Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty - Page 4

Boris Godunov · July 31, 2003, 15:17

Ned: You're wrong.

It wasn't a custody issue, because Elian was not a U.S. Citizen, and his legal father was alive and well in another country. U.S. Courts have no custody jurisdiction on foreign citizens! The court COULDN'T rule on custody of Elian, it had no authority.

I'll post U.S. Immigration law again, since you apparently missed it:

"an unmarried person under 21 years of age and includes a child legitimated under the law of the child's residence or domicile, or under the law of the father's residence or domicile, whether in the United States or elsewhere, and, except as otherwise provided in sections 320, and 321 of title III, a child adopted in the United States, if such legitimation or adoption takes place before the child reaches the age of sixteen years, and the child is in the legal custody of the legitimating or adopting parent or parents at the time of such legitimation or adoption."

A child cannot seek asylum unless a legal parent or guardian is petitioning on its behalf. A U.S. court cannot grant custody of a foreign citizen to U.S. nationals when the child's legal parent is alive. The Court had NO authority. The U.S. Immigration Dept. were the ONLY folks who DID have authority, and their parent org, the DoJ.

What Reno did was absolutely correct under the law. You'll note that U.S. courts dismissed the family's lawsuit against Reno for having no merit.

Again, if your kid was being held against your will in a foreign country, should he be returned to you? Yes__ No__

chequita guevara · July 31, 2003, 15:24

Except that the Miami relatives had no standing to challenge Elian's father's custody. Therefore the state court had no jurisdiction.

And by the way Ned, support for returning Elian was running about 80/20 in the US, higher when you exclude the insane Cuban community in the US. Even among Cubans, there was quite a bit of support for returning Elian to his father, it just was not safe for them to voice it openly.

Anyway, immigration has the first shot. If you adopt a child but imigration says you cannot bring him into the states, not amount of custody awarded by the state courts will help you, as Angelina Jolie recently learned. Elian's Miami family was awarded temporary custody until INS decided what to do with him. Once they had made their decision, they were obligated under the law to return him, which they repeatedly refused to do depsite court rulings. Frankly, I think they got off easily despite the fact that there were in contempt of court and engaged in kidnapping.

Dom Pedro II · July 31, 2003, 15:27

I see the word "insane" and "Cuban" used a lot in the same sentence from you, chegitz...

Japher · July 31, 2003, 15:31

Why would anyone want to leave the wonderful confines of that miraculous political system that is Communism?

Why arent Nuclear Subs sinking these boats?

Dom Pedro II · July 31, 2003, 15:32

Because the Cubans don't have any...

GePap · July 31, 2003, 15:35

I am sorry, but the Cubans get absurdly better treatment than anyone else. I myself came form a "repressive regime" (must have been cause it was 'liberated' 6 months after I left) and heck, my faily could have claimed some political harrasment (my mom lost her gov. job due to politics), but the fact is that we were not political asylum seekrs, and neither were 99% of Panamanians coming to the US. Ditto for Cubans.

No, Castro's regime is no more repressive than dozne of others, yet people from those do not get the same treatmnet. Many other state have much worse political violence: you are less safe inHaiti from political violence, and much poorer than if you lived in Cuba. Again, the execution of 3 hijackers after an "expidated trial" caused a major uproar..anyone who thinks Cuba is full of execution chambers does not have a clue.

Now, if people here are arguing that ALL immigrants form ALL countries that are not democracies, or face internal political violence get the same treatment as Cubans, fine by me..If not, you are the ones who are freaking hypocrites.

Japher · July 31, 2003, 15:37

I'm sorry but if we let all the cubans who wanted to, come into the states we'd have to start up at least 3 more baseball teams!

hehe

Velociryx · July 31, 2003, 15:40

Gepap....methinks you tuned in late.

My position is not hypocritical in the least...it is:

1) IF the USA is so concerned about liberty and freeing people from oppression around the globe that it goes to war with Iraq touting that as a reason (and sending Americans to die for that as a stated cause of the war)

then

2) It follows that oppressed peoples seeking political asylum FROM oppressive regiemes would be welcomed here with open arms, especially if so doing does not add to our risk in any way--and certainly less than say, keeping 150k US soldiers in Iraq for extended periods of time.

IF the current administration is serious when it says that our mission is liberty around the globe, then this attitude is perfectly consistent with it.

IF the current administration is just blowing smoke up everyone's arse, then sending them back is the obvious choice.

-=Vel=-

Dom Pedro II · July 31, 2003, 15:41

I would have no problem sending them back, just like all other illegal immigrants, but I also feel we shouldn't be treating Cuba like the pariah of the Americas either.

I don't think it was wrong of us to do so, I think it was just plain stupid, as I said above.

I'm more interested in seeing consistency with regards to Cuban policy... and frankly, there is none. It is as irrational today as it was in 1960.

SlowwHand · July 31, 2003, 15:41

That's right!
Japher, want to snuff a son ?

GePap · July 31, 2003, 15:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
I would have no problem sending them back, just like all other illegal immigrants, but I also feel we shouldn't be treating Cuba like the pariah of the Americas either.

I don't think it was wrong of us to do so, I think it was just plain stupid, as I said above.

I'm more interested in seeing consistency with regards to Cuban policy... and frankly, there is none. It is as irrational today as it was in 1960.

I have no porblem with ending the embargo with Cuba: if trade with China, Vietnam, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are A-OK, for the life of me , why isn;t it OK with Cuba? "Cause it makes the gov stronger"? Ditto for all the examples given, some of which are communists, but we don;t seem to care, now do we?

Dom Pedro II · July 31, 2003, 15:59

If you consider for a moment that nearly every single major revolutionary movement in the past six decades, most notably Cuba, China, and Vietnam, when you consider that ALL of them came to us first... it seems stupid that we so readily turned them away! Even Russia in 1917 came to us for support and we invaded them.

See, if you give them support, then you give yourself more clout with them, and you prevent them from going overboard. If we had flooded the Cuban market with consumer goods, the regime would've been out with the wash in a few years... or at least much of its initial brutality could have been blunted. The same goes for China and Vietnam.

But by pushing them away, we drove (all three of them) into our enemies' hands.

Think about the potential effect we could have had if we had gotten our foot in the door... I suppose hindsight is 20/20, but in some cases, the victory was already decided. Castro came to us AFTER Batista had already fled!

And there was an American general in China who said "We ought to back Mao" right after World War II, and we didn't... Chiang Kai-shek was just as much a Communist as Mao, he just didn't call himself one... what difference would it have made?? Castro wasn't even ready to call himself a Communist until AFTER we turned him away for Christ's sake!

SlowwHand · July 31, 2003, 16:02

Who cares?
All 3 are on the verge of implosion, and North Korea, too.

Velociryx · July 31, 2003, 16:04

And when they implode, Sloww....what do you think will happen to the people there?

Will they all go out and get an ice cream, then come back home and watch the superbowl? Or will lots of people die?

-=Vel=-

Dom Pedro II · July 31, 2003, 16:07

Well, gee, Sloww... I didn't realize you'd be so calous about flushing billions of dollars of taxpayers' money down the toilet and throwing thousands of men's lives away?

Meldor · July 31, 2003, 16:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

I will repeat. The news report indicated that this is Bush's policy. Apparently, there is some room for discretion in the law.

And I will repeat again...

Your news source is full of that stuff mentioned above.

This has been US policy for at least 40 or more years. It just doesn't apply to Cubans. It applies to all people found at sea attempting to enter the US illegally. I would venture to guess that President Bush hasn't even given this one a half a thought since taking office. President Clinton allowed the same thing to happen, so did Bush senior, Regan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy. Earlier than that, I don't know, I wasn't around. I am sure, if you strain those gray cells, you can recall hearing of several cases of Chinese people on frieghters returned to China when they were caught. Mexicans found in the backs of trucks, returned and that didn't involve water.

There are certain countries that had/still have excepts. Most communist and former communist countries populace, if they were in the US were allowed to claim political asylum and have it granted no questions asked. There are few of them left. Cuba being the only one that I know still has the auto-grant.

Is this an outdated policy, left over from the days of JFK? Most likely. Does it make sense in light of todays reality? NO, but then neither does the rest of our Cuban policy. Why could we open up trade with Russia, but not with Cuba? The answer is more political than anything else. The fastest way to get Castro out of power is to make his economy so dependant on ours that he craps red, white and blue. Will it happen? Maybe in 10 years or so, but don't bet your 1950 sugar stocks on it.

To put Castro up on the same level as Saddam or the Taliban is simply silly. Yes, Cuba does have WMDs and they have exported some of the tech for it. But they are not in of themselves a direct threat to the US in any way. The Cuban army is in worse shape than even Saddam's was. The US pilots could bomb his bunkers and make it home for supper. His best defense is a set of deep bunkers, set to repel a 1950s style Cuban invasion. We could take out the complete island in a matter of hours. But to what purpose? The plain fact is that Castro doesn't kill thousands every month. His crimes are more of incompentancy than evil. He and his brother aren't running harems were they grab 13-14 year old girls off the street to abuse and rape. Yes he has political prisoners, and yes some get the death penalty. But it isn't whole towns, heck he dosn't have as many to kill off as Saddam and company. He isn't oppressing women any worse than men, he isn't forcing arachic systems (except the government) on the people. His one great achivement in life is thumbing his nose at the US since the time of JFK.

And the one achivement of this thread is to attempt to launch yet another straw dog...

Ned · July 31, 2003, 16:10

GePap, I don't know the details of Panama, but isn't it true that most politically oppressive regimes are eager for dissidents to leave, but with communist regimes, they actively keep the dissastified from leaving at all? I think this communist policy actually began in Berlin, but I may be wrong.

Regardless, though, fleeing a communist country is a crime. Returning a refugee to a communist country guarantees a long prison sentence or worse when their only crime is a desire for liberty.

This is why returning people who manage to get out of Cuba is such a travesty. They will be severely punished for loving liberty.

If this country is supposed to stand for something it stands for liberty. The politically oppressed people of the world have always been welcome here. We fought a number of wars for not only to protect our own liberty, but to secure it for others. The recent war in Iraq, as Vel has pointed out, was intended to bring liberty to the Iraqi people.

Returning any refugee from Cuba to Cuba is a travesty, pure and simple. I am truly surprised that there is any serious debate on this issue.

Velociryx · July 31, 2003, 16:19

Wait....to put Castro (a nutjob a scant 90 miles from the USA, with weapons that could reach out and touch US cities if he wanted to pick a fight)....but it's silly to compare him to a bunch of LUNATICS ruling a land-locked country ten thousand miles from us that have no weapons that can reach us?

I see.

To say that we're liberating Iraq by pouring 150k US troops into the desert and 3 BILLION bucks a month on the one hand, and yet can't be arsed to liberate a handful of guys fleeing oppression of their own in a chevy-boat sitting a few miles off our coast (which would cost us NOTHING, and risk no American lives) is a study in the absurd.

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · July 31, 2003, 16:19

And another thing....IF we're about liberating the oppressed masses, then we need to do it WHEREVER they happen to be from, and not just when it is at our convenience. If we're not, then the administration should stop saying so.

-=Vel=-

Meldor · July 31, 2003, 16:20

So what do we do with the people coming from Haiti, or any of the other hell holes? Do we keep the Cubans because they face prison and send the rest back because what most of them face is a heck of a lot worse.

If we change the policy to pick up all of them and let them stay then what happened a while back with the Haitians will be but a drop in the ocean. We had 30,000 haitians coming here in one month. Do you really want them to come when there is a near (reported by some) 50% infection rate for aids? What about those from Africa how can't come by boat? Will we go pick them up? If you think about the consequencies it doesn't make sense. The current policy, though flawed, is best.

GePap · July 31, 2003, 16:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, I don't know the details of Panama, but isn't it true that most politically oppressive regimes are eager for dissidents to leave, but with communist regimes, they actively keep the dissastified from leaving at all? I think this communist policy actually began in Berlin, but I may be wrong.

The Cubans don't seem to spend much on keeping people from making boats, and on occasions, they encourage this,. like in 1981.

Quote:

Regardless, though, fleeing a communist country is a crime. Returning a refugee to a communist country guarantees a long prison sentence or worse when their only crime is a desire for liberty.

Unless you can quote me Cuban law, this is the equivalent of a BAM. If so, why do many people make multiple tries? Shouldn;t they be in prison?

Quote:

This is why returning people who manage to get out of Cuba is such a travesty. They will be severely punished for loving liberty.

Loving liberty? Give me a break. These people seek better paying jobs to increase thier finantial security, just liek people from many more third world countries.

Quote:

If this country is supposed to stand for something it stands for liberty. The politically oppressed people of the world have always been welcome here. We fought a number of wars for not only to protect our own liberty, but to secure it for others. The recent war in Iraq, as Vel has pointed out, was intended to bring liberty to the Iraqi people.

So give the same treatment to all immigrants, not just Cubans..and send the US army into Liberia, DRC, NK, Maynmar, Uzbekistan, Egypt, SA, Pakistan, Lybia, Syria, Iran, Vietnam, Central African republic, Sudan, so forth and so on. Will you volunteer Ned? cause we might be a bit low on manpower for all of that.... We invaded Iraq for various ideological reasons, simple fro humanitarian reaosns was way, WAY down the list.

Quote:

Returning any refugee from Cuba to Cuba is a travesty, pure and simple. I am truly surprised that there is any serious debate on this issue.

They did not apply for refugee status. Refugees can NOT beocme citizens of the state in which they are refugees and fall under UN protection. None of these apply to Cubans. Most of them seek Citizenship..obviously the plan to make thier move permanent, which is not what a refugee, nor an asylum seeker seeks to do.

No special treatment for Cubans.

Ned · July 31, 2003, 16:21

Meldor, Ike pulled the plug on Batista and allowed Castro to win. Castro was the darling of the US at the time, even though members of his guerilla band were communists. Ike was even going to meet with Castro when he visited, but he didn't. Why? It wasn't because he was a communist. It was because he began summary executions of a large number of the former regime.

Also, IIRC, Castro confiscated a large amount of US property without compensation. Then he allied himself with the USSR. Then he allowed the Russians to station nuclear missiles in Cuba.

There are good reasons for the cold relations between Castro and the United States.

Lefty Scaevola · July 31, 2003, 16:21

Forcing the Cuban malcontents to go back further the policy of undermine castro better than letting them go else where. Eveyone of them back is Cuba is a little further drain on his security forces.

GePap · July 31, 2003, 16:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Wait....to put Castro (a nutjob a scant 90 miles from the USA, with weapons that could reach out and touch US cities if he wanted to pick a fight)....but it's silly to compare him to a bunch of LUNATICS ruling a land-locked country ten thousand miles from us that have no weapons that can reach us?

I see.

To say that we're liberating Iraq by pouring 150k US troops into the desert and 3 BILLION bucks a month on the one hand, and yet can't be arsed to liberate a handful of guys fleeing oppression of their own in a chevy-boat sitting a few miles off our coast (which would cost us NOTHING, and risk no American lives) is a study in the absurd.

-=Vel=-

Is this meant as serious arguement? The first paragraph is comedic gold, as for the second one:

The US and its congress did not back a war with Iraq for the humanitarian reason of "liberation". To state such is revisionist history at its worst.

Dom Pedro II · July 31, 2003, 16:23

Quote:

Forcing the Cuban malcontents to go back further the policy of undermine castro better than letting them go else where. Eveyone of them back is Cuba is a little further drain on his security forces.

Yeah... I mean, that's like, what? 10, maybe 15 extra bullets, right?

GePap · July 31, 2003, 16:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Also, IIRC, Castro confiscated a large amount of US property without compensation. Then he allied himself with the USSR. Then he allowed the Russians to station nuclear missiles in Cuba.

There are good reasons for the cold relations between Castro and the United States.

The Vietnamese gave the Soviets bases, allied with them, and 58,000 Americans died try9ing to keep a south vietnamese entity independent. We have as much reason to have cold relations with China and Vietnam as we do with Cuba. But then, of course, there isn;t a politically powerful group of exiles with the ability to command the politics of a major Us state from either of those nationas. darn too bad for freedom.

Velociryx · July 31, 2003, 16:25

GePap....in case you don't get out much, that's the latest spin from the WhiteHouse....the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Or did you miss that?

-=Vel=-

GePap · July 31, 2003, 16:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Yeah... I mean, that's like, what? 10, maybe 15 extra bullets, right?

Yeah, if you ignore the fact that people from Cuba who get sent back are unlikely to end up in prison for even a few days, far far les slikely to be violently attacked in any way.

But i am sorry to rain in the ignorance parade.

GePap · July 31, 2003, 16:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
GePap....in case you don't get out much, that's the latest spin from the WhiteHouse....the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Or did you miss that?

-=Vel=-

We had this discussion pre-war, and it came out rather obviously that people baked this war cause "Saddam was a threat to the US". 'Liberation of Iraqis' was a concern for a tiny minority.

So Vel, you back aggressive US intervention into Liberia and the Congo?

Dom Pedro II · July 31, 2003, 16:29

News flash, GePap, you don't even have to live under a dictatorship to get spirited away in the middle of the night never to be heard from again...

if you think all of these refugees end up back on the docks and then just stroll off back to home, you're kidding yourself.