

7:09 "If Elian wanted to go to his father, I would have taken him to his father." Nope.

9:29 "If they wanted to pick up this boy, they could have sent a letter, 'We will pick him up at three o'clock. Have him ready.' And they knew the family was going to do that."
Buuuuuuuuull-SHIT! Marisleysis herself threatened the Justice Department, implying that they had weapons and anyone who came for Elian could have been hurt.

Again, and something you seem to be avoiding, Marisleysis brought this on herself.

10:56 "They knew that we weren't armed, and they knew that from day one!" Nope. Marisleysis implied that they were armed. Her threats were taken seriously.

What I see in her is a very bitter, angry woman who saw in Elian nothing more than an opportunity to stick it to Castro, whom I doubt would have lost much sleep over this, even if Elian had stayed in the U.S.

And regardless of what you think of Castro, six-to-seven year olds are not put on this earth to be her weapons to rankle dictators.

Her sobbing for Elian (and self-serving claims that Elian "needs her" and "needs to see her," as if he'd die if was denied contact with a woman he's only known for five months who fed him lies about his own father) just doesn't sound sincere.

Her claims that she would have taken him to see his father, that she would have just surrendered him voluntarily, are known lies.

She wanted to stick it to Castro, was thwarted and Castro gets to gloat. That doesn't sit well with her.

And even if this embittered, angry woman found it within herself to have some kind of feeling for Elian, underneath her obsessive desire to gall Castro, she was quite prepared to keep him from his father forever.

Then Elian was taken from her, and it was her, not Juan Miguel, that was deprived of Elian forever. I don't imagine that she and Juan Miguel had nice, chatty conversations over the phone every weekend or that Juan Miguel was allowing his son to speak to her.

I call that poetic justice. I doubt Elian did this with any malice, but I suspect his willingness to reconcile with them, but only on the condition that they admit they were wrong, is especially infuriating to her.

Radwaste:

Ahem. We separate [sic] criminals from their progeny all the time.

This is only a disaster if the criminal is an illegal immigrant, or the minor was sent unaccompanied, right?

Well, when we separate criminals who are U.S. citizens from their parents, presumably, there are adults in place that the child knows and trusts to care of them while their parents are incarcerated. If Daddy goes to jail, Mommy's still on hand to care for the kids. If this arrangement cannot be made, we find the nearest relative and keep the child in as familiar surroundings as possible. Hopefully, we don't compel them to change schools, move to new neighborhoods or make new friends while leaving behind the old ones.

When we separate children who happen to be illegal aliens, these kids don't have the luxury of familiarity. They are forced to rely on foster care, which allows total strangers to place them in the hands of other total strangers in unfamiliar settings, with no one to assure them when Mommy and Daddy are coming to get them, if ever.

I love how you are so quick to condemn me for making assumptions about what Juan Miguel could have gotten for his son. But you turn around and make all kinds of benign assumptions about what Elian told his captors to placate them?

I gave a possibility, you gave a rationalization. I provided an example to illustrate my point. You provided none.

You speculated that Juan Miguel could have gotten his son milk despite it being rationed in Cuba for children Elian's age - rationing which you casually dismissed because it contradicted your narrative.

I speculated that a proven phenomenon, one that tainted a previous Janet Reno case and one that modern jurisprudence recognizes, might have been in play here.

And, yes, I watched the video - with an open mind. While it was a bit overwrought, to call it "crocodile tears" and "lies" is to casually dismiss what was obviously a traumatic experience for these folks, as one would expect having armed men invade your home and point guns at you would be.

Nice dodge. Way to avoid condemning the Miami Gonzalezes for what is undoubtedly cruel and abusive behavior toward a child.

No dodge. After reviewing several articles on the subject from a variety of sources, I have no intention of condemning the Miami Gonzalezes, hence no need to resort to dodges to avoid doing so.

The conditions of the country to which the child will be returned are a legitimate factor in determining if he should be returned to that country.

You seem to be willing to ignore that Fidel's Cuban government is a murderous regime in your zeal to condemn the Miami Gonzalezes. You give the fact that he would be returned to an impoverished dictatorship no weight whatsoever in your consideration of what was best for Elian, only that Juan Miguel was his father, nothing else seems to matter to you. Hmmm.

I daresay you are incapable of looking at this case dispassionately and objectively. Patrick, you're taking this all very personally. Perhaps you should ask yourself why.

And I daresay Raddy is right. This has gone on too long to no point - as most of my interactions with you do. This will be my last post on this thread on this subject. I'll read your next 1,000+ word polemic insistence that Lazaro and Marisleysis Gonzalez are cruel and evil people and that Juan Miguel Gonzalez, a serial philanderer who abandoned his wife and child to take up with another woman, is an angel.

"Well, when we separate criminals who are U.S. citizens from their parents, presumably, there are adults in place that the child knows and trusts to care of them while their parents are incarcerated."

Geez. Watch LivePD if you must. The criminal gets put in jail FIRST, and right away. No mom, or if Mommy has the warrant? CPS holds the kids.
Somebody wanna talk about how useless marriage is right now? The State has to figure out who's who. Go ahead, make that harder.

If you don't want your kids taken away, don't commit crimes.
Somehow, we just can't say that to anyone at the border. Yes, we CAN say, "No."
In fact, if you want to exclude several very nasty epidemics from your surroundings, you should SUPPORT the idea of saying "No."

Been this way for a lonnng time. Don't miss my line about probationers. That's true, too.

Now. Do notice that no paperwork comes across the border with the illegal immigrant. Do you expect to guarantee an endless number of "rights" to the minors present when you cannot even establish their relationship aside from hearsay? Do you intend to hold some immingration authority responsible for not detecting liars who want to exploit some little boy?
Where's the magic truth detector the snowflakes among us imagine the also bestows honor and dignity on every pair of feet?

Conan:

And, yes, I watched the video - with an open mind. While it was a bit overwrought, to call it "crocodile tears" and "lies" is to casually dismiss what was obviously a traumatic experience for these folks, as one would expect having armed men invade your home and point guns at you would be.

Which, again, Marisleysis has no one to blame but herself. She implied that they had weapons, and pointedly stated that anyone coming into her home could be hurt.

And then has the nerve to give a press conference insisting that the Justice Department didn't have to do this, and that they knew they weren't armed.

I refuse to shed tears for self-inflicted trauma. If the police tell you that they're coming to pick someone up from your home -- for a warrant perhaps, or questioning -- and you tell them that you have guns and that someone coming into your home could get hurt, they're going to come loaded for bear!

But you're right. The discussion has gone on too long. I'm sure you have better things to do, like write to Pope Francis to implore upon him to make sure the Miami Gonzalezes are canonized, since you seem to have so much difficulty condemning even a single one of their actions.

Kidnapping? A-okay! Defying court orders? Right on! Using a seven-year-old to commit blackmail upon his father? Hey, what's a seven-year-old for? Threatening the Justice Department? You go, girl! Show that JD who's boss! Lying on national television? Like a boss!

...since you seem to have so much difficulty condemning even a single one of their actions. ~ Patrick at June 20, 2018 12:33 PM

Just when I thought I was out....

Patrick, you didn't ask me to condemn "a single one of their actions."

You ordered me to condemn them in total; to see them as evil monsters, not as fallible human beings who perhaps went too far in some of their actions.

Are you so blinded by hatred and anger that you can't see how far out on that limb you've climbed? Seriously, dude, you've got issues.

And I will not be asking Pope Francis to canonize them. For one thing, Francis and I are just not that close. And, for another, I still have reservations about some of the family's actions. Even so, after a fair amount of research, I don't think that their motivations were evil. I think they tried to do what they thought was best for Elian, as did his father.

Conan:

You ordered me to condemn them in total...

I never "ordered" you to do anything.

Conan:

...not as fallible human beings who perhaps went too far in some of their actions.

And Jeffery Dahmer perhaps went too far in his culinary habits.

And Jeffery Dahmer perhaps went too far in his culinary habits. ~ Patrick at June 20, 2018 11:16 PM

Yes, because when you disagree with someone, you should always compare their actions to the most morally reprehensible example you can find. And the Miami Gonzalezes were just like Jeffery Dahmer.

And Hitler.

Come on, Conan. I'm not convinced that nuance is completely lost on you. I did not compare the Miami Gonzalezes to Dahmer. Obviously, when it comes to human depravity, Dahmer is in a class by himself. Not because of the magnitude of harm he inflicted, which was awful but certainly not on a par with Hitler's, but because of the very nature of his actions and the things he was willing to do.

I simply suggested that your statement, referring to the Gonzalezes, "...who perhaps went too far in some of their actions" is a huge downplay. They kidnapped and emotionally abused a small child who had just lost his mother, in defiance of the law and court orders, not to mention common sense. And you dismiss it as "perhaps going too far in some of their actions."

To illustrate the magnitude of how much you downplay the egregiousness of their actions, I suggested that your massive understatement would be like suggesting that Dahmer perhaps had unorthodox culinary habits.

Yes, I realize that the Miami Gonzalezes are not anywhere near on a par with Dahmer. Or Hitler.

(I was going to talk about how Dahmer, in his own way, is probably the more depraved of the two, even though the magnitude of human suffering inflicted by Hitler was vastly greater, but I didn't want to devolve into a discussion of how one was worse than the other or what yardstick we should use in measuring human depravity.)

You'd like to end this? Fine.

In my view, unless you can prove that the father is unfit in any way, either unable to support his child or emotionally unable to care for his child, you're done. You have no claims on the child. If you cannot prove the father is unfit to care for his child, you need to back off. Anything else, whether by design or accident, is abusive and cruel to the child.

In watching the video, I saw Marisleysis sobbing dry-eyed for poor Elian. Saying that he "needs" her, as if he would wither away and die on the vine without her. Obviously, that did not happen, and Elian is successful (by Cuban standards) and seems to be quite happy where he is.

The only time her emotions rang true, as far as I could tell, is when she let her anger assert itself. I see Elian's welfare as of secondary importance to her (if of any importance at all). Her primary objective has always has been to stick it to Castro.

She was thwarted, and Castro, as if gloating over his victory, actually erected a statue of Elian. They, and by extension the Cuban residents of Little Havana, wanted to rankle Castro and it galls them no end that they were stopped.

Dude, barring a father's unfitness as a parent, a kid belongs with his dad. Period.

(And I like you, too, Conan.)

Addendum: You mentioned something about Juan Miguel's philandering ways when we talked about how Elian spent more time with his father than his mother. I only wanted to point out that Elian's parents were already divorced when Elian was born. With this in mind, he can see all the women he wants to.

"I did not compare the Miami Gonzalezes to Dahmer."

Umm. Patrick, you very clearly compared the Gonzalezes with Dahmer. You clearly indicated they were the same. Maybe take a step back and calm down. You are in crazy pants town at the moment.

Ben, no, I didn't. And you're a fucking liar.

I compared the dismissal of the Miami Gonzelezes as "as fallible human beings who perhaps went too far in some of their actions," to dismissing Dahmer as perhaps having unorthodox culinary habits.

Perhaps went too far...they defied the law, the courts, threatened the Justice Department and emotionally abused a helpless seven year old.

No comparison of the Gonzalezes to Dahmer was made. Only the magnitude in which Conan insists on downplaying their crimes.

Fuck you, liar.

Ben, no, I didn't. And you're a fucking liar. [...] I compared the dismissal of the Miami Gonzelezes as "as fallible human beings who perhaps went too far in some of their actions," to dismissing Dahmer as perhaps having unorthodox culinary habits.

You actually did, dood.

According to your comment, regarding one as simply "going to far" was directly comparable to regarding the other one as having peculiar habits? With that comparison, however couched, you created in your argument a moral equivalency between the Gonzalezes and Dahmer.

Let me ask you this, if the Gonzalezes committed such heinous acts as you allege, many of them ordinarily considered criminal acts (e.g., child abuse, threatening government officials, etc.), why were they not prosecuted?

Patrick, you have a Puritanical streak in you that comes out at times like this and in your boasts about having shut down social media debates and/or having "schooled" anyone who disagrees with you online. You brook no dissent from your forcefully-expressed dogmatic opinion. You'd have made a good Church Inquisitor. Heresy must be stamped out!

Little story for you, Conan. And, by the way, you're as much a liar as Ben is.

When I was a child, there was a Saturday Morning Cartoon I used to watch. It wasn't one that I never missed, but it was entertaining enough to pick up occasionally. It was known as "The Oddball Couple." As you might have guessed, it's based on the sitcom based on Neil Simon's play, "The Odd Couple."

Even seeing one episode each of both these shows, and it would still be impossible to miss the parallels.

Spiffy, the anthropomorphic cat, based on Felix Unger was fussing over a spaghetti sauce in the kitchen and pronounced it just right.

Fleabag, the anthropomorphic dog, based on Oscar Madison, happened by while Spiffy had left his spaghetti sauce unattended. Fleabag sampled the spaghetti sauce, decided it was good, but "a little flat." He then added some very hot spicy sauce to it, then pronounced it "perfecto." Spiffy was much less approving of the addition and complained that sabotaging his recipe was tantamount to "straightening the Leaning Tower of Pisa."

He is not comparing his recipe to the Leaning Tower of Pisa. He is comparing the egregiousness of adding something to his recipe, probably hyperbolically, to the egregiousness of straightening the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

There is no moral equivalency between Dahmer and the Miami Gonzalezes. One was a murderer and cannibal who didn't just choose random victims. His victims were actually people that he had had sufficient personal interaction with to entice them to his home for sex. Granted that doesn't take much interpersonal involvement if you're into one-night stands, but it's sufficiently more than what it would take to, for instance, club a random stranger over the head, drag them home and dine them. Or dine on them.

The other is a family who allowed their hatred of Castro (who is almost certainly a deserving target of their ire) to prompt them into kidnapping and emotionally abusing a helpless child.

For you to suggest that I was even implying a moral equivalency between the two is wholly dishonest.

I hope you one day attain the intellectual fortitude that I had as a nine-to-ten year old to understand the difference.

I am comparing the distance between dismissing the egregiousness of the Miami-Gonzalezes completely selfish and outright criminal actions as "perhaps went too far," to suggesting that "perhaps Dahmer had unorthodox eating habits."

In either case, it doesn't begin to cover it.

In thinking of other examples I could have used, I came up with, "and perhaps JFK had a wandering eye." Like your dismissal of the Miami Gonzalezes and "perhaps having gone too far," dismissing JFK as "having a wandering eye" doesn't begin to cover it.

JFK didn't just break his marital vows. He ignored them completely, perhaps seeing them as outdated niceties he had to recite at the altar for the sake of the ritual. But I doubt he had, even for a moment, any intention of staying faithful to his wife. He unapologetically slept with anything that moved (and probably some things that didn't). He openly stated that his father taught all his sons to get laid as often as possible, and "I can't go to sleep unless I've had a lay."

Jacqueline was probably just his standby in case there were no Hollywood actresses, strippers, interns, reporters, press secretaries, etc. available.

"...perhaps having a wandering eye" doesn't begin to cover JFK's womanizing.

In much the same way, "perhaps having gone too far in some of their actions" doesn't begin to cover the egregiousness of their crimes and abuse of a child.

Like "perhaps having unorthodox dining habits" does not begin to cover Jeffrey Dahmer's sick behavior.

Like saying that "perhaps the Dred Scott decision was divisive." It led to a bloody civil war and three amendments to the Constitution.
"Perhaps...divisive" doesn't begin to cover it.

I'm not saying that the Miami Gonzalezes were like Dahmer who was like Kennedy who was like the Dred Scott decision.

I'm saying that the distance between the dismissive statements and the egregiousness of the actual deeds they refer to is similar.

You both owe me an apology.

You both owe me an apology. ~ Patrick at June 21, 2018 1:08 PM

Get over yourself.

Get fucked.

"...not as fallible human beings who perhaps went too far in some of their actions.

And Jeffery Dahmer perhaps went too far in his culinary habits."

You made a direct comparison between the Gonzalezes actions and eating people Patrick. No you don't deserve an apology.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't really care either way about the Gonzalezes. I was just pointing out how you are so worked up you aren't even realizing what you are writing.

If you're too emasculated to own up to your own mistakes, that's on you, not me. But it takes a special level of immaturity to not only refuse to admit wrongdoing, but doubling down.

There was no comparison made between the Gonzalezes and Dahmer. The comparison was made between the massive understatement of describing the Gonzalezes as "fallible human beings who perhaps went too far in some of their actions," to suggesting that Jeffrey Dahmer "was perhaps unorthodox in his culinary habits."

I was not comparing Dahmer to the Gonzalezes; I compared the magnitude of the two understatements. Not the two subjects of the understatement.

I could have just as easily said, "and living on the surface of Venus might perhaps be unpleasant."

Would you then scream like a little girl in a frilly pink dress who's afraid of snakes, "Oh, my God! You're making a moral equivalence between the Gonzalezes and the planet Venus! How could you???"

The planet Venus is an inanimate object. It has no morality. Its surface is raging inferno of heat and pressure and would kill a human being instantly. "...perhaps be unpleasant" is massive understatement, to the same degree that stating that the Gonzalezes perhaps went too far in their actions.

You and Conan both owe me an apology. Too bad neither one of you are man enough to do it.

You and Conan both owe me an apology. Too bad neither one of you are man enough to do it. ~ Patrick at June 25, 2018 3:22 PM

Patrick, your histrionics about grievous personal insult aside, even if we were wrong in saying you created a moral equivalency between the Gonzalezes and Dahmer (we weren't), we didn't lie, impugn your manhood, or malign your character.

Nobody "owes" you an apology. Nobody owes you anything, in fact. And playground insults like "you're not man enough" won't change that.

Get over yourself.

"Don't be humble ... you're not that great." ~ Golda Meir

Conan, Ben, you're liars, plain and simple. Your own egos are in your way.

You were wrong about my creating a moral equivalency between Dahmer and the Gonzalezes. I have said they are not morally equals. There is a difference between kidnapping an emotionally abusing a small child, even if you have some misguided notion that what you're doing is the right thing and between seducing human beings intending to murder then eat them.

The comparison was the distance between your dismissive understatement that "perhaps" the Gonzalazes "went too far," is like saying that Jeffrey Dahmner "perhaps had unorthodox eating habits."

They are both gross understatements.

And out your own personal embarrassment and personal hatred, rather than own up to your mistake, you've doubled down. Thus, you make the transition to making a frankly rather idiotic mistake to being an intentional liar.

As I said, your own ego is in your way. You could simply admit you were wrong and apologize for your smears, but to you, that would be an irredeemable loss of face. Frankly, I think you'd sooner die.

And since you seem to think you're blessed with some insight into issues, perhaps your critical gaze could find its way to a mirror? But narcissists don't usually present themselves for mental health evaluation, because they don't think there's anything wrong with them.

I know I will never get the apology you both owe me. I will simply have to content myself with the fact that you know you do owe me one, but you'd rather keep lying to yourselves.

Pot, have ya met kettle?

Truly, Conan, that was .

That out of the way, your unwillingness to concede you're wrong has basically left you exposed. You complained days ago about how this discussion has dragged on too long, but your irrepressible need to have the last word in this (and any) discussion keeps bringing you back. You're a troll, Conan. That is the totality of your online identity. And you couldn't possibly make that more apparent than you've done right here.

I would suggest you do something about it, but you have far more pressing personal issues to address. Whether you actually admit that to yourself and address them is up to you.

But if I ever doubted that your smear was not intended malice but just stupidity on your part, they're gone now. You know your statement isn't true, and your obdurate need to appear intelligent and morally superior prevents you from admitting that.