Posted on 04/29/2003 9:44:16 AM PDT by William Wallace
ROTFLMAO!!!
PC speech hits the Klavern?
Since you are well aware of your history, who killed more Cherokee indians, Luis Gonzalez and the Cubans or Andrew Jackson and the Amrerican government?
If you had facts to back up your nonsense, I am sure you would of posted it.
Huh? Regarding the terms 'illegal alien' and 'undocumented alien'? They are interchangeable, bjs, and apply to any alien prior to their admission or permanent parole into the US.
That's a fact! ;>)
Pretty tough to find the word "ILLEGAL" in the Cuban Adjustment Act I see...
BTW, whatever happened to your E.O. 12807 nonsense? Looks like you are hiding from that also.
Which has absolutely no bearing on the use of the terms, bjs. I don't perceive either term as being inherently pejorative. Do you?
"BTW, whatever happened to your E.O. 12807 nonsense? Looks like you are hiding from that also."
I'm not hiding from anything, bjs. Are you getting a case of secondary umbrage from our friend Luis?
What E.O. 12807 nonsense, bjs? It remains the genesis of the wet feet / dry feet policy, what more can I say? Signed by G.H.W. Bush in 1992, and contains no exceptions for any nationalities. Take a look at the USCG site, if you want to know what basis they use for their interdictions at sea.
That's a lie.
The genesis for the wet feet dry feet policy is the Clinton administration's Immigration agreement of 1995 with Cuba.
There was no wet foot/dry foot prior to Clinton's agreeing to send all Cuban migrants intercepted at sea back to Cuba, the matter got worse with Doris Meissner's 1999 procedural memo to the INS explicitly ordering the INS to process all Cuban migrants that reached US shores.
So, by Clinton administration policy the following procedures are implemented between the 1995 agreement, and the 1999 INS memo:
Hence "wet foot/dry foot".
E.O 12807 as signed by Bush the Younger, redefines the destination of illegal migrants intercepted at sea, and takes them to a neutral location for processing.
Bush effectively ends the practice of returning fleeing Cubans back to Castro's jails implemented by the Clinton administration.
By the way Freddy, you're still wrong on 12807 signed by Bush the Elder, which revokes Reagan’s 12324.
Reagan’s 12324 specifically orders the AG to take care "that no person who is a refugee will be returned without his consent", and further orders the AG to maintain a strict observation of "our international obligations concerning those who genuinely flee persecution in their homeland."-- EO 12324.
George Bush revoked EO #12324 with his 1992 E.O. 12807, to address the ongoing Haitian exodus, however, maintained Reagan’s instructions to the AG "that a person who is a refugee will not be returned without his consent"(source) thus allowing the continued practice of granting parole to all Cuban immigrants reaching the US via irregular means.
"I also noted that you did not comment on being a friend of Demetreo Perez, Jr."
You lied again.
"...you are a close friend of Demetrio Perez,Jr."
You lied, you don't even know me.
But then again, lying comes easy to you.
Now, it's time to start dealing with your lies.
"Less than 10 years ago, scientists were predicting the imminent eradication of tuberculosis in the United States."---Source.
That statement is significant in the fact that Cuban immigration had waned to its lowest point since Fidel's takeover in 1959, with the last significant wave of Cuban immigrants arriving in 1994. Cuban immigrants account for 25 out of the 1304 cases reported in Florida in 1998 (source), that works out to slightly under 2 out of every 100 cases...hardly "dramatic", wouldn't you say?
Now, TB is on the rise in the U.S., and people like yourself, looking to unleash your blatant bigotry on anyone, blame immigrants for it all, however, the fact is that the majority of the increase in TB cases is directly linked to the rise in HIV cases in the United States.
As many as 15 million Americans have latent TB, but people with HIV are either more vulnerable because their decreased ability to fight off infections, or more susceptible to new infections.---Source.
" According to the New York City Task Force on TB, urban areas are a breeding ground for TB, not because of immigration, but mostly because of high rates of HIV infection, homelessness and inadequate health care."---American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics.
You may want to look up the word "ethics", you lack them, as do your "sources".
Luis, why would you characterize something well known to all immigration attorneys as a lie? Your invective shows no sign of abating - why is that, may I ask?
Even, or should I say especially, the USCG indicates E.O. 12807 as their support for wet feet / dry feet.
"There was no wet foot/dry foot prior to Clinton's agreeing to send all Cuban migrants intercepted at sea back to Cuba, the matter got worse with Doris Meissner's 1999 procedural memo to the INS explicitly ordering the INS to process all Cuban migrants that reached US shores.
There was no wet feet / dry feet for Cubans prior to the 1995 agreement, but that doesn't change the genesis of the policy. The 1995 agreement simply had the result of applying an existing policy to all nationalities, not all but one.
Meissner's 1999 policy memo was a good thing for Cubans, Luis - the 1996 IIRIRA specifically singled out '..arrival in the United States at a place other than an open port-of-entry...' [as] a ground of inadmissibility to the US. Had the INS ever fully followed this law, any Cuban rafter would have been denied admission. The memo clarifies that "However, after serious consideration of IIRIRA, the Service established that a Cuban national or citizen who arrives at a place other than an open port-of-entry may still be eligible for adjustment of status, if the Service has paroled the alien into the United States.". IOW, back to the existing status quo for Cubans.
As an aside, I get the distinct feeling that you are copying and pasting verbiage from sources other than yourself, shall we say, without attribution. Is that the case? That might explain what appears to be deliberate misrepresentations of the laws we are discussing.
"George Bush revoked EO #12324 with his 1992 E.O. 12807, to address the ongoing Haitian exodus, however, maintained Reagan’s instructions to the AG ...."
Actually, the instructions changed significantly between EO 12324 & 12807, Luis:
EO 12324:
"..provided, however, that no person who is a refugee will be returned without his consent.
to:
EO 12807:
...provided, however, that the Attorney General, in his unreviewable discretion, may decide that a person who is a refugee will not be returned without his consent.
Added more than a bit of leeway to the AG, as you can see, Luis. One might ask "What is a refugee" - in the eyes of the INS, as instructed by the Congress, it's a person who is fleeing a country due to political persecution (not economic hardship). That's why it's extremely difficult for say.., a Haitian to gain admission after illegal entry, and 'purt near impossible for a Mexican, too. I suspect that some of the impetus to apply existing law & policies to Cubans as well is the realization that, after the collapse of Cuba's patron state, the incidence of Cubans fleeing Cuba for economic, as opposed to political, reasons has risen dramatically.
"E.O 12807 as signed by Bush the Younger, redefines the destination of illegal migrants intercepted at sea, and takes them to a neutral location for processing.
Bush effectively ends the practice of returning fleeing Cubans back to Castro's jails implemented by the Clinton administration.
I think you're talking about EO 13276 here, Luis (W didn't sign an EO 12807). There's nothing in 13276 that precludes the return of a Cuban to Cuba. In some circles, 13276 is known as the 'anti-Elian' order, in that it says "If the Attorney General institutes such screening, then until a determination is made, the Attorney General shall provide for the custody, care, safety, transportation, and other needs of the aliens. The Attorney General shall continue to provide for the custody, care, safety, transportation, and other needs of aliens who are determined not to be persons in need of protection until such time as they are returned to their country of origin or transit.". Many attorneys believe that had this been in effect Thanksgiving weekend, 2000 that the Elian saga would have been about 1 month long, because he could not have been even temporarily paroled into US.
Check out my webpage and my archives at http://bulldogbulletin.lhhosting.com/page1.html, I don't need help with verbiage.
Clinton's 1995 agreement was made directly with Cuba, and specifically directed itself at Cuban migrants. If Clinton had decided to apply existing policy to all nationalities, he could have instructed the AG to instruct the INS to not parole any immigrants, from any nation, arriving on US soil under other than ordinary means. He didn't.
In spite of 12807, to the best of my recollection, Bush the Elder never returned Cuban migrants intercepted at sea to Cuba.
You discount their obvious findings and defend the slanted articles from anti-immigration organizations whose sole purpose for existing, is attacking immigrants to the United States.
You are a bigot, a racist, and ignorant fool, and your obvious hatred of Cubans, as well as your unwarranted direct attacks at me are transparent in their nature.
To claim that the Cuban immigrant community is responsible for the "dramatic" rise of TB in the State of Florida these past ten years, when there where less than three cases of a Cuban immigrant contracting TB in 1998 reported in the State, is not only ridiculous, but laughable.
Your kind of bigotry is an embarrasment to this forum, and people like yourself are the reason why Democrats find it so easy to play the race card against conservatives.
I'm not trying to get you banned, I'm just exposing you for what you are, if you weren't any of those things that I accused you of being, then why would you be concerned and stage a defense?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.