Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned
All this shows is that we are rewarding China for its steps toward liberty.

What steps?

[Ned]

It is has moved significantly toward a free market. It has introduced laws protecting intellectual property. Is is allowing foreign ownership of businesses. It is respecting the rights of the people of Hong Kong. It is allowing some free speech.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned
It is allowing some free speech.

Ned: They treat political dissidents just as badly there as they do in China. Which is why I'm suprised you can post about the lack of political freedoms in Cuba and talk about how we shouldn't normalize relations and at the same time have no problem trading with China.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Japher
The point I am making is that I have no problem with immigration just as long as they aren't coming in to be taken care of.

I would love to see them collect every Cuban that has found the current, interview them on their skills, and then either accept or deny them entry.

I also think that Immigrants should be denied social benefits for a certain amount of time upon entering the country. Give 'em unemployment, but no welfare. I know this may create some problems at first, but at least we won't have people coming here to abuse the system, instead of take advantage of it.

I have absolutely no problem with an orderly immigration process where that is legally possible. As to welfare, I thought the US was already on a workfare system. So understood, I have no problem in providing refugees a bridge to finding employment.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Ned

Now as to George Bush, I also agree with Vel that his apparent lack of concern with the liberation of the people Cuba shows us that he is not truly dedicated to the liberation of the people of Iraq.

That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

[Meldor]

Since this is at least a new line, rather than repeating a mantra I will reply.

Originally posted by Ned
Meldor, thank you for the news article on the update on the 12 refugees. I know you highlighted this section stating that Castro had done nothing yet the 12 refugees, but, as Vel pointed out earlier, you seem to ignore the apparent fact that these 12 would never be employed in Cuba again. Couple this with the requirement, also stated in the article, that Cubans need an "exit" visa in order to get out of Cuba and that Castro does not grant exit visas to boat people, the combination is devastating to the 12 refugees. Your apparent unconcern with the fate of the 12 and continued defense of the Castro régime is appalling.

I have never stated that I support the Castro regime. As a matter of record, I have stated several times that I am opposed to it. I would be happy if it fell yesterday. Ask Ge what I think of Castro, or read the Communist threads.

That said, there is nothing in either article I have seen that indicates the reason for their attempt to enter the US was anything but an economic one and not a political one. They were trying to get here to have a better life economically. They made a choice to attempt this knowing full well what the consequences were if they didn't hit US soil. They knew what would happen when the returned. Did they have jobs before they left? How are they eating now? I would assume they live off of they same relatives they did before hand. None of them claim political repression for their reason.

Do I feel sympathy for them? You bet. How do I way that against the thousands that are dying in Haiti every month of aids, stravation, and high crime? Haiti has a govenment that is at least on paper back by us and helped by Clinton (before it got lost). Should I not feel just as much for their plight? What about the hundreds of children that are forced to live in the sewere systems in Brazil, so that they aren't beaten and raped by the adults. That are forced to steal and rob for their very existance. Should I not feel just as much or more for their plight? What about the peole in Rwanda, Liberia, Congo, South Africa, and all of the other places in the world where people are dying due to lack of services, war, mismanagement, corruption, hatred, and any number of causes. Should I not fell just as much for their plight?

Let's face it, we can't cure all of the worlds ills singlehandedly. We can't wave any magic wands and make all of the bad stuff go away. Until the people in the governments of a lot of these countries and even the citizens themselves, are ready to make fundimental changes, no amount of money and aid is going to change the facts.

Now, did our government do anything to these people that they don't do to any other number of people who come from the same or worse conditions? NO. Can we as a country afford to take in hundreds of thousands of people each month from every corner of the globe and still maintain our country in any sort of shape to be able to help when big things happen? NO. Can we as a country invade or change the governments fo 2/3's of the countries on this planet until all of the problems go away? NO. What can we do? We can take care of those spots that are most likely to cause us immediate problems militarily, and then work as best we can through established means to get the rest in line. I personnally think the world is in a heck of a lot better shape the way things are going now than it was just 4 years ago. By taking out the big spots, some of those in small spots get the message and start to change.

Originally posted by Ned
I also find appalling the attitude of the US mission in Cuba. They stated that there is some question whether to grant the 12 political asylum under the circumstances. What?!

Tell me what political conditions they are suffering from. The circumstances of their employment chances is a direct result of their own actions. They knew the stakes and threw the dice. They haven't been thrown in prison, they haven't been paraded around as examples. Their own statements make it economic. There are thousands of people here that are finding it hard to get a job (or at least one they will except). Should we take in every one in the world who can't get a job in their own country? Who then will take us in? The people in the mission are just following established US policy, that applies to every other person trying to gain access to the US. What skills do these people have? How employable are they? What training do they have? Lots of things unanswered in a simple article meant to cause sympathy.

Originally posted by Ned
Meldor, I also find a curious that you equate the Cuban and American laws criminalizing the opposition to the government. In Cuba, that opposition can be the form of free speech or an effort to form a political party. In United States, this opposition has to be more in the form of an armed revolution before it becomes criminal. To even suggest that the two are equivalent shows that you have no love of liberty and would be quite content to live in a land, such as Cuba, that has no political freedom or free speech.

Go back and read again. I didn't say the laws in Cuba weren't oppressive. I didn't say people in Cuba had all of the rights of American citizens. I simple stated that Cuba has laws against treason just as we do. Someone violating those laws, knows that they are doing so and knows the consequences. They laws are not set by whim of Castro or his family and changed daily. My whole point was that the STABILITY of the government and its enforcement of its laws is closer to the US than it is to SAddam's Iraq.

Originally posted by Ned
Now as to George Bush, I also agree with Vel that his apparent lack of concern with the liberation of the people Cuba shows us that he is not truly dedicated to the liberation of the people of Iraq. George Bush is no Ronald Reagan, who, I believe, truly believed in liberty.

What cause do we have to invade Cuba? Are they currently helping terrorists in some way that we can prove? Do they have 12 UN security council resolutions against them that are going unenforced? Is Castro at this time murdering whole families and villages of those that oppose him? Is he harboring any people who have committed terrorist acts against the US? I agree, and I am sure President Bush agrees, that the people of Cuba deserve a better government and more freedoms. What we disagree on is how to go about it and how important it is to us military options to do so.

Originally posted by Ned
I don't know who George Bush is anymore. However I can say that this event has so alienated me from him that I doubt that I would vote for him again.

Then I would suggest that you didn't know President Bush to start with. He hasn't changed in the least bit. He is the same person he was when he ran our great statwe of Texas. Maybe it isn't him that changed, but you.

Originally posted by Ned
Finally, why is there all this debate on what we, the United States, must do in order to normalize our relations with Cuba? So long as Cuba remains communist and denies its people essential liberties, I believe United States must remain extremely hostile to the Castro régime. They need to reform fundamentally before we can normalize relations.

Reagan didn't end the USSR by military might, he ended by showing the people in Russia from top to bottom that we were economically superior to them in every way. We could outspend them in any catagory. On top of that, he allowed enough trade to occur that it became impossible for Russia to try and isolate itself from the western economies. They needed hard currency and had to trade to get it.

What are we doing with China now? We are making China so dependant on trade with other nations, including us, that any military steps they take will do more damage to them than it will to us. Does this mean we don't care about Chinese dissidents? Does this means we do care about Chinese students? No, it means that we are doing what we can to make China a more open and less repressive place thatn it would be otherwise. It ain't going to happen over night, but the signs are there.

Now, why should we make the people of Cuba suffer anymore, just because JFK had a thing for Castro 40 years ago? Why should we not open trade with Cuba and allow those same twelve people to work in Cuba without having to risk their lives? Would it be better for the general population if we allowed said trade? Do you think Castro is going to miss a single meal either way? One of the things that has probably allowed Castro to stay in power as long as he has is the shear pride of the Cuban people. Whatever else, they have thumbed their collective noses at us for 40 years. They problem here is that both sides are too full of pride to blink first and it is the very people that you claim to want to help, who have paid the price for it over those same 40 years.

How many more Cubans must die? And what is the best way to help them? Good questions, but don't think all the answers are in Havana...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
It is has moved significantly toward a free market. It has introduced laws protecting intellectual property. Is is allowing foreign ownership of businesses. It is respecting the rights of the people of Hong Kong. It is allowing some free speech.

China is also the world leader in executions, in slave labor camps for dissidents, in crackdowsn on the mainland, as as for econmic reform, yes, they are doing that..but they do that while keeping thight political reign. You would be in a far worse situation getting on the bad side of the Chinese leadership while in Mainland China (outside of HK)than with Fidel and his boys; Much worse.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But we turned them away.

And how many lives are lost on the high seas now? How many more would die if they thought it was easier to get in?

The alternative is that the current administration is attempting to blow a large, billowing mass of smoke up our asses, in which case, the sooner they are OUT of office, the better.

-=Vel=-

We've been trying to tell you this for two and a half years.

[Velociryx]

Then you've been preaching to the choir. While I support the notion behind an Iraqi invasion, I surely do not believe the tripe that the Shrub and his croonies have been spouting, nor do I feel they are doing a particulary good job over there.

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Just for the sake of historical reference, the policy of returning Cubans to Cuba began in 1994 under Bill Clinton. In that year, the US was faced with thousands of refugees from both Haiti and Cuba. Clinton had declared the Haitians "economic" refugees, and for that was subject to charges of racism by American civil rights leaders. In response, Clinton removed a special privileges accorded Cuban refugees were given, it appears, automatic asylum regardless of whether they reached the short United States not.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/2936

Here is a current story noting that Castro is still campaigning to end the automatic US asylum policysaying that such a policy incents illegal "emigration" attempts.

Note the words "emigration" and "illegal." I would argue that restrictions on emigration are human rights violations and that to the extent that we aid Castro in maintaining his population under lock and key we are aiding and abetting human rights violations. We should end the travesty of our policy on returning refugees to Cuba now.

http://www.bahraintribune.com/world.asp?Art_No=10727

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Note the words "emigration" and "illegal." I would argue that restrictions on emigration are human rights violations and that to the extent that we aid Castro in maintaining his population under lock and key we are aiding and abetting human rights violations. We should end the travesty of our policy on returning refugees to Cuba now.

So, are you for open immigration then? Or only from Cuba?

[Ned]

Here's an interesting article on why Clinton abandoned linking Chinese progress on human rights with a renewal of China's most-favored-nation's trading status (a policy advocated strongly by liberal Democrats). http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/1994/6/3-4_1.html Two arguments apparently won out: First, China was good for business. Second, we needed China strategically, for example, to help control the spread of nuclear weapons into North Korea.

It is clear that expanding business relationships with the likes of China makes it increasingly difficult for us to use trade as a weapon without hurting our own business interests. Others have argued on this thread that increasing economic ties between China and United States has run resulted in no progress on human rights in China. Is this true?

But what does seem to be clear is that the less confrontational approach between United States and China has resulted in better diplomatic relationships between the two countries. China is cooperating with us on the war against terror and appears to be cooperating with us on North Korea.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So, are you for open immigration then? Or only from Cuba?

For any refugees fleeing a country that restricts emmigration.

[Ned]

Che, a quick survey of human rights and emmigration reveals that emmigration is considered an aspect of liberty, that restricting it is indeed a human rights violation.

[Ned]

Also, Che and fellow socialists, here is a good thinkpience on why freedom, prosperty and humans rights are linked. Socialism and elitism (control of economic resources by an elite) are inherently evil. This is why, I believe, we all must be truly dedicated to liberty to bring justice and human rights to the world.

http://www.cne-network.org/pub_pdf/curzon_price_wealth.pdf