You want the wet foot/dry foot policy abolished, and the status quo ante reinstated, just like I do.

I can't speak for you but from my standpoint it's a powderkeg of an issue that some people continue to use in an effort to divide us. Whatver, I don't give a fuck what those people think.

The wet/foot dry foot policy is cruel because it creates a situation like the ones we've seen where the US authorities are put in a position to beat back would be dry-feet into the ocean or the bridge people that landed on the old 7-mile bridge.

It's an invitation to smugglers because the best way to avoid detection is not on a slow moving raft but on a go-fast boat hired to do the job. Of course along with the unsavory smugglers, you have to throw in the Cuban government that allows those vessels to come into Cuban waters and pick up their human cargo.

The wet/foot dry foot policy was put in place to stem the tide of rafters who were launching themselves aboard anything that would float. In that regard it has worked. The number of rafters has dwindled to almost nothing but the smuggling is getting out of control.

And regardless of what we all think of wet/dry foot, there are people in our community that think Cubans get special treatment. There's probably a few hundred thousand Haitians that would kill for a wet foot/dry foot policy or a Haitian adjustment act.

Of course I want Cubans to be free. Of course I don't want Cuban repatriated, but this is a conundrum that the exile community has faced for 48 years. The most disaffected, the most angry are the ones that are the most desperate to get off the island. This results not only in an escape valve for the regime to let some steam out of the totalitarian pressure cooker but also creates huge revenue streams for the regime because those rafters get jobs and then become benefactors for their families back home. Of course you can't blame them, but you'd also have to be foolish not to recognize that this is counterproductive to putting pressure on the regime.

In short, it's a big shit sandwich.

The only wet foot or any kind of foot that will work is a Marine's boot on Raul's neck, until then it will be the same craaap!!! but don't despair, be it an inmigration avalache or an airplane shoot-down it will happen, Raul walks a tight rope so either he'll throw in the towel with some deal or the boot will be on his neck, chance is only math, the day will come...

Doorgunner, from your mouth to God's ears. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that confrontation -- military or diplomatic, a la Jeanne Kirkpatrick -- is necessary with dictatorships?

One aspect of the wet foot/dry foot policy that does not get the the attention it deserves is that such suggests very strongly that US territorial waters are not part of the US

Wet-foot, dry-foot is a moral travesty, for how it puts us in the business of sending back to Cuba, folks who are trying to escape that tyranny to a better life. That is un-American, to say the least. Perhaps it has the economic and political effects that Henry describes, i.e. pressure valve, remittances, etc., but they do not outweigh the immorality of working hand-in-hand with the dictatorship in Havana to send Cubans back to the island.

Wet-food, dry-foot is awful not for what it says about Cubans or the dictatorship. It is reprehensible for what it says about America.

Marc,

While I agree wholeheartedly about the immorality of the policy, why should it be considered immoral and reprehensible for America to secure its borders? What makes Cubans different from, say, Mexicans?

Val,

I trust "what makes Cubans different from, say, Mexicans?" is merely a rhetorical question on your part.

LG,

No. Im playing devil's advocate and would like an answer to the question.

i would like the wet/dry foot law abolished,and go back the way it was before....

and one of many differences between cubans and mexicans is commun,obvious,mexicans that are caught crossing the border illegaly are sent back to mexico,and nothing happen to them,no prison terms,no ostracism,no comdenation by the goverment,they dont become "dead men walking" in their own land,..on the other hand,cubans caught under the same circumstances are DEAD MEN WALKING in the island,in jail,or in the big "patio",that means outside the prison...

Val,

Someone already posted the answer here a few days ago. http://www.jbs.org/node/4834

And I quote,

"It is no exaggeration to say that, were it not for decades of betrayal by the U.S. government, Cuba would probably be free of Fidel Castro today, and we would not have to worry about Cuban immigration, since the island nation would have continued to be the most prosperous nation in all of Latin America. With our government having delivered Cuba to the communists on a silver platter, it is the least we can do is to provide safe haven for the victims of our foreign policy."

Jorge Luis

The wet foot/dry foot policy is basically the same as if during the existence of East Germany we threw people back over the Berlin wall.

Every repatriation is a tragedy.

Or more simply put, Mexico, with all its faults, is a functioning democracy where the people have certain rights and protections. Cuba is not.

For the most part, Mexicans are coming here for economic reasons. However, many Cubans come here to escape a political tyranny. The different motivations, I believe, require a different response from the U.S.

Yes, Cubans are treated differently, but they are leaving a different situation.

val,i beleive is just "childish" to blame USA for our mistakes,our naivette,our short history as a nation,our desire of blaming somebody else for our mistakes....and again,im not saying that some administrations from this country had made political and military mistakes and those mistakes helped "el castrado" to stay in power,but to blame USA for that,is not right,and it shows in my opinion lack of responsability and to recognize first of all,and above all,OUR MISTAKES....

I think WF/DF (sounds like a personal ad) is a crock of sh!t, political bs. It 'rewards' and promotes illegal immigration, and the craziest thing is it is illegal because of the WF/DF policy itself. I am one who personally believes many (not all) are "economic" refugees and not political. The best way to prove my point is just look at how many return the first chance they get to visit relatives. And I am one opposed to restrictions on travel. But how can you cry persecution and then return first chance you get? And Mariel aside, the numbers of those fleeing Cuba increased only after the fall of the Soviet empire, which could lead one to conclude that while the support was coming from the Soviets and the Eastern Bloc, many on the island "grinned and beared" the oppression while supplies were available. Once the hardships (product wise) began, more and more started fleeing.

@ Tony44,

Of course we Cubans bear responsibility. If our forefathers hadn't screwed up Cuba, it wouldn't have given the US an opportunity to screw up its policy towards Cuba. We implemented capitalism well, but not democracy.

-jl

As we seem to be using the Socratic Method today, I will take a stab at it.

There is nothing immoral or reprehensible in the U.S. securing its border. In a vacuum, that is an acceptable proposition.

Having said that, "how are Cubans different?" There are no new arguments, they have all been stated here (and elsewhere) before. For starters, Cubans are fleeing a repressive dictatorship that rules every aspect of their lives and severely punishes dissent. Returning a fleeing refugee is working hand-in-hand with the oppressor. THAT is immoral and reprehensible. Continuing this policy does grave harm to the notion that the U.S. is morally superior to other nations, and hinders its ability to act as a beacon to others in matters of human rights.

Every country in the world guards its borders and screens or rejects unauthorized economic migrants. Only the most heartless among the nations, however, take up arms and violent action such as ramming and sinking vessels laden with refugees fleeing communist dictatorships (13 de Marzo ring a bell?). During the cold war, it was the East Germans, the Soviets and castro's border guards who fired upon their fellow countrymen as they dashed for freedom. It has now become acceptable for the U.S. to fire upon and ram boats carrying Cuban refugees. castro has done it for decades, now the USCG has adopted castro's methods.

Second, the vast number of Mexican migrants is another differentiating factor. It is estimated that several hundred thousand Mexicans cross the border EVERY YEAR. I don't have a reported figure for Cubans arriving and/or returned, but that number is probably in the range of 2,000 to 5,000 in any given year. This has remained constant over the decades (with Mariel and the rafter "crisis" of the early 1990's being the exception). Different circumstances call for different approaches.

These are just two examples of how the situation of Cubans and Mexicans are different. Given the time and space, any informed person can give you several other good reasons why refugees fleeing a communist dictatorship might be treated differently from economic migrants.

jluix,i almost agreed with you,but still,it sounds as if USA screwed up everything after el castrado and his robolucion,and you have to take into account the moment in history that the "robolucion" happend,with the USSR,its intentions,etc,etc,and of course,USA not playing its cards the way they were suppoused to...it will be too long to explain the whole half a century in this space,still,it sounds that many people want to blame USA for our destiny,and/or at least,USA has a 50% of "blame" in all this tragedy,something that i dont accept,and it sounds childish.....

We implemented capitalism well, but not democracy.
EXCELLENT observation jluix.

Little Gator:
In regards to your statement :
Having said that, "how are Cubans different?" There are no new arguments, they have all been stated here (and elsewhere) before. For starters, Cubans are fleeing a repressive dictatorship that rules every aspect of their lives and severely punishes dissent. Returning a fleeing refugee is working hand-in-hand with the oppressor. THAT is immoral and reprehensible. Continuing this policy does grave harm to the notion that the U.S. is morally superior to other nations, and hinders its ability to act as a beacon to others in matters of human rights.

what then about the Chinese? Do they qualify under the "fleeing an oppressive regime that harshly punishes dissent"? Or the Haitians during Duvalier, Papa and Baby? They were fleeing a brutal dictatorship as well. Those fleeing Saddam? Should they have been given the same protection? Currently, lets say North Korea, Cuba, and China, and I am sure you can argue for more. Should those three countries be treated the same in regards to people fleeing dictatorships?

There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides. We Cubans made it possible for a castro to usurp power. We Americans (and the West) have made it possible form him to remain in power. A pox on both our houses, where blame is due.

I hope my meaning is not lost or misconstrued. My honest criticism does not mean I'm ungrateful for the refuge and heritage America has given me. I can say these things because I am an American by choice, and Cuban by birth.

-jl

Daniel,

The short answer is "yes".

The real question, however, is what does the United States want to be? Is it the refugee of the oppressed, or is it the collaborator to cruel dictatorships? That is the fundamental question in this debate.

First all, let's point out some facts that cannot be denied:

1. The Cuban dictatorship/government bears the direct and primary responsibility for the consequence of the Cuban immigration issue as a direct result of their repression of human rights of their citizens and the disasterous imposition on their country of a feudalistic economic system, now lasting 48+ yrs.

2. United States government bears a 'secondary' but also a 'direct' responsibility for the consequence of the Cuban immigration issue by their actions in first supporting, directing, and then betraying an invasion to eliminate the Castro Communist dictatorship in 1961. Leaving those fighting for freedom on the island defenseless to suffer under the consequences of a "bitten-animal" that was not destroyed - consequences to which gave the "bitten-animal" the opportunity to consolidate his strength even more, and directly threaten the national security of the United States. AND ADDITIONALLY enhancing the security of SAID DICTATORSHIP by the GUARANTEEING THAT NO FUTURE INVASION WOULD TAKE PLACE against that island (AND with a base there, they were certainly in a position to ADD to that GUARANTEE).

3. The granting of "asylum" (and "refugee" status) to citizens fleeing "communist dictatorships" has always been universal and continuous in the history of the United States, that is, until it was rescinded against all previous historical precedent with respect to Cuba in 1996 under an "appeasing" Leftist President who exhibited no moral conscience (elect a rapist with no moral compass and see what you get).

4. Nothing has changed in 48 years relative to the Cuban governement and their repressed people, and the Cuban goverment and the United States. Except the fact that Cuba does not have their 'rich uncle' (Soviet Union) to hide behind their coat-tails to protect them. Consequently, the perceived reduction of the "threat level" concerning Cuba in the minds of the politicians and the American populace at-large, has also deminished the 'importance' and the immigration status of those fleeing that communist dictatorship.

Countries provide asylum on arriving refugees based on the 'origin' country's repressiveness on the individual's freedom and human rights violations.

The "Wet foot / Dry foot" policy has destroyed this fundamental basis, and has reduced it solely on HOW YOU GOT HERE!

What´s different about the Mexicans? Elections for starters--they have a freely chosen president, not a self-appointed didtator for life.

Val, I for one do not give shit about any Mexican, Haitian or any other national because it is not the same situation and in the other hand they do not give or want to give a shit about us Cubans. Yes in a way we have a great advantage in this countries compared to other immigrants, but we earn it, for once we care about each other we lend a helping hand to our newcomers and also all the power that we have achieved it was not just given to us, we fought to get it. I remember when the took down the planes from hermanos al rescate, all Cubans show their unity, when Elian it was the same. We care for each other other national do not.

As for the Dry/Wet feet, I think is criminal to have, I also think that you need to have a screening system so pariahs and scumbags are sent back.

I agree with all the points and reasons regarding the wet foot/dry foot and Cuban Adjustment Act.

Of course, many non-Cubans (and even some Cubans) view our stance as "hypocritical". Sure, let the Cubans in but screw everyone else, they say.

I say, there's nothing hypocritical about letting in a group of people from a brutal and oppressive dictatorship. Nor is it hypocritical or even immoral for the U.S. to protect its own borders and control the flow or even, God forbid, stop illegal immigration.

Any ref who shows up in the U.S and within a couple of tears is visiting the Island to show off gold chains (gotten with plastic) made a false statement to the U.S Gov. when he/she first claimed refugee status, deport their funky asses back to the letrine solar they came from...

To all,

If Cubans are to be granted unchallenged entry to the United States because they are leaving a "dictatorship", unlike Mexicnas who are fleeing a country with a duly elected democartic government, does this in fact make Cubans "political refugees" vis a vis the US?

Let's look at some possible alternatives to Wet Foot Dry foot.

1. Nobody except those with Visas won in the lottery or otherwise extended by the federal government gets in. This is a very real option the US government could enforce. Wet foot/dry foot, you go back.

2. They could do the above AND get rid of the Cuban adjustment act. Bye bye 20,000 visas. Bye bye special treatment for Cubans.

3. They could go back to the way it was in the early 90s. Untold thousands dying at sea, guantanamo filled with rafters living in barely humane conditions, an uncontrolled migration.

Let me ask a question of the peanut gallery, wouldn't everyone be better served if Cuba was a country people didn't want (need) to flee from?

Fix the problem not the symptoms people.

yes val,we are political refugees,although we have some cubans living here that they dont even know it yet,and they go back to cuba not exactly to visit family members, but to "show off",and "etc",....and by the way,i dont see nothing wrong with leaving a country for political reasons,but going back to visit family members...no matter where you go in this planet,"FAMILY IS FAMILY"...and of course,i see nothing wrong not going to visit at all,is very respectable....if you see through history,countries with similar circumstances as ours,more or less the same dictatorship,people living outside those countries,if they were allowed to go back to visit,they used to visit,with no "misconceptions" at all about it...

All of those who wait for the Cuban Adjustment act to protect them while at the same time requesting to visit Cuba, should be sent packing and not allowed to return to the US. How dare they claim to be political refugees and at the same time plan their returning trip to the island...Pa celebrar los quince the Cachita? Le ronca el mango caballeros. Either we are political refugees or somos unos descarados, cara de guantes!

Yes, Val "Socrates" Prieto, we're political refugees. Speaking of Socrates, the main reason he accepted his death sentence and drank the hemlock was that by spending his life in Athens he had implicitly accepted to abide by the laws of the city. How does this relate to Cubans? Anyone who wishes to abandon a totalitarian system is implicitly disagreeing with the system it imposes. Some explicitly express said disagreement, e.g., political prisoners. Given the chance to leave, 90% of Cuba would empty in a year, maybe 99%. But someone who substitutes one democracy for another, e.g., the Mexican case, is not doing so for political reasons.

What's the next question in Plato's long-lost Wet Foot/Dry Foot Dialogue? :-)

Wet foot/Dry Foot sucks. It is awful and tragic when we are forced to repatriate honest Cubans in search of freedom, and in essence condemning them to a horrible fate back home.

The only things that make it justifiable are the pressure castro is unable to relieve by a mass-migration, and the continued justification for the presence of American military and law-enforcement vessels in the Straits of Florida without causing an international incident.

If castro could squawk every time the US ooches out of American waters in his general direction, thus ensuring a virtually un-patrolled route straight to the US, imagine the deals he could have made with drug smugglers (beyond what he has already). Also, you and I both know that quite a few of these vessels are collecting SIGINT, as well as transmissions from HUMINT resources. And because they are allegedly enforcing this policy, castro cannot object to their presence.

With WF/DF, drug smugglers are not vitally invested in the continuation of the castro regime, and the intel bonus for the United States is the Cuban peoples' best shot at ending the rule of castro.

I gotta agree with Jewbana. If you're willing to vacation in a place you fled from were you really fleeing in the first place? A family emergency is probably the only justifiable reason for returning, especially since visiting involves making the regime richer.

Here we go again, with the old "pressure cooker" theory.

It has not worked in Cuba in the past. It won't work in Cuba in the future. It has never worked in any society.

In the 60's and 70's castro prevented family contact except for unrealiable mail, and tenuous telephone calls. Now, it is possible for those here to re-establish and/or maintain some degree of physical contact with those over there. Yet, after 50 years of forced separation, which has done nothing to overthrow the system, there are those here who suggest that making sure Miguelito does not get to see his grandmother is somehow a good thing. Heck, if Miguelito visits his dying grandmother he is downright unpatriotic, and should be left to rot in a dungeon.

It defies all logic.

both,jewbana and littlegator posted their own examples of "visiting"......i believe visiting cuba to "celebrate cachita's birthday is pathetic at the least...now,to visit cuba 'cause a family member is sick,or any other emergency,o simply visiting theirs parents that are old,and you never know if its gonna be the last time,is human behavior,not being "cara de guantes"....

Sorry Little Gator,

No logic is being defied. There have always been and there will continue to be "Humanitarian" visas. No one in their right minds could oppose the right of any individual to visit a sick or dying relative. But by the same token, Cubans can not "Claim" to be "Political" refugees if at a year and one day of their residing in the US they apply for a re-entry permit to frolic in the land which they "escaped".
Eso es doble moral or as my mother calls it, "Es ser caretuo". OK?
I am very grateful that my relatives in Cuba are young and in good health. I wouldn't walk an INCH to give that regime 1 cent of my AMERICAN DOLLARS. Those are reserved for the good guys. My brother and I boycott all castro inc. products like Cuban cigars. We have a pact. Until we can smoke them in a free Cuba... for now on those rare occasions when I smoke, I smoke Cuban wannabes.

Well LittleGator, the converse of what you say is true too. Trips to Cuba for family visitation have been going on for the better part of three decades now and it has done nothing to achieve Cuban liberty. In fact close to half a million Cubans have come to the US in that time.

Question: What's Cuba's number 1 source of dollars?

I'm for removing all of the travel restrictions to Cuba tomorrow. But no more Cuban adjustment act. No more 20,000 visa bombo. No more political asylum. Everyone free to travel to Cuba because Cuba is just like any other Latin American country. That means no more immigrants from there.

Either Cuba is a special case or it isn't. Let's make up our minds.

Henry - Yes, the truest solution to all of this is to dump the dictatorship and to make Cuba a country people don't risk their lives to leave. And maybe WF/DF is a "pressure valve," for the dictatorship, although I share the skepticism expressed by others about that theory.

But the worst part of the policy is not what it says about Cuba — that is, that Cubans get "special treatment," which may be true, for good reason. What is most reprehensible about WF/DF is that it betrays one of the notions that makes the US great — that it is a refuge for people fleeing oppression, in all shapes and sizes. I'm sorry, but WF/DF makes us collaborators with castro, and no amount of rationalization with change that.

WF/DF may be the least of other possible evils, but it is still an evil. And as long as it is in place, it is hard to take serious the rhetoric from the Bush administration, and other government officials, that they desire freedom for the island.

I'm with Henry. If we were to do that. Se acaba la dictadura!

Marc, if there were an easy answer, don't you think it would have been implemented already?

How can the US stop collaborating with Cuba then? We, the Cuban people collaborate with Cuba all the time.

Is the solution then to import 10.5 million Cubans to the US? To make it so that the only people remaining in Cuba are communist party officials and the CDRs?

I don't know. I thought the goal was a free Cuba for Cubans.

Let me also say this. I understand that it's easy for people to point at me and say "that's easy for him to say." OK fine I'll bear that burden. It's not like I ever gave crap what people think. But if they release Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet and put him on a boat to Miami tomorrow, his usefulness in the fight for Cuban liberty is over. He'd just be another exile. This ain't easy. It's a terrible fucking situation but we can't sit here sending billions of dollars to Cuba, wanting special treatment from the US, and then lamenting that we can't have it completely the way we want it. 200,000 Cubans have migrated to the US in the last 10 years. Fill Dolphin Stadium 3 times with that number of people. That's under wet/foot dry foot and the visa lottery. Empirically, more Cubans are reaching freedom now than during the balsero crisis. Again, as I stated before it's a shit sandwich, nobody is happy with it. But my goal is to make this debate irrelevant by trying to find a way to make Cuba free.

G-d Bless You Henry!

Henry, Cuba is a special case. It's the only totalitarian regime in Latin America, with Venezuela soon to join its ranks.

Whatever happened to calling for world-wide economic sanctions against the Cuban regime just as were implemented against South Africa in the 1980s? That's the real pressure cooker that has never been put on the stove with the burner set to HI.

All I am saying, is give sanctions a chance.

Jorge Luis, I agree with you. I'm playing devil's advocate. What I am saying is that if we want the special status then we should be willing to accept the responsibility that comes with it like not enabling the regime by caving in to its extortion and ransom. Every time you send a dollar over there you are giving the kidnappers of your family ransom money.

If we listen to the Cubanologos, the way to a free Cuba is to remove the travel restrictions, remove the embargo, give visas to all Cubans who want to come here and borron y cuenta nueva. That will certainly be one solution. The only people left in Cuba will be the generals and the American tourists staying in their hotels.

Oh and by the way, we are racking up the comments here. We must be successful again. Those 2 million visitors aren't important, just the comments.

[/sarcasm]

Gotcha, Henry. Wasn't sure were your reductio ad absurdum started/ended.

But actually, allowing 99% of the Cuban population to flee wouldn't be so absurd. I'm all for removing travel restrictions, in one direction, out of Cuba.

This conversation reminds me of something my Mom likes to say about the Cuban situation, that if all the balseros that have died in the Florida Straits had instead died fighting the castro regime in the streets of Havana, Cuba would be free now. She's probably right, but at the same time, I'm sure she would not want me or my cousins to have been the ones to have made that ultimate sacrifice. Maybe she would? I should ask her. I may be a Spartan descendant, for all I know. But I doubt it. The point is that using immigration to pressure the castro regime is ultimately utilitarian and therefore immoral. If Biscet were to be freed tomorrow on the condition that he must leave Cuba, he should be freed, unless he himself decides to bear that cross. Otherwise, we'd be using human beings as means to an end. Anyone that ones to leave the island, should be allowed to leave. It's a basic human right. And if it did happen, if 99% of Cuba dispersed around the world tomorrow, it would mean the end of the regime. There'd be no one left to oppress, no one left to perform slave labor for the benefit of European/Canadian decadence. But of course, that'll never happen.

For the longest time the Cuban people have been caught between a Scylla and Charybdis, with no arms with which to rebel against its internal oppressors, on the one hand, and the US preventing exiles from organizing an external resistance, on the other hand. And a Ghandi-style peaceful resistance hasn't and probably won't work, despite Biscet's heroic efforts, since the powers that be are inheritors of Hitler/Mussolini/Stalin, instead of colonial Brits.

Short of U.S. military invasion, world-wide economic sanctions is the only solution I see. It worked against the Soviet Union and South Africa. Why wouldn't it work against Cuba?

And yes, we exiles should limit our visits and remittances to the bare minimum required to help our loved ones remaining behind, but let's never use them as a means to an end, even if that end is their own freedom. Otherwise, we become the monster we're fighting.

Have visits from Cuban political refugees to Cuba helped spread democratic ideals among those on the island?

Scylla and Charybdis...

Wrapped around your finger. Gordon Sumner.

Listen I agree with you about Biscet. In fact I'm sure he's probably been offered exile. To his credit, when he was released from prison the first time, he didn't back down. But the world isn't going to pay attention to Cubans outside of Cuba. We should know that by now. The only thing we can do outside is to try to bring attention to the Biscets.

I never advocated using immigration as a weapon against Cuba. It just frosts my balls that a year and day after they arrive, claiming they had to leave Cuba because of the repression, many of these people return to Cuba with bags of clothes and a fistful of dollars that ultimately help the regime. Every person being maintained by a gusano is one less person the government has to take care of. Obviously the government's inability to care of its people has to be one of the top catalysts for dissatisfaction. So if you have a tooth ache do you want me to give you something to numb it indefinitely or do you want me to yank the tooth to get rid of the pain permanently.

I see a lot of people bitching about the current US policy regarding wet foot / dry foot but what I don't see are proposals for an alternative. Remember at the end of the day the US government is going to at least attempt to act in US interests. It's frankly not in US interests to allow an uncontrolled migration of 500,000 Cubans to float to the US.

Now that 500,000 is a figure that has been floated out there by a UM professor named Andy Gomez and he thinks that's what could happen when they announce fidel's death. I don't agree at all with that. But I think it is realistic if fidel doesn't die soon and the status quo persists in Cuba coupled with a return to the pre wet/dry foot policy.

So let me pose this question. Is the previous policy, without the 20,000 annual visas, preferable?

Gordon Summner...hehehe... Though I must say I first encountered Scylla and Charybdis in The Odyssey, and that book by Nabakov, well, with that book by Nabokov, Lolita.

I hear you about the year-and-a-day returnees. It really pisses me off too. I haven't gone back, and have family I haven't seen in 26 years. My Mom visited twice in the 90's for family emergencies.

As for immigration policies, I would err on the side of allowing people to escape that hell hole. Having escaped it myself, I can't now advocate closing the door behind those that remain.

Val, visits by political refugees haven't helped spread democratic ideals. The initial visits from la comunidad in the late 70's helped to debunk any remaining claims for the supposed economic superiority of socialism. There you had refugees who had rebuilt their lives from scratch in capitalist economies returning after 15 or so years of exile. That was my grandfather's story, and he's never returned since. Neither do visiting European/Canadian tourists help spread democratic ideals. They just instill resentment at their exploitation.

What seems to be the general consensus regarding immigration policy - not just with respect to Cuba, but as a whole - in the United States at present?

I see your point, Henry, and you're right: The goal must be freedom for Cubans, in Cuba. And what we in the States can do to help bring that about, is not easy, considering we are now approaching 50 years of trying.

Unfortunately, WFDF does not do anything to serve that goal, while at the same time revealing one of the worst of angels as a country: Trying to take the easy way out. (Thank you, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush) What is the alternative? I am not sure, but I cannot see the U.S. government doing anything that would repeal the "special status" of Cuban refugees. Meanwhile, it is unacceptable that as a nation, we collaborate with the dictatorship to send people back to that hellhole.

As for Cubans who "collaborate" with Cuba, I confess I am not familiar with the situations alluded to earlier, about balseros quickly returning to the island to visit, etc. But I actually think the U.S. should relax restrictions on family members' ability to travel to the island or send remittances. Yes, maybe the dictatorship profits from that, but I think humanitarian concerns outweigh the few extra dollars that end up in castro's bank accounts. Relaxing the rules won't help bring castro down, but I don't think it will help keep in power, either.

And that the U.S. maintains those restrictions, while at the same time allowing food sales to Cuba and enforcing WFDF, shows how big a mess the U.S. policy on Cuba really is — a mess that has done little to set Cuba free.

Marc,

What constitutes a "humanitarian" visit to Cuba by a Cuban political refugee?

If they are returning to visit an ill family member or bringing money or other assistance, that is "humanitarian."

Marc,

If we've established here that Cubans that come to this country are unlike Mexicans because the latter come here to earn money and buy goods to send to their families back home, why is one group different than the other? Who decides what "humanitarian" assistance is?

Val,

No one here has said that one of the differences b/n Mexicans and Cubans is that one group sends assistance to its members back home, and the other doesn't. This similarity is irrelevant to an analysis of the respective political situations.

Marc expresses my general position well. But, I want to elaborate on what I believe constitutes "humanitarian assistance." I would add that retaining or re-establishing close family bonds with those we left behind is as important, and perhaps more important, than sending aspirin, vitamins, clothing, etc. In my opinion, the greatest harm castro has done to the Cuban people is the separation and destruction of the Cuban family. We should not contribute further to his handiwork.

LG,

If we have established that Mexican "immigrants" differ from Cuban "refugees" because the former leave a democratic country while the latter are fleeing a tyranny, then the assumption is that the former are economic immigrants and the latter are political asylums seekers. Thus my question to Marc's comment is not irrelevant to the debate.

My question to you now is, how do you define "retaining family ties" and "re-establishing family ties?" and must these be contingent upon physical - face to face - meetings?

Val,

There is nothing like a warm hug, a friendly kiss, and hours of long conversation at the kitchen table. Sharing a beer in the hot Cuban sunshine with your favorite uncle after visiting your grandfather's grave for the first time, is not the same as writing a letter.

When there is no other way, infrequent and elliptically worded letters written on onion skin paper must do. But, it is not the best way.

val,the visits of cubans from here to the island dont help to much to spread democratics ideas,but they give hope that there is a world outside the island totally different and with posibilities for a normal living of people...

and for the desire of all of us about a free cuba,it wont come from our "remittances"or our visits,but from inside cuba,and very possible from the top not from the bottom....

LG,

I agree about the qualities of a face to face meeting of family, however, I am trying to keep emotions out of this debate and remain as unattached as possible. We are, after all, discussing US policy, and to do that I need to view the issue as an outsider.

Let's wait for marc's response before I pose my next question.

I do not agree with the wet_foot-dry food policy because cubans, on the most part are economic refugees and not political. You see them in Miami the latest arrivals, that even pay tribute to castro in may ways.

In addition, in the past, after a year after there arrival they where back in Cuba to visit relatives, party and do quincenañeras. How come if they where is such a danger they can return?

To have a maral policy, any cuban that is granted asylum based on this policy cannot return to cuba. This is the same policy in europe, where all political refugess cannot return back to their countries of origin, if they return, they loose the privileges.

Cubans, prefer to get on a boat face the sharks instead of going to the streets to ask for their civil rights as eastern europeans did.

Cubans always wanted the easy way out, or that the marines fix their problems.

I think in spanish is call, Les faltan cojones y los castristas si los tiene. With exception, as Dr Bicet.

Tango,

Let's keep this a civilized debate, please. there's no need to insult anyone to get your point across.

Val - You ask, what constitutes a humanitarian visit?

Working with what is practical, I think there should be a presumption that if someone is visiting or sending money and other aid to a close relative — define "close" however you want — on the island, it should be allowed. I think the U.S. government can allow that, while maintaining restrictions on general tourist-type travel and other financial dealings with the island that unquestionably would benefit the regime.

(I also believe that I should be able to send assistance to dissidents on the island, but I understand why that might not be possible.)

What is needed is a distinction between steps that would help the regime, i.e. lifting all of whats left of the embargo, and what helps Cubans, i.e. the humanitarian measures I and others have described.

(BTW, that is a distinction that again brings up WFDF — which is good for the dictatorship, bad for Cubans.)

Marc,

It's been stated here that the WF/DF policy, as it is, has the US working in tandem the Cuban government. Can the same distinction be made, given that the Cuban government owns and operates every facet of the island's economy, that Cuban "refugees" are indirectly working in tandem with the Cuban government via remittances to the island?

Val - Perhaps, but is that evidence that individual Cubans are not benefiting from the "humanitarian" assistance as described above?

I don't deny that the regime might get its cut, but it is difficult to accept that that will make or break the dictatorship --- especially when at the same time we are selling food to the dictatorship. Meanwhile, some people in need might get some much needed help.

Unless I see evidence that proves me wrong, that shows people are not getting help and the castros are getting rich from the $300 that someone sends every 3 months, that is a tradeoff I'd be willing to make.

Val,

In this crazy world, a given set of facts can support opposing arguments. For example, there are people who maintain that Ernesto Guevara was an accomplished guerrilla fighter who cared for his fellow man--go figure.

So it would not suprise me that someone could claim that exiles who send remittances are somehow collaborating with the dictatorship. I'll adopt Marc's response to you. And, I will add an observation. The hypothetical $300 does not fly from your family member's pocket directly into the dictator's coffers. Part of the $300 goes to other cubanos de a pie who sell homemade pizza, or a fish they caught off the Malecon, or goes to another cubano for a used bike tire. These "second tier" beneficiaries of the remittance then transfer a portion of that to other cubanos de a pie. It is only far down the line, after many cubans have benefitted that the money may reach the government. Ultimately, most, if not all of the money does reach the government. That cannot be helped in a tightly controlled economy. But, by that point, it has helped many people live just a little bit better. It may also have helped these people become a little less dependent on the government.

In an imperfect world, there are seldom perfect solutions.

Marc,

Fair enough. Now, there are roughly 2 millions cubans living in exile, while the population of Cuba stands right now at around 11 million. Statistically, it is safe to say that, while the total in remittances from abroad is about a billion dollars per year, roughly only between, say 10 and 20 percent for the purposes of this debate, of the population in Cuba receive humanitarian assistance from abroad. That leaves approximately 80% of the population of Cuba with no other resources save for what the Cuban government provides them and what they obtain by their "wits."

My question is twofold. First is only 20 percent of the population having accesss to humanitarian aid from abroad acceptable, from a humanitarian standpoint? And, does this situation not behoove the Cuban government to, directly or indirectly, increase the number of "refugees" and thus the number of separated families given that this assures said government an increase in remittance revenue?

Val,

See my comments posted at 9:56. It is the best (abbreviated) response I can give to your latest question. The direct recipient is not the only beneficiary. And, there are no perfect solutions in an imperfect world.

My bottom line is that helping family, and maintaining or re-establishing close loving relationships will be of paramount importance in a future and free Cuba. Estrangement helps no one.

LG,

Ill grant that there are secondary beneficiaries with remittance money, but that percentage of the population is a very modest one, leaving the rest of the population with still no humanitarian assistance from abroad.

LG,

I understand youre point perfectly, and Im not arguing against it. Im merely playing devil's advocate here for the purposes of making a point.

Val - All very true, perhaps only a small percentage of the population gets direct assistance from the U.S.

But that is better than no one getting help. And if LG is right, which I believe he/she is, the intangible benefits of allowing such contacts will pay off infinitely.

Marc,

For argument's sake, let's say that unfettered travel for Cuban exiles has been around since 1996. That's over elleven years of remittances and "humanitarian" visits. What intangible benefits have we seen from this?

EVERY DOLLAR THE REGIME GETS FURTHERS THEIR ABILITY TO OPPRESS AND INCARCERATE OUR PEOPLE!
WAKE UP GUYS!
Es el colmo que a estas alturas depues de 48 años NOS ESTEN CHULEANDO. LE TRAQUETEA!

Jewbana,

there's a point to all of my Socratic madness here. Bear with me.

Val - Those are difficult to see, which is why they are "intangible." What I would HOPE for, is that Cubans on the island know that the American government, and the American people are on their side. That they know we are willing to take concrete steps to better their lives, while at the same time keeping the heat on Havana to change its behavior, or better yet, send itself into the ashbin of history.

Again, it is hard to imagine how the money, travel, etc. makes that big a difference to the dictatorship's bottom line. If you want to hit them where it hurts, do something from how it benefits from its dealings with China, Venezuela, Europe, etc. — and with American farmers.

The affinity and sympathy Cubans might feel emanating from the U.S., I would hope, would make the inevitable transition to democracy — and I do believe it is "inevitable;" just read your history — that much easier.

Val,

I think Marc has just summed it up nicely.

If you want to squeeze anyone, squeeze the regime directly and/or squeeze the big commercial interests in this country and around the world that contribute the overwhelmingly large percentage of the Cuban government's income. Don't place that additional (and I believe futile) burden on the already bowed backs of our brothers and sisters.

I don't think there is much else that can be said about this. Some will disagree. That is their prerogative.

LG and Marc,

Your points are well taken and Im sure the majority of folks reading and particpating iin this thread are in agreement with your sentiments and hopes for Cuba's future.

That said, let's put the above back into the perspective of the wet foot/dry foot policy and specifically study it from an American point of view.

First, I feel it's safe to say that Cubans arent treated lilke most other groups of foreigners entering this country. For all intents and purposes and as established previously herein, Cubans are considered "political refugees" as opposed to economic immigrants.

Can we all agree on this? Good.

Now, there's a question up there in this thread that I posed that no one answered, I believe, and it's an important one that lies at the very core of this wet foot/dry foot debate:

What seems to be the general consensus regarding immigration policy - not just with respect to Cuba, but as a whole - in the United States at present?

Anyone wanna take a stab at it?

This is a classic no-win situation. Ultimately, in practice, the balance is tipped by sentimental or subjective considerations, which is perhaps inevitable. That is not going to change; if anything, it will only escalate. Regardless of the morality or humanity factor, it is very clear that the regime benefits significantly from the status quo and may, in fact, depend on it.

Sout Africa-type sanctions would be great, but that will never happen, so it's a moot point. The US will always put its own interests first, as do all countries, and will only take drastic action if its hand is forced. I seriously doubt the Cuban regime is stupid enough to do that. In other words, the ONLY possible solution will have to come from Cubans themselves. God help us.

In our post 9/11 world, I think it safe to say that most Americans are fed up with what they believe is a "broken" immigration policy. They want secure borders and they want illegal immigration stopped.

It is inconceivable, if not revolting, that any Cuban living in the USA today would support a policy that returns Cubans fleeing Cuba back to the island. Put yourselves or your parents in their shoes. Hay que tener mucha gandinga y falta de corazon. Increible.

True enough Ziva.

Yet, interestingly, each and everyone of the 9/11 hijackers was in this country legally. Tighter security against "illegal" immigrants would not have stopped them. I believe the same is true of the various terrorists who have been apprehended in England and Spain in the last couple of years. Some, in Englad, were even Englis-born.

I am not aware of a single terrorist in this country, England or Spain that was there illegally.

Little Gator that is correct, and I wonder how many Americans are aware of those facts?

I guess that depends on whether they attended public schools, and get their "news" from ET and Ophra.

mamey,

I dont think anyone here wants cubans repatriated. Im not sure where your anger is stemming from.

Val: Perhaps no one really wants Cubans repatriated, but.... it appears from some comments that there are fellow Cubans who want to play the Pontius Pilate bit...gee, I guess Cubans should be able to flee the dictatorship, but heck, the USA needs to protect its borders, the law of the land has to be respected, they are no different than other migrants, bla, bla, bla...or golly, it was okay for us and our parents to flee, but they should stick it out no matter what, I mean, ahhh...gotta go, lemme go wash my hands.

Val, it could have been you.... Just imagine yourself in their shoes.

OK, since my last question was responded to peripherally, let me interject:

Whether it be for national security issues or economic issues, right now, as proven by the inability of a majority congress to pass a bipartisan immigration bill with even the majority's opposition - the Bush administration - in support,it's safe to assume there's somewhat of a national consensus on immigration, illegal or otherwise. Americans are concerned over immigration.

Can we agree to the preceding?

Mamey,

You can wash your hands all you want, the issue will still be as dirty and as bitter no matter what.

Vedado,

I do imagine myself in their shoes. Every day of my life to be precise.

I can tell you all right now that this is going to get somewhat heated from now on, so I am asking for those who wish to comment to do so with respect and to refrain from any ad hominem attacks.

I can also tell you all that I will most probably be raked through the coals for what Ill be commenting regarding this, and that's fine as every one is entitled to their opinions. But I want to make two things very clear: I have worked tirelessly for four years trying to get the truth about Cuba out to those who wouldnt ordinarily be exposed to it because I want freedom and a well deserved and well earned prosperity for the people of Cuba. And second, I am approaching this issue pragmatically, calculated and heartlessly, because that is the way that those with the ability to change the policy, the issue, will address it.

Many of you will not agree with me. Some will even call me names and deride me. if that's the case, then so be it.

Now, can we all agree to the immigration comment I made above:

Whether it be for national security issues or economic issues, right now, as proven by the inability of a majority congress to pass a bipartisan immigration bill with even the majority's opposition - the Bush administration - in support,it's safe to assume there's somewhat of a national consensus on immigration, illegal or otherwise. Americans are concerned over immigration.

Val: It wasn't me speaking as Pontius Pilate...I was voicing in unequivocal terms what some individuals appear to mean with their heartless statements (review the thread--no personal attacks). They want to wash their hands of the principle that made it possible for many of us to flee the dictatorship. What current exiles do once they are here is their business, like it or not. We can be grateful to the USA for said principle, but we don't need to confuse all of our interests for those of this nation.

Val, have you lived in Cuba?

Val wrote,

"What seems to be the general consensus regarding immigration policy - not just with respect to Cuba, but as a whole - in the United States at present?
Anyone wanna take a stab at it?"

The general consensus regarding immigration policy within what group? American society as a whole? Latinos? Republicans? General consensus? Maybe if two people agree on immigration policy and that is your sample group.

Wet Foot/Dry Foot can be argued against (w/ goal of acceptance of all Cuban migrants) very effectively from a historical, moral perspective by bringing up the previously referenced analogy to the Berlin Wall - would America have supported throwing East Berliners back over the Wall? Would the US government not have classed any European fleeing from Soviet occupation as a political refugee? No, the US would not have refused to accept genuine political refugees, or at least arrange for their acceptance by a third country. We would not have forcibly repatriated en masse victims of Soviet persecution.

The question of remittances and their effect on the regime has been debated to death here, and in other forums. In the year that has passed since my Cuban wife defected, I have yet to see a seismic shift in the major commentators' positions, or the release of fresh, empirical evidence that bolsters one side's position against the other.

However, I think that (making a broad generality), those interested parties with relatives or other close personal contacts on the island of Cuba tend to be more tolerant or supportive of remittances, and tend to put less faith in the claim that remittances prop up the regime.

In general (broad generality), those interested parties who are not in a position to be able to directly support a close relative in Cuba are more vocal in arguing against remittances and claiming that the $300 sent every three months does support the regime because in the end the Cuban government recoups upwards of 99.9% of the money sent to the island.

I don't think there has been an empirical study to confirm that number, or to separate the distribution of remittances in the underground economy vs. the official economy (because there is a distinction when someone sells stolen gov't property to a private citizen in Cuba, as opposed to when that citizen buys something officially in the dollar store).

Anyway, it's been a year that I've been here (thanks, Val!) and I don't see anyone changing their position here or presenting new data to convince me to support one side as opposed to the other. You could claim that our Cuba policy hasn't worked for 50 years so it should be liberalized. On the other hand, maybe the policy hasn't worked because we haven't really enacted a true embargo or blockage against Cuba - after all, as Val and Henry point out, the US is a major trading partner of Cuba.

Maybe if this country was more willing to starve to death a portion of the Cuban population by halting all trade with the island, throwing in jail those US citizens who travel illegally to Cuba, interdicting foreign shipping to Cuba, and truly blockading the country, conditions would become so dire as to foment revolt.

However, here is the one factor that (in one year) I have seen no one discuss: unlike Eastern Europe, for example, and Berlin in particular, where the material incarnation of freedom and prosperity was literally only hundreds of meters away from the despair and deprivation of communism, Cuba is a geographically isolated island. Furthermore, it is a place where the Cuban state and its supporters have a monopoly on violence (through the armed forces and total lack of private weapons ownership) and one in which the population already is malnourished, weak, and focused on daily survival (after all, 80% of the population doesn't receive remittances, and is therefore worse off materially and physically than those receiving money from abroad).

So, unlike Eastern Europe, where the USA and other western democracies could physically infiltrate anti-communist agents, materiale, and money, Cuba IS the impenetrable rock.

So, let's say through a total cessation of trade with Cuba by the USA, and a blockage against other countries, would a population that is already half-starved and lacking any organized, outfitted guerrilla structure be able to mount a government-toppling revolt?

Isn't invading Cuba under the pretext of national security the only sure-fire way of returning democracy to the island? Because what totalitarian state would permit itself to be replaced by democracy, and what repressed-population could overthrow said regime in the first place if it has no external support?

Joe,

The sample group? Does this help you out:

Whether it be for national security issues or economic issues, right now, as proven by the inability of a majority congress to pass a bipartisan immigration bill with even the majority's opposition - the Bush administration - in support,it's safe to assume there's somewhat of a national consensus on immigration, illegal or otherwise. Americans are concerned over immigration.

Thats a duly elected majority Democratic Congress on a bipartisan imigration bill backed by the Republican White House that did not pass.

Vedado,

I lived in Cuba until I was four. Does that make a huge difference? Are you of the school of thought that since i didnt suffer for a certain amount of time under the dictatorship then my opinions and thoughts on Cuba are inconsequential?

Val,

I'm having trouble following your immigrant comment, so my answer may not make sense. Here goes.

There is a general consensus amongst AMERICANS that illegal immigration is a problem and needs to be fixed. However, as proven by the divide in Congress, there is no POLITICAL consensus whatsoever. Those on the right bashed Bush for being in favor of amnesty. Those on the left bashed Bush for having immigrants go through too many hoops.

And we wonder why Congress has an approval rating of 17%?

Joe,

I mentioned the remittances as they are part and parcel to the policy, just like wet foot/dry foot. They are all intermingled and inseparable.

As far as an empirical study of these remittances, Im not sure there is one and if there is I have yet to see it, however, what brings the most money into Cuba? Its not cigars, its not doctors, its not nickel or rum. It isnt tourism or investment. It is the exile's remittances that count for cuba's number one source of income. So, while there's no study that Im aware of perse, I dont have any compunctions calling a spade a spade.

Robert,

You said it correctly, there is a general consensus on immigration amongst Americans, and while there are political differences in Congress, one of the reasons that the immigration did not pass has to be attributed to the fact that, despite that 17% approval rating, those representatives in Congress voted whatthey thought best for their constituency.

Val,

True. although I will say that a disproportionate number of congressmen voted for the bill relative to the actual number of Americans in favor. Perhaps they thought they were voting what they thought was best for their constituency, or perhaps it was pandering to a special interest group.

Robert,

Again,correct. Perhaps some did vote for the bill in support of special interests. That only re-enforces my statement that Americans are concerned with the current state of immgration in this country, for even with certain members of congress voting against their constituency and in favor of special interest group, the measure failed.

Of course, it could be argued that it failed for a myriad of reasons or policies set forth in the bill itself, but the fact remains that it ultimately was not adopted.

Friends, for all of the debate regarding Wet Foot/Dry Foot as a moral/humane policy towards fleeing Cubans, what sometimes gets lost in the discussion is US National Security, which is and always should be the first and foremost consideration of any foreign policy. It is the Castro regime and they alone who have placed us in this predicament where there really arent any good options, and any course that we pursue whether we abandon wet foot/dry foot or not, will be turned against us. Wet Foot dry foot is a flawed policy, but so would be any other alternative. Facts are facts- we have to worry first and foremost about the safety of our own country in this post 9-11 era. We don't want to encourage a mass exodus from Cuba if we abandon WF/DF and encourage any and all to attempt what is first and foremost a risky journey, and second, persons with bad intentions towards our country could very well be embedded with those who are fleeing for political asylum. The bottom line is that we don't control what the Castro regime does, and they will always try to undermine any course of action we puruse. Therefore, the protection of our own civilians comes first. Second, it would be helpful if we stop the rhetoric about the "inhumanity" or the "immorality" of wet foot/dry foot- the responsibility for the circumstances we are in lies in one place, and one place only.

Lucha, I agree that it's castro's fault there are refugees, but that does not justify the U.S. treating them like common criminals or worse. The policy is immoral, period, and I don't believe for a minute that the U.S., will all its resources can't somehow implement a policy for managing the refugees in a more humane way. We managed for decades without the helms burton & the wf df and I don't see any reason not to end it.

Mamey,

Who is saying they should be sent back? I think that's a bullshit generalization. There was a crisis with the rafters, if you don't remember many of them were dying at sea. The US said that it would be better for everyone if that ended and so this much maligned country said it would accept 20,000 Cubans a year. More than just an agreement with the regime it was a compact with the Cuban people saying, look don't risk your life. There's a way with real possibilities to come to the US without doing that. There's no Hatian adjustment act, no Mexican adjustment act, no Guatemalan adjustment act, just a Cuban adjustment act. Am I happy about it Cubans being sent back? No. But I again ask is our objective for every Cuban to live in the US? If so, then let's just annex it the way fidel says we want to.

Here's the deal. Americans want to shut the border down and deport all illegals in the US. The average American isn't too good at making distinctions and all of the behaviors that we've talked about like sending money back and travelling to Cuba often to visit family blurs the difference between Cubans and other immigrant groups even more. Yet we have a policy that has allowed 200,000 Cubans to migrate legally to the US in 10 years and still that's not good enough for us. Again this is from their perspective. In this climate they might be inclined to say "fuck the Cubans".

President Hillary Clinton would come into power and promise equal treatment for all immigrants. And since she won't be able to pass an amnesty for the Mexicans, the "free ride" for her favorite (sarcasm) Hispanics will come to a quick end.

Punto y aparte.

Had Clinton not established WF/DF,
would anyone in the exile community be arguing on behalf of such a measure now?
I highly doubt such a "solution" would have occurred to the exile imagination since back then it was obvious that sending "wet feet" back is the moral equivalent of throwing East Germans
back over the Berlin Wall, of not allowing the St. Louis to dock in Havana or Miami,
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?ModuleId=10005267

Human beings eventually adapt to their current situation, even if it's an injustice. A decade or more later, it's easy to become accustomed to it, maybe even jaded to the fate of its victims, which probably goes a long way to explaining the mentality inside Cuba itself, how they put up with their oppressors. It's probably a coping mechanism. How many times can you get really upset over the same thing? //psychologist hat off

Val, I realize you're playing Devil's advocate, but it's also instructive to flashback 15 years ago and consider this thread in that light.

i like Henry's idea about "anexation",but the american people wont accept it anyway,....
now,a short or medium solution for cubans living the island would be: send them all to guantanamo base,and "filter them",and we gonna get rid of "indeseables" and at the same time is good for our national security....

Henry, if Hillary gets elected, ALL Americans will be screwed!

Vedado,

I lived in Cuba until I was four. Does that make a huge difference? Are you of the school of thought that since i didnt suffer for a certain amount of time under the dictatorship then my opinions and thoughts on Cuba are inconsequential?

No Val, I just saying that you do not know what is to live under the system and all Cubans deserve the same opportunity that was given to you.

This discussion started as our opinions about this policy, and you started playing devils advocate comparing our plight with mexicans and that sort. Yes we live in the US and I will die fighting for it, but my other concern is for our brothers in Cuba because really at the end of the day you are Cuban and all the status that we enjoy now are because the Cubans that came before and had to take shit from Americans.

Had clinton not instituted the policy he would have instuted something more draconian. He could have just as easily said, no mas. All those people in Guantanamo back to uncle fidel you go.

Isn't it premature to say that the end WF/DF means we would end up in a situation where Cubans no longer get "special" treatment, that we would be left with a very dismal unintended consequence?

Before WF/DF, there was the Cuban Adjustment Act, which still is the law of the land. No matter who is president, Florida will remain important, and I cannot foresee the political support for ending the "special" staus of Cubans. Just consider how the Rangel and others last week failed to lift restrictions on farm sales to the island. Reports of a massive shift in U.S. policy after last year's elections were very premature.

Yes, we should be concerned about the unknown, but let's be realistic about what that unknown really might be. And let's never forget doing what is right — for the Cubans, and for the U.S.

Yeah, had it been up to Clinton, he would have sent all of us back to Cuba. After the Marielito prison riot cost him an election in AK in the early '80's, he wasn't too fond of us. Bad, worse and worst don't make a right.

And since we probably cost them Gore's election and a black eye on their legacy, they're even less fond of us now. God help us if Hillary gets elected.

Marc, there was a cuban-adjustment act but no visa lottery. You had to risk your life to gain freedom. To use the BERLIN WALL example that's been repeated so often on this thread you are saying that it wouid be better to force people through the minefields instead of opening up checkpoint charlie.

Bill F. Clinton. Guess what the "F" stands for.

OK, so East Germans navigate a mine field crossing into West Berlin - do you still send them back through the minefield if they make it, or otherwise try to make them misstep while they're en route?

Yes, the reality is that the totalitarian regime in Cuba is responsible for creating the conditions that cause such desperation that Cubans are willing to risk crossing a proverbial minefield to get out. But why would the US, as the world's one remaining "great power," bastion of democracy, promoter of justice and liberty and beacon of freedom not seek to make that journey safer, and welcome the refugees upon their arrival?

Reality #2 is that the US government is overtly collaborating with a totalitarian state located in a geographic region that we once considered "our hemisphere" (per the Monroe Doctrine) when it forcibly repatriates Cubans interdicted at sea. This flies in the face of accepted practice for subverting a regime considered hostile to the interests of the USA, and is indicative of the unsophisticated, uncritical and contradictory mishmash of doctrines that pass for Cuba policy in our federal gov't. Until there is political will in the USA to topple the communist regime, it will exist in perpetuity. Because what the US gov't is doing now to fight Castro is nothing like what we did to subvert communism in Eastern Europe and southeast Asia.

I agree though, open Checkpoint Charlie. But let's not be disingenuous - direct invasion, or a total blockade and quarantine of the island (followed by a covert program to organize, train and supply a domestic guerrilla movement) are the only two policies that will ever restore democracy to Cuba. As long as there are dozens of countries trading with Cuba (including USA), sending tourists, providing subsidized oil, setting up electronic eavesdropping sites, establishing joint ventures, etc., the regime will for the foreseeable future generate just enough cash to keep it afloat and, by continuing its monopoly on violence, subjugate the population.

Two points, the reason we "opened checkpoint charlie" was to avoid people rushing across the minefields. From the government's standpoint if they are going to do it anyway, then they might as well remove the front door option. Given Val's accurate description of what's going on vis-a-vis immigration it's a real possibility.

Secondly, freedom is coming to Cuba one way or another. No communist regime can last forever. In fact no system of government can probably last forever. Eventually enough of the old guard fidelistas and commies will die that change will come. The USSR lasted 74 years. Cuba is headed for 49. Of course none of us wants 15-25 more years of this.

You are correct about the mishmash. Unfortunately that's one of the shortcomings of democracy. Faces come and go and so do their policies. But remnants always stay behind. For many years the US kept its hands off Cuba because of the KK pact. In today's political environment a direct invasion of Cuba would be unacceptable. Remember fidel has made it a point to make friends by declaring himself our enemy.

Not that the US was ever going to invade Cuba but the Iraq war has made that all but impossible. I remember when fidel got sick some commies posted columns saying "US should keep its hands off of Cuba" and the way they justified it was by highlighting our "failed" attempt at democratizing Iraq. As if Iraq and Cuba were comparable. That argument is a canard but unfortunately that's the kind of bullshit that gets traction in the moveon.org crowd.

Henry, is Cuba issuing 20,000 exit visas a year? And, if we had leadership with cojones what the move on crowd thinks wouldn´t matter. A president who is a real leader sets policy instead of following failed leftovers.

Henry - I was going to respond, but then I read Joe's comments, which are dead-on. WF/DF is bad enough for what it does to Cubans — whether it forces them into the greedy clutches or smugglers or back to Cuba on a Coast Guard cutter. But what really makes it awful, is what it says about America. We didn't send East Germans back through the minefield, but I guess the tyranny the Cubans are trying to escape is not as bad.

Yes, America's Cuba policy is a mishmash, which would become less so, I believe, by ridding us of WF/DF

Folks,

The response to the WF/DF Im working on is taking me much longer than I anticipated. It's a pretty long screed already and Ive yet to finish it. Please bear with me. Ill post it as soon as Ive covered all the bases.

I agree with Henry that no communist regime can last forever. For that matter, no government or state will endure forever.

After nearly five decades of existence, however, the Cuban regime is well-entrenched, and its collapse can only be catalyzed by a major domestic policy blunder (from the perspective of maintaining power), like permitting the return of farmer's markets or relatively untaxed independent job categories, which put more money into the hands of actual Cubans and food into their bellies, or direct, concentrated, intense, unyielding external pressure in the diplomatic, economic and security spheres. Absent the stress of real external pressure, I don't see the regime making a domestic policy blunder, or choosing any path that would put its existence in jeopardy - especially when its position of power is absolute.

Cuba is a country of 11 million, correct? Of that 11 million, perhaps 200,000 have a vested interest in maintaining the communist state because their material condition is markedly better than their compatriots? I don't discount the perspective or opinion of anyone on this blog, but in doing so I also hold fast to my own beliefs. And those beliefs, borne from the experience of 15 trips to Cuba, marriage to a Cuban, involvement in athlete defections and direct action against the regime, and intimate, uncensored views into the horror that is daily life in Castro's island prison is that those 10,800,000 walking dead are subjugated, subservient and enslaved, both mentally and physically, and it will take massive external support to foment domestic revolt. Because when there is no surplus of food, no extra energy, no ability to trust one's closest confidants because of the police state that creeps into the darkest, most intimate corners of your life (let alone the means and material to overthrow a military that - while in disrepair, was still equipped with substantial Soviet hardware)...how do you expect the average Cuban to throw off his shackles and revolt? Do I think Cubans are happy with the way things are in Cuba? No way. But is the stage of development of a "counter-revolution" such that the average Cuban can even safely discuss with his neighbor overthrowing the state and restoring the Constitution of 194x? No way.

Here's another analogy - if you run a prison, and you want to lessen the chance of organized revolt, what is a simple step to take? Limit the ability of the prisoners to meet in secret, organize, and provide one another with emotional and moral support, and technical know-how. Keep them in virtual or real isolation. That's what the Cuban state has achieved in function, and while the effectiveness of that system is chipped away at each time the regime fails to maintain a basic standard of living for its people, the populace's level of desperation is out-of-sync with the tools available to them to fight the government.

Last comment before I pull the pin on my participation in this thread:

John Bolton is not I guy I would invite to go fly-fishing with me. Actually, I'm repulsed by his the majority of his policy positions. However, I wish he'd been more successful in 2002 when he argued that Cuba was engaged in the transfer of bioweapons to rogue states. That, combined with overt Chinese and Iranian meddling in Cuba and the recapacitation of the Lourdes eavesdropping facility, could have been the smoking gun justification needed to legitimize military intervention in Cuba. Otherwise, absent the political will, and without an obvious, confirmed national security threat, I'm the first to admit that the US has gone so weak on communism and is so gun-shy after the Iraq debacle that invading Cuba is about as likely as Raul Castro publicly admitting that he is gay and that he actually cares about having destroyed a beautiful country and caused the deaths of thousands of his countrymen.

The US will never take the bull by the horns unless its hand is forced. I expect the Cuban regime knows this, and while it may be a lot of things, suicidal isn't one of them. It will not provoke definitive US action.

The Cubans on the island are highly unlikely to attempt anything drastic unless their situation becomes absolutely untenable and/or the regime becomes clearly unstable due to high-level infighting after Castro I dies. Again, I expect those in power are probably smart enough to avoid that. The regime will certainly continue, in effect, using Cubans on the island as hostages and extorting ransom from exiles, which works very well and will only increase in scale.

The supposedly freedom-loving democratic countries will continue to do little or nothing beyond making nice-sounding but empty statements (assuming they even go that far). Hypocrisy is rampant and so is anti-Americanism. Obscene though it is, screwing Cuba over to spite the US is quite acceptable, starting with our dear "mother" and "brothers." The South Africa scenario is reserved exclusively for right-wing villains and will NOT be applied to Cuba.

There is always, of course, the unpredictable or unexpected, and it's true that nothing lasts forever. Still, the picture is not at all rosy.

Oh Henry! If, as you say, you're not happy Cubans are sent back (to the clutches of the dictatorship), then don't talk like Pontius Pilate. The story about Pontius is always a good reminder of what real bullshit sounds like.

Mamey,

Seriously dude, you need to relax a little and stop being so reactionary.