I could not agree less with Saturday's Deseret News editorial suggesting that Elian Gonzalez, barely 6 years old, be granted an opportunity to seek asylum "separate and independent" of the wishes of his father.

While admittedly from a layman's perspective, my experiences with other 6-year-olds leaves me wondering how anyone could expect Elian to fully assess the consequences of such a decision. From a practical point of view, he is just too young. The "precedent" cited wherein a 12-year-old was granted asylum from the Soviet Union, itself a debatable ruling, involves a stage of human development so different from a 6-year-old's as to cast the pale of absurdity on any attempt to compare them.More significantly, however, there is no moral reason why Elian should be anywhere but with his father. It is a sad commentary on our "family values" if we consider the benefits of capitalism, democracy or any other earthly institution more important than the maintenance of the sacred parent-child bond.

Likewise, there is no legal reason Elian should be given that option when he has a living parent with full and legal custody. The mere suggestion is a prime example of trying to solve the world's problems with "emotional government," a willingness to bypass or ignore established laws in order to satisfy current perceived needs.

It does not matter how badly we want Elian to stay; to sacrifice the rule of law on the altar of nightly opinion polls would be folly indeed. How much more so if we, in our zeal to give this boy the chance at freedom, trample under our feet the very institutions that make that freedom possible.

Bob Meyers

View Comments

Orem

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.