Posted on 08/01/2003 10:41:38 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:05:51 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It is not an overstatement to argue that George W. Bush is president today largely because of Cuban Americans. After Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno ordered an armed raid to take 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez away from his family and ship him off to communist Cuba, outraged Cuban Americans turned out in force to vote against Democratic candidate Al Gore in retribution for the administration's mistreatment of one of their own. More than 80 percent of Florida's 400,000 Cuban-American votes were delivered for Mr. Bush in 2000. This put him over the top in that state's close election, and thus, provided the electoral votes to defeat Mr. Gore.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
And it's way past time for President Bush to change Clinton's "wet-foot, dry-foot" policy, which is what compels the INS and the Coast Guard to send back these poor people fleeing Castro's dictatorship.
If George W doesn't change this asinine policy, he doesn't deserve to be re-elected
I agree - but we should have fixed the Cuba problem in 62 & we let them down - & if we are letting mexicans in why are we sending cubans back
If the administration over turned current policy for Cubans would it have a moral obligation to do the same thing for Haitians? I believe it would myself, but that is only because I've seen the conditions in Haiti and the looks on the faces of those who we returned.
If Haitians were not given the same consideration then the President's many detractors would scream foul and how much more politically costly would it be nationally? If he gave Haitians the same consideration? Then you know this would cause an even greater uproar amongst certain elements who only grudingly vote Republican.
Oddly enough, candidate Clinton did promise to reverse this police and allow Haitians in. Despite Coast Guard warnings, President Clinton didn't and many thousands of Haitians set sail for freedom. Many died when their overloaded boats over turned (we often found wreckage and parts of bodies). The lucky ones were interdicted and taken back to Haiti were many were summarily executed, out of sight of course, by thugs. Of Course President Clinton was never taken to task for this.
This is a very difficult issue...I wish I had the answer.
-------------------------
That's a separate issue, but one that should be examined. If left to thir own devices half the world would come here looking for a better life. There is no way of accommodating them here. They need to build a better life where they are. Additionally, many of the people who would come here bring the attitudes that have made life less better where they were and those attitudes suck the life out of the system here.
I grow tired of the comparison between Cubans and Haitians, so let's settle this once and for all.
If you claim that we have a moral obligation to treat them the same, then what you are saying is that we need to invade Cuba (like we invaded Haiti), overthrow the despot running the country (like we overthrew Duvalier), and set up free elections (like we did in Haiti).
The current policy in place, is an agreement between Clinton and Castro, and I don't elevate agreements with despots to the level of US policy...do you?
The prevailing law is the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966...it's the law. This law is being violated by a Bill Clinton Executive Order, I (along with most conservatives) consider EO's to be unconstitutional...what do you think?
Haitians and Cubans have not been treated equally, so either send in the Marines and knock off Fidel, or overturn "wet foot, dry foot", and adhere to the constitutionally enacted law.
Yep but Castro also has the Mariel card. Releasing violent criminals from his jails.
I don't think any administration wants to go through that again.
The issue could prove politically damaging to the president, who relied, in part, on hundreds of thousands of typically loyal Republican Cuban Americans in 2000 to narrowly win Florida and, as a result, the White House.
The president's advisors believe Florida could be pivotal for his reelection next year. Democratic challengers are already angling to exploit the flap, with Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman calling a South Florida news conference earlier this week to declare the repatriation an ''abandonment of American values,'' and then showing up at the Versailles Restaurant in Little Havana to mingle.
But the statements by the president's younger brother -- a Miami resident and fluent Spanish speaker with credibility among exile activists -- could serve to help repair the damage by reminding Cuban Americans of the brothers' close ties to them.
The governor acknowledged in the interview that losing Cuban-American support could be devastating to the GOP, noting that President Bill Clinton's success in wooing even a mere third of their vote helped him win Florida in 1996.
A key critic on Thursday welcomed the potential for changes in policy but attributed the governor's assurances to politics.
''I think they're going to have to do something, because they can't win Florida without the Cuban-American community's overwhelming support,'' said Joe Garcia, executive director of the influential Cuban American National Foundation, whose top leadership has been especially critical of the Bushes in recent days. ``Unfortunately, it took the foundation and others demanding action over things that were promised three years ago.''
In the interview, Gov. Bush called Lieberman's move a ''repugnant'' political play, saying that he registered his disagreement with the White House ``with respect, not rancor.''
Acknowledging a failure by the White House to articulate a ''coherent policy'' on Cuba, the governor added that the president would announce major changes in policy sometime before the 2004 election.***
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.