Amnesty for Cubans????

Question

Ok, I may be wrong but as I understand it Cubans who land on American soil get to stay while those that are found at sea get sent back.

WHY?

I heard that Cuban refugees who are sent back get sent to prison which is why they get to stay once they land. Is this true? It begs to question, what about the ones sent back at sea. Don't they go to jail also? Why not just give them free amnesty at one time?

Also, does anyone see this as strange and slightly unfair to others seeking refuge from oppression?

Serious answers only PLEASE!!! I'm trying to learn something.

By the way, I am not bashing Cubans, its the actual law I'm questioning. It seems unfair to a lot of other assylum seekers from more desperated countries.

Thanks for the answers, but I guess I also wanted to know why this law came about.

Answer 1

Serious answer :

The answer to your question is Politics. The following explains the details.

The wet feet, dry feet policy (sometimes called the wet-foot, dry-foot Policy) is the name given to a consequence of the 1995 revision of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 that says, essentially, that anyone who fled Cuba and got into the United States would be allowed to pursue residency a year later. After talks with the Cuban government, the Clinton administration came to an agreement with Cuba that it would stop admitting people found at sea. Since then, in what has become known as the "wet feet, dry feet" policy, a Cuban caught on the waters between the two nations (i.e., with "wet feet") would summarily be sent home or to a third country. One who makes it to shore ("dry feet") gets a chance to remain in the United States, and later would qualify for expedited "legal permanent resident" status and U.S. citizenship.

Just a note: On January 5, 2006, the Coast Guard found 15 Cubans, including four women and two children, who had climbed onto a piling on the old Seven Mile Bridge in the Florida Keys. The old bridge had been cut off from land because it was no longer in use and the United States Coast Guard argued that since the refugees could not walk to land, their feet were still "wet". The decision to repatriate the Cubans was made by the Coast Guard's legal office in conjunction with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Coast Guard stated that the Cubans "were determined to be wet-feet and processed in accordance with standard procedure." In retaliation to the Cubans being returned, Ramón Saúl Sánchez led a hunger strike against the policy, and on January 18th, the White House agreed to meet with Sánchez at some point in the near future. After eleven days, the hunger strike was ended, and Sánchez has yet to meet with White House officials. On February 28, 2006, a federal judge ruled that the United States government had acted unreasonably when it sent home the 15 Cubans. The judge ordered the government to make its best effort to help the immigrants return to the United States


Hope this helps.

Answer 2

First, examine your question. Those who get sent back don't go to AMERICAN detention, they go to CUBAN detention assuming they actually do go to detention, which may or may not be the case in every case.

Those who make it to land go not necessarily to prison, but you can't just let them loose either as they could be criminals or such.. They must be detained, at least initially, while their situation is sorted out. You can't just have open borders - then there would be a free flow of drugs, terrorists, arms, etc. and anarchy would result.

Rather than come here these people should work to make their countries better places - America is NOT the answer to the world's problems, despite the fact people see it that way. In fact we're trying to hard to be just that and it will most likely result in us losing what we've fought so hard to attain.

We fought opression and won a country. Those who are dissatisfied with Castro or other governments in other lands (NOTE TO NORTH KOREA, IRAN, SYRIA, SAUDI ARABIA, ETC.) should do the same, not try and come here. Running away isn't the way to solve problems, it just creates new ones.

Answer 3

Serious answer:


I don't think it is unfair, but it is historically unique. At one time Cuba caused our government sufficient heart burn that they essentially said 'anyone running from Cuba needs asylum, and has to be a good guy' or something to that effect. Obviously that has huge ramifications, and it was never duplicated due to experience we gained through the Cuba rules.

We are not starting a war with Cuba and Cuba doesn't like its people running away to us. They have jurisdiction over their citizens on the seas, and argue they still have jurisdiction here too. Be that as it may, once they are here, by our laws they are under our laws too, and we're the ones here, not Cuba and we say they are OK.

Are you getting this?

Essentially we drew a land in the sand, but it required there be our own sand to draw it on.

I understand that the White House is thinking of changing this in two ways if events change in Cuba due to administration changes or whatever.

On the one hand, dry foot would no longer buy you safe haven, on the other hand, they are looking at a special rule to let in family of those already here (which is a fairly sizable number, by the way) under straight immigration policies.

That change is not official and would probably depend on what happens in Cuba over the short term. Meanwhile we have the wet foot / dry foot policy worked out during the height of the cold war.

Answer 4

There is not a fear of government retaliation when illegals from Mexico are turned back from American as there is in Cuba.The Mexican government will not arrest them and put them in jail as the Cuban government will.
That's why during the cold war we allowed Russians to seek political asylum in this country .
To seek asylum from political oppression and the fear of death or imprisonment is a lot different than only trying to leave poverty behind as in the case with Mexico
I believe that before they reach land some international law is in effect ,I'm not sure why its different in the sea or on land Good Question.
And the Indians and the Mexicans were not "screwed" out of their land,they were defeated,and to the winner of any war the victor reaps the spoils of war,get real,the Indians were immigrants here too as their ancestors walked to this country via a land bridge from another Continent,tho not illegal, still immigrants,just like my ancestors were immigrants not illegal, when they arrived in the new world and thru hard work and hardships helped carve out a life in this country.There were no laws against immigration to this country until much much later,so no one could be illegal.

Answer 5

I don't know where you get this whole idea they get to stay. When it comes to people from Cuba almost any attempt of coming over the cost guard and navy catches them ,and they get sent back. The number of Cubans that get cough coming over are like no more than a 1000+ a year compared to the millions of Mexicans down south of the border. The only time Cuban refugees were sent over was in the 80s. I'm Cuban myself and i say send them back if there here illegally. I love The Cuban country but my loyalty goes to this country "USA"! Most the Cubans that come over always get cough and sent back. Cubans is like the minority when it comes to Hispanics in the USA so I don't want to hear it.

Answer 6

Why should CUBANS be treated differently than Haitians?

They are not allowed into the US no matter what, immigration is piratically out, lost at sea, just die, touch the main land, sent back!

Why should Cubans be treated any differently?

Are tired of Castro, then do like Germany did. The people tour down the WALL, saying enough is enough!

You have your country, live in it! You do not like the way it is ran, change it!

Answer 7

It's because we are saving them from communism - refugees who come from other countries that are not communist are not given the same priority as Cubans. It's because our government believes that the worst thing you can live under is a communistic government - nothing worse than that. As far as the "foot on dry land" rule, I'm not sure where that came from, but I am sure you will get that answer here, too, from other posters.

Answer 8

firstly..... for all those comparing with Mexico.... don't.... it's not the same.... we don't share a landmass.... Cubans can't just walk across.... mexican's can.... so talking about numbers of how many get in is irrelivant for them.... now addressing the question at hand:

the wet food dry foot law is correct...., and it is based on the fact that the US believes as one other person said that communisim is one of the worse things ever (yeah right).... so even if Haitians are dying, starving, etc in Haiti, and have worse issues, amnesty does not apply to them, even if children in africa are be murdered and mutilated at an alarming rate, running and hiding for their lives with no family, that is not serious enough to permit them to have asylum....

I am not 100% sure about the inprisonment.... but I think you are right about that.... but I guess if they hit land.... it will be more of a controversy if they are on US soil if they are put in prision in cuba.... if they are in international waters when they are inprisioned, they US would have nothing to do w/ it, as the person never touched us soil.... also, if they person never touched us soil, maybe they are not jailed.... i am not sure about that part....

Answer 9

Read Gordon Liddy's book Will There seems to have been quite a few Cubans ready to pull dirty tricks for the Republicans and they must work cheaply. Believe if television cameras are around and they are not in unsafe craft they are sent back, but when cameras aren't rolling anything short of a Cruise ship might get classified s unsafe.

Answer 10

It doesnt sound right does it. But I think the way that the government sees it, is that if they land on American soil, they can beg for assylum.