Cubans (not) coming in the US

[cema]

Shame.

Fifteen Cubans who fled their homeland and landed on an abandoned bridge piling in the Florida Keys were returned to their homeland Monday after U.S. officials concluded that the structure did not constitute dry land.

Generally, I agree that illegal immigrant should not be treated the same way as legal immigrants, though I do not count illegal immigration (by itself) a particularly serious crime. However, the dry/wet policy regarding Cuban refugees is simply shameful. Let them all come ashore! Let them live here! And make them all legal.

Comments

[capka3m.livejournal.com]

All right, your definitions are fine. But I guess I would have hard time accepting explanations in terms of 'nonessential' and 'game' from the same government that views travel to Cuba as 'trading with the enemy'

If we were Canada, I probably would have agreed with you. But if the US consistently viewed Cuban regime as sick totalitarian illegitimate monster, returning defectors is not a morally defendable act. Now, if you're telling me you'd end the embargo and restore diplomatic relations and resume travel and... but that's all hypothetical.

[spamsink]

The government has to balance the duty of enforcement of immigration laws to its taxpayers and the magnanimity of helping the oppressed in the world. The balance in this case has been established in a particular way. Once one retreats from the established practice, a slippery slope is unavoidable - how far from the shore, should it be U.S. territorial waters, or is it enough for them to escape from Cuban territorial waters into international, etc, etc.

During Soviet times, the U.S. would grant political asylum to people from the USSR who defected while in the U.S., but it was not enough to walk to the American embassy (ostensibly an American territory) and ask the guard to shelter you. How hypocritical and morally reprehensible is that?

[cema.livejournal.com]

It was hypocritical and morally reprehensible.

[spamsink]

Foolish consistency is a hobgoblin of small minds.

[cema.livejournal.com]

I am not asking for consistency. I am asking for decency.

[spamsink]

I see no reason why that policy was indecent. Giving political asylum for any group of people as a policy, rather that on a personal basis, is already a significant act of good will, and claiming that a particular restriction is indecent is counterproductive.

[cema.livejournal.com]

Couterproductive? What is our goal? I thought the goal (or a subgoal, as the case may be) was to help Cubans who are fleeing Cuba to obtain a legal status in the US. Then the distinction between the "dry feet" and "wet feet" is silly and shameful. (And, yes, counterproductive, if you want to look at it in this aspect.)

[spamsink]

We're into listing goals? (Personally, I don't have any goals regarding this matter, but I believe that the government might have some of these, and possibly more)

Here you go:

1. Limiting the influx of illegal immigrants.
2. Acknowledging the asylee status of Cubans who entered U.S. illegally as per Cuban lobby request.
3. Establishing a clear-cut policy wrt the Cubans in (2) in order to achieve (1).

The combination of these factors requires a policy that is simple, unequivocal, understandable by even the most dense person who could be involved in the asylum status dispute.

Any more lax policy (how about formulating one?) will eventually (as a result of lobbying + suing) result in the Coast Guard having to engage in business of specificaly looking for the rafts for at least 12 nm of territorial waters and being held accountable for any death at sea of a Cuban "rafter".

[cema.livejournal.com]

Well, since you have used the word "counterproductive", I would have thought you had some kind of goal in mind.

1. There are fundamentally two ways to achive this: (1) reduce immigration or (2) make the legal entry easier.

2, 3 are important, I think. I am not sure how easy it is for the federal government to put together a "simple, unequivocal, understandable" policy; it is possible, but requires a lot of guts.

Coast Guard is doing a good job, generally speaking, but the courts have to enforce the policy. SO the problem is with the policy makers.

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

> but it was not enough to walk to the American embassy (ostensibly an American territory) and ask the guard to shelter you

Mostly because it was very difficult to move these people to the US afterwards. The Soviets did not agree to treat them as "diplomatic mail".

But some refugees were living in the embassy most of the time...