Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty

[SlowwHand]

I can't believe this. I've had a running mouthoff contest with Boris going for so long, and now we agree, and I'm disagreeing with Ned?

This is, in fact, Bizarro World.

[Velociryx]

But no takers on the inconsistency between going in with the ARMY to Iraq because we're so concerned about their long-suffering oppression, and yet, when no risk is involved (taking refugees seeking political asylum--on a rather inventive "boat"--in), we send them home?

I'd really like someone on the other side to take a crack at explaining that inconsistency away....(and good luck!)

-=Vel=-

[oedo]

Re: Re: Re: Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty

Originally posted by Meldor
Sorry to burst your bubble but this has been US policy since at least the days of JFK. But don't think it just applies to Cubans. It applies to any refuges found trying to enter the US by the sea. If they are found at sea headed for the US, they are returned to the country origin and any makeshift vessel that they might be using is sunk as a navigational hazzard.

Are you too young to remember all the flap over the Haitian refuges? The ones we put in camps at Gitmo before we shipped them back? Have you forgotten about Elian? Have you forgotten that he was taken by Federal troops (which btw had no jurisdiction in a state custidy suit) and return him to Cuba?

We have been doing this for years. The only thing "special" about Cubans is that if them manage to get one foot on American soil before they are caught, they are automatically granted political asylum.

You, and which ever reporter filed the report, need to actually find out about what you are going to say before you make wild and unfounded statements.

I lived in East Berlin and made it to the West together with my mother in the early 80´s. this wouldn´t have been possible without the allie´s help. under this impression I grew up.
and yes, I´m not aware about how the US treated Haitian refugees. I don´t see much of an excuse in this example for the current US refugee policy though. do you?

what I know is that it´s always been part of the US policy taking refugees and giving them a chance starting a new and better life in freedom. even if there were exceptions - which would be a sad thing - it´s still better helping some than helping no one. Dubya seems to be the kind of president who helps no one.

[Boris Godunov]

It wasn't a matter for court jurisdiction, Ned. The Justice Dept had discretion in this matter, and she exercised it. They had ordered the family to release Elian, and they refused a Justice Dept directive. IMO, they were kidnappers.

Taking the side of Castro? It had nothing to do with Castro's wishes, it had to do with the boy's FATHER, who wanted his son back! It doesn't make a bit of difference what Castro wanted, or if his desires happend to coincide with the wishes of the boy's father. Are we to kneejerk take up an opposite position to everything Castro does? Castro happened to be RIGHT this time.

Why are you against his father? How do you know what Elian wanted? All we ever heard was the selfish desires of the family to keep Elian as their political tool against Castro. Their actions were reprehensible.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Oh, Christ. Check out Mexicans, if you want to weep.

You suprize me sometimes Sloww

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
And damn it, couldn't we have a decent damn smiley, not some dork with a stupid hat!

Kill the hat smileys

[Meldor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty

Originally posted by oedo


I lived in East Berlin and made it to the West together with my mother in the early 80´s. this wouldn´t have been possible without the allie´s help. under this impression I grew up.
and yes, I´m not aware about how the US treated Haitian refugees. I don´t see much of an excuse in this example for the current US refugee policy though. do you?

what I know is that it´s always been part of the US policy taking refugees and giving them a chance starting a new and better life in freedom. even if there were exceptions - which would be a sad thing - it´s still better helping some than helping no one. Dubya seems to be the kind of president who helps no one.

I am not saying the policy is good or bad. I am just stating what the US policy has been for almost 50 years. If like you, they manage to make it into America and claim political asylum, it will be granted. However, if they are found on the seas, attempting to enter the US illegally, they are treated just as any other person attempting to enter the US illegally, and they are returned to the country of origin. If we did not do this, we would have hundreds of thousands of people from Cuba to Haiti to South America, trying to get here on all manner of craft, knowing they were in once the Coast Guard picked them up.

The new blood brought into the US through legal immigration is still needed and will always be needed. However, to encourage people to immigrate here risking their lives and the lives of their children is irresponsible.



Vel - I disagree with the statement that their is no difference between Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan. The difference being that the later two countries were actively pursuing or supporting elements which were direct threats to the US and its interests. Cuba is not at the present time actively engaged in threaten the US. Castro does have Bio/Chem waepons and he could possibly use them against parts of the US, but he hasn't threatened to do so lately and it is doubtful that he would do so anytime soon. He is too comfortable in his life to piss in his own pot. Kimmie is another story, and what comes of him is yet to be seen.

That said, the US doesn't have the justification of invading Cuba that it did for doing so either in Iraq or Afghanistan. No matter how awful he treats some of his people. Don't get me wrong, I hope he gets overthrown today, but he is not in the same class as the three others mentioned here. His strocities are in no way comparable to Saddam's. I have heard no word of mass murders taking place in the last 20 or so years. Yes, he does kill some political prisoner, and make examples of others, but he isn't wiping out complete villages or even his whole nation. I could even list a whole slew of other nations that would be higher on my list to invade, if we were going to do so based solely on the plight of the people there.

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty

Originally posted by oedo
I lived in East Berlin and made it to the West together with my mother in the early 80´s. this wouldn´t have been possible without the allie´s help. under this impression I grew up.

So? Why should one group of illegal immigrants be treated any differently than another group? Personally, I'd scrap the wet foot/dry foot policy and make the Cubans actually prove themselves deserving of political asylum and generally treat them the sameway we do Hatians ect.

[Meldor]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It wasn't a matter for court jurisdiction, Ned. The Justice Dept had discretion in this matter, and she exercised it. They had ordered the family to release Elian, and they refused a Justice Dept directive. IMO, they were kidnappers.

Taking the side of Castro? It had nothing to do with Castro's wishes, it had to do with the boy's FATHER, who wanted his son back! It doesn't make a bit of difference what Castro wanted, or if his desires happend to coincide with the wishes of the boy's father. Are we to kneejerk take up an opposite position to everything Castro does? Castro happened to be RIGHT this time.

Why are you against his father? How do you know what Elian wanted? All we ever heard was the selfish desires of the family to keep Elian as their political tool against Castro. Their actions were reprehensible.

Ploease tell me were in the US constitution or even US law were the US government has any say in any custidy case. Family custidy is a matter for state courts. It was being handled in a state court. The justice Department, which Reno ran is not responsible for these matters. The ATF, who went into the house aren't even close to being authorized to do anything about child custidy. It was a massive breach of the constitution. Period. Just like Waco.

Please cite your source to back it up if you think me wrong.

[Dom Pedro II]

My real problem with this policy (regardless of who started it) is that its inconsistent.

If we were to send refugees coming here from Cuba back, then we should've maintained good relations with Cuba. In fact, had we done so from the beginning, and gotten our foot in the door early when Castro came to US for help before the Russians, we could've avoided a lot of frustrations and saved a lot of lives as well.

But if were going to choose to be enemies with Cuba (or the Castro regime rather) then we should try to welcome as many escaping Cubans who oppose the Castro regime ESPECIALLY when we spend so much time pandering to the Miami Cubans.

[Velociryx]

Meldor, it’s not about finding an excuse for invading Cuba, nor is it about comparing Castro’s sins with those of other leaders, it’s about consistency, pure and simple. IF we believe the latest spin regarding the war in Iraq, then the new reason given for the war was our grave concern for the liberty of the Iraqi people. Per the Shrub’s new pet policy regarding the little d*ck-taters of the world, we went in guns blazing to liberate the Iraqis and end their long years of oppression….

AND YET

When a couple guys from an oppressive land much closer to home make a (rather inventive, actually) bid for freedom, what’s our response?

Send them home.

It’s two-faced. It’s shallow. And, it’s fairly typical of the current administration. Since the guys in the “truck-boat” don’t have anything we want, Fvck ‘em, right?

-=Vel=-

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by oedo
no bull****. and I know what I´m talking about. I saw how much afford, work and money the allies (especially the US) spent to take East German refugees and political prisoneers.

When a person escaped from East Germany what country did they enter?

[Dom Pedro II]

Politicians don't have to be consistent or make sense... especially demagogues. What was blue yesterday is green today, and if you stop and think about it too long, then they'll do a trick and distract you.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Meldor
Ploease tell me were in the US constitution or even US law were the US government has any say in any custidy case. Family custidy is a matter for state courts. It was being handled in a state court. The justice Department, which Reno ran is not responsible for these matters. The ATF, who went into the house aren't even close to being authorized to do anything about child custidy. It was a massive breach of the constitution. Period. Just like Waco.

BS, it wasn't a CUSTODY dispute, it was an IMMIGRATION issue. The Dept of Immigration had the SOLE jurisdiction here. The Immigration department has every right to enforce its decisions, through force if necessary. They had ordered the family to hand the kid over so he could be reunited with his LEGAL father. The family REFUSED, defying not only the Deptartment, but US Court orders to comply. US Courts CAN'T grant custody of non-citizen minors to anyone else when the minor's legal guardian is alive and well:

http://immigration.about.com/library/weekly/aa042500a.htm

U.S. Immigration law states that a minor may only apply for asylum under the sponsorship of a LEGAL guardian as follows:

"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."

Put it simply. Let's say your wife KIDNAPPED your son and took him to, say, Russia, where she had relatives. She dies en route, but her relatives get a hold of him and won't let him go. The government orders them to hand him over, you want him back, but they refuse. It's KIDNAPPING then. You're his legal parent, they are holding him against your will. The Russian government should remove the kid by force, if necessary, absolutely. We'd use SWAT teams to raid any other den of kidnappers to free their hostages, after all.

They had no right to hold Elian, legal or otherwise. They're lucky the DOJ didn't have them slapped with charges.

Please cite your source to back it up if you think me wrong.

How about citing your own?

[Dom Pedro II]

When a person escaped from East Germany what country did they enter?

America, right?? Isn't it right next to East Germany?