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

[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.