This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
We've never done that with Cuba though, Republican leanings or not. We have had other international pressures regarding Cuba to worry about. Remember the saga of the "boat people"? Elian Hernandez? We've always returned Cubans back to Cuba for some reason. Pre-'89, it was because of the Soviet Union, one would imagine. Post-'89, maybe the U.N. and other diplomatic considerations were at play.
Argue with this. Again, she goes out of her way not to use the word Communism, even when asked point blank about it.
Sure we have, but I'm not sure why Cuban refugees are treated differently. Perhaps it was the Soviet situation. The boat people thing was a little different situation, at least on the surface, but I'd need to really put more thought into it. We are just horribly inconsistent. I'm all for being careful and vetting people, but it should be for everyone, not just for some no matter what the reasoning.rockaction said:
Having had the better part of a day to think it over, I pushed this too hard and should have deescalated things. I'm usually a fan of "people should get to clarify what they meant without penalty" and I didn't apply that rule here. That's on me.Amused to Death said:
They arrested 3 protestors in Tampa for this. I guess Miami decided to not make arrest. Typically, people politicized this to make it look like Desantis made this law for black people. In reality, Miami just didn't enforce it. This is an issue i actually support Desantis on. I don't care what the cause is, blocking traffic isn't the answer. We have seen multiple people ran over because of this.
Right, and the folks that were calling the people who where in vehement opposition to allow illegal immigrants across the southern border racists are not seeing the hypocrisy and their own racism for not allowing illegal immigrants from Cuba.
Agreed that the reverse is true, but I don't think they are all that nuanced personally. The ideology is what it is. The benefits/issues with immigration don't change based on nationality. To the "racism" comment, I don't see actual racism in any of it. But, I do agree that if a group is going to say "hey, you don't want to let these people in because you are racist" then they have to reflect on themselves and realize they are doing the same thing and in their little world of bad definitions that makes them "racist" as well. They won't, but they should.
Here's an example of nuance, just one. There is a small difference between an open border on illegal immigration that would let in at least 10M people over the next 10yrs for any reason they chose (lets say 20M because of course this number would be expected to be larger if there was no regulation of illegal immigration. Legal illegal immigration so to speak)....AND letting in some people fleeing political persecution from a country whose entire population is way less than 20M?
This is an interesting post. Is there a significant difference between "political refugee" and "economic refugee"? I'm not sure.
I'm not sure I am following any of what you're saying here. You SEEM to be saying there are legit reasons for people to immigrate here and non-legit reasons. That distinction is purely subjective and I struggle with accepting people based on that sort of subjective standard. That's where I reject "nuance". All that's doing is labeling "people who I think deserve to be here" by another name. We see where that's gotten us.
Generally, and maybe this is old school talking, we did not call people "economic refugees." They were people who sought a better life through traditional immigration channels. Yes, even if starving to death. Political refugees seek a very specific thing - asylum, which has its own language and doctrines regarding whether to grant a refugee political asylum.
If the USA sent $$$$$ to Cuba it would not go to the people in need. It would go to the Cuban Government who then picks and chooses if and where it is spent. Socialist countries need control of the population to survive, otherwise they would be ousted.
Well over half those migrating from South/Central America are seeking asylum. While it's not always asylum because of specific government oppression, it IS asylum because of a lack of government action to keep them safe. I am not sure this is a meaningful distinction and I'd lump it into the subjective category. I'd prefer we have a border policy that relied significantly more on objectivity than subjectivity. Of course, there will always be exceptions based on specific circumstances that need to be made. We can't get away from subjectivity completely.
I get that those are the traditional definitions. I'm really just "thinking aloud" here. At some level, it's not a stretch to say starving to death = economic refugee. I'm actually more interested in the political refugee label, though. What, specifically, qualifies one as a political refugee? The official definition seems rather nebulous. From this link: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/asylum-or-refugee-status-who-32298.html
At some level, doesn't that simply mean "leaving a country where the government doesn't allow one to leave and the government would punish the person upon return"? If yes, it's also accurate to say that the person would not be a refugee had they not left in the first place. In other words, person doesn't like government, person leaves, person is now a refugee through their own action. Not entirely dissimilar to "economic refugee", really.
This is where NGOs become important. There would be nothing more powerful than a full public display and transparency of the US attempting to get NGOs the monies and the Cuban government preventing it from happening. That is full on laying the issue a the Cuban government's feet.
I agree..but as we has seen everywhere that has a socialist government is the public opinion is not a high priority.
I don't think so. I think it would have very specific legal meaning and application. There's whole courses and sections in law school for asylum law. We had an asylum clinic at our school. It -- the definition -- is probably more specific than you think and probably has both statutory and common law components.
I guess this matters if we expect the change to come from within. I wouldn't ever expect that personally, but I know some would. This is bigger than public opinion. It's much more on the scale of global opinion.
Right. I'm sure there are lots of lots of legalities that I'm missing. I'm just suggesting that it's interesting to me because in practice, it's probably not that different. Moving forward, we're going to have climate refugees, whose original country literally no longer exists because it's under water. How do we handle those?
Asylum seekers can't votekodycutter said:
Borders have never been a concept I'm very adept at, admittedly. I always took them for granted, stopped taking them for granted at about twenty-five years old or so, and still get confused. Perhaps a study of history and movement would do me some good. But borders in the abstract all of the sudden becoming very concrete? Tough to wrap my head around. I assume that's part of the problem you're having. I assume you're a universalist in your moral outlook, so what are borders to you, or you to borders?
I believe they can apply for naturalization 5 years after their admission as a legal permanent resident, which if accepted, would allow them to vote. but i'm no lawyer.
Totally shameful. There will still be defenders though of this group. Too much has been politically invested in them. MLB has had their letters on the mounds for opening day for heaven's sake.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MiamiHerald/status/1415742142207639553
From the link
They did shake down corporations for money last year. I don't know if the official BLM is even relevent anymore.That doesn't make it an extortionist ring.
It's like you're just attacking the messenger instead of talking about the message.dawgtrails said:
