Several days ago, I left a number of "issues" on my message boards in an attempt to sort out for myself the entire Elian Gonzalez affair.  Since then, a number of additional issues have been raised and I've done some additional work (like sifting through the court decision of the 11th Circuit, as well as reviewing INS law and decisions made thus far).   The conclusion has come to me, though not really as a result of those things.   The conclusion has come as a result of faithfully applying the principles of natural right upon which the regime was founded and the principles of Objectivism to the problem. 

What is my conclusion?  Not surprisingly, that no other person's natural rights (and certainly no entity's rights, since entities cannot possess rights, properly understood) trump Elian's.

The argument is simple really -- but made complex because the objections that have been raised are lengthy and cannot be ignored (especially judging from American public opinion -- which shall soon be another topic entirely).  Indeed, they are too lengthy for tonight, as I've not had time to write all evening unfortunately, and do not now have the time to write it.

In a certain sense, it's lovely to finally have such a clear grasp of the moral solution to the problem -- especially when the problem touches on so many areas that are dear to me:  political philosophy, American political thought and constitutionalism, American Foreign Policy, and comparative political analysis to name a few.  In another sense, it's been frustrating to have had these thoughts come together so nicely today, and not have an opportunity to WRITE.  Tomorrow there should be time.   And THEN it should also be time to turn back to the dissertation, now that I've mentioned American political thought and constitutional law. 

Copyright (c) 2000, Kevin L. Whited