Returning this week from a trip to the East Coast, I am amazed at the amount of energy the government and the families of Elian Gonzalez are spending to determine if the boy should be with his father.

What’s the question? Yes, the boy should be with his natural, legal parent. If I were

the father, I would be fuming at all the intervention and political maneuvering.

Besides the obvious, that he should be with his father, nobody has

proven that there is abuse in the family. Nobody has proven that the home his

father will provide is not adequate to Cuban standards. I also think that paternal

rights organizations will have a hay day with this until it’s resolved.

What gives our government the right to interfere with parental rights?

Nothing. And the arguments that his Miami relatives are using to retain his

custody appear to be a grossly cloaked interpretation of the Constitution.

But let’s think about other immigrants who may want to stay in this

country. What kind of example or precedent are we setting? Should they have

the same rights to stay as Elian? Should any child born under something other

than a democracy have the right to stay in the U.S.?

And how about the money the government is spending to determine

the right outcome when the answer is obvious. Give the boy to his father and

let them return home.

Six-year-old children cannot make the right decision on where to live;

that’s why they have legal guardians, or in this case, a legal blood-related parent.

There is no case to keep him here. Let’s not interfere anymore.

Jim McKiernan