Cuban protests, and US-Cuba relations in general

[GranTurNismo]

I'm sure we're all at least somewhat aware of the protests that are taking place across Cuba, and quite a rare happening for a place that almost effectively bans opposition to their government. And this is also a useful example as to how the mainstream media can manufacture consent. From what I've read, the protests are mostly as a result of a move toward economic austerity, as well as certain food and other resource shortages. The main reason for the Cuban government's move toward austerity measures and the food shortages are due to Cuba's largest industry, tourism (which is mostly from the US), completely tanking as a result of the pandemic. Although there have been no confirmed deaths from the protests, they have turned violent in certain instances, prompting police and military action. The issue I have is, the news media as of large, as well as many right-wing figureheads, are framing the protests as nothing more than an uprising against communism (calling Cuba "communist" is a bit of a stretch) and authoritarianism in general.

On both sides of the political spectrum, it is almost engrained into Americans that Cuba's poverty and isolation is merely and example of a failed ideology. I will obviously not deny that the sheer brutality and repressiveness of the Castro regime, as well as the pervasive Soviet influence on Cuban government played a substantial role in limiting Cuba's economic prospects, but to point the finger at "communism" for all of Cuba's woes is simply not the whole story. The US ought to take accountability for their role in Cuba's destitution. The Biden administration officially announced their approval of the Cuban protests today, but performative support is meaningless if US sanctions are not to be ceased, or at least weakened to some degree, nor if the current administration does not seek to further foster diplomatic relations with Cuba.

I would really love to hear a compelling argument as to why the US still has quite harsh economic sanctions on Cuba. Seriously. It's been 60 years since the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred; why on earth is it still relevant to have such crippling sanctions on a tiny island nation that not only poses no economic or imperial threat to the US, nor is it backed by the Soviets or any other totalitarian regime to this date? Given the US being a nation that prides itself for supporting capitalism and comparatively free markets, why should it make sense for us to ban all forms of trade relations between the United States and Cuba, in 2021? The UN has voted on 29 occasions, and as recently as a month ago, to end the US embargo on Cuba. Each of the 29 times, all 184 UN nations voted in favor of this, except for the US and Israel, blocking the embargo from being formally repealed.

I'll also add this tidbit of information, further demonstrating how the US sanctions on Cuba are a form of economic warfare. A memorandum written by the assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, in 1960, outlines that "The majority of Cubans support Castro... The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship. If the above are accepted or cannot be successfully countered, it follows that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government."

The intents are self evident. Punish Cuban civilians for their support of Castro by forcing the vast majority of them into a life of poverty and subservience. Economic warfare is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as involving "an economic strategy based on the use of measures (e.g. blockade) of which the primary effect is to weaken the economy of another state". I fail to see how the above is something other than overt, economic warfare.

Source: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499

 

[Danoff]

I'm sure we're all at least somewhat aware of the protests that are taking place across Cuba, and quite a rare happening for a place that almost effectively bans opposition to their government. And this is also a useful example as to how the mainstream media can manufacture consent. From what I've read, the protests are mostly as a result of a move toward economic austerity, as well as certain food and other resource shortages. The main reason for the Cuban government's move toward austerity measures and the food shortages are due to Cuba's largest industry, tourism (which is mostly from the US), completely tanking as a result of the pandemic. Although there have been no confirmed deaths from the protests, they have turned violent in certain instances, prompting police and military action. The issue I have is, the news media as of large, as well as many right-wing figureheads, are framing the protests as nothing more than an uprising against communism (calling Cuba "communist" is a bit of a stretch) and authoritarianism in general.

On both sides of the political spectrum, it is almost engrained into Americans that Cuba's poverty and isolation is merely and example of a failed ideology. I will obviously not deny that the sheer brutality and repressiveness of the Castro regime, as well as the pervasive Soviet influence on Cuban government played a substantial role in limiting Cuba's economic prospects, but to point the finger at "communism" for all of Cuba's woes is simply not the whole story. The US ought to take accountability for their role in Cuba's destitution. The Biden administration officially announced their approval of the Cuban protests today, but performative support is meaningless if US sanctions are not to be ceased, or at least weakened to some degree, nor if the current administration does not seek to further foster diplomatic relations with Cuba.

I would really love to hear a compelling argument as to why the US still has quite harsh economic sanctions on Cuba. Seriously. It's been 60 years since the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred; why on earth is it still relevant to have such crippling sanctions on a tiny island nation that not only poses no economic or imperial threat to the US, nor is it backed by the Soviets or any other totalitarian regime to this date? Given the US being a nation that prides itself for supporting capitalism and comparatively free markets, why should it make sense for us to ban all forms of trade relations between the United States and Cuba, in 2021? The UN has voted on 29 occasions, and as recently as a month ago, to end the US embargo on Cuba. Each of the 29 times, all 184 UN nations voted in favor of this, except for the US and Israel, blocking the embargo from being formally repealed.

I'll also add this tidbit of information, further demonstrating how the US sanctions on Cuba are a form of economic warfare. A memorandum written by the assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, in 1960, outlines that "The majority of Cubans support Castro... The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship. If the above are accepted or cannot be successfully countered, it follows that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government."

The intents are self evident. Punish Cuban civilians for their support of Castro by forcing the vast majority of them into a life of poverty and subservience. Economic warfare is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as involving "an economic strategy based on the use of measures (e.g. blockade) of which the primary effect is to weaken the economy of another state". I fail to see how the above is something other than overt, economic warfare.

Source: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499

Two things sprang to mind while I was reading your post. First, economic sanctions basically never work, at least as best I can tell. We have a much better track record of influencing nations by intertwining with their economics rather than by isolating from them. Second, the Fox News train is already all over democrats being supportive of communism, so backing off now would just make them look like pinkos.

 

[GranTurNismo]

First, economic sanctions basically never work, at least as best I can tell.

Assuming this is true... wouldn't this only strengthen the argument in favor of ending sanctions on Cuba? Why should we implement a policy action on a so-called enemy if it's ineffective?

Might as well add this (from 2009, so old numbers): "The US Chamber of Commerce estimates that the embargo costs the U.S. economy $1.2 billion per year in lost sales and exports, while the Cuban government estimates that the embargo has cost the island itself $753.69 billion. The Cuba Policy Foundation estimates that the embargo costs the U.S. economy $3.6 billion per year in economic output."

Even though it is pocket change to the US government, is $3.6 billion per annum really worth it to prevent Cuba's economic self-determination?

The Costs of the Embargo | Dollars & Sense

www.dollarsandsense.org

 

[Danoff]

Assuming this is true... wouldn't this only strengthen the argument in favor of ending sanctions on Cuba? Why should we implement a policy action on a so-called enemy if it's ineffective?

Might as well add this (from 2009, so old numbers): "The US Chamber of Commerce estimates that the embargo costs the U.S. economy $1.2 billion per year in lost sales and exports, while the Cuban government estimates that the embargo has cost the island itself $753.69 billion. The Cuba Policy Foundation estimates that the embargo costs the U.S. economy $3.6 billion per year in economic output."

Even though it is pocket change to the US government, is $3.6 billion per annum really worth it to prevent Cuba's economic self-determination?

The Costs of the Embargo | Dollars & Sense

www.dollarsandsense.org

I'm not sure there is ever a good case for economic sanctions - even for a country like North Korea, even in the case of Uyghurs in China. Even when you're worried about going to war with a country, intermingled economies are a strong mechanism for peace, and the freer economy influences the less free economy toward more freedom (because freedom in trade outperforms strong controls). US-China relations have only deteriorated with Trump's economic battle on trade with China. That only continues today with Biden. I don't see it heading anywhere good. The more isolated and antagonistic US and China economies get, the closer we get to war.

I think that the thought process behind sanctions on North Korea or Cuba works something like this. Impoverished through trade sanctions, the people will blame their government, rise up, overthrow, and pick democracy and freedom. As best I can tell, this assumes a number of things which don't always work out to be true. They don't always blame their government, sometimes they blame us. And they don't always pick a government we might like, sometimes they pick a government that is predicated on hatred for the US. Instead, trading with them doesn't cause resentment, and it does show them how economic freedom can be beneficial. As their quality of life goes up, they see the US more favorably rather than less. It's also necessarily beneficial to us.

It almost stirkes me as insecure that we take this position that if a country has any measure of prosperity at all that they won't want to trend toward freedom, rights, and representative government. Desperate people are probably not the best starting point for picking such a well-educated balanced perspective on their new government.


Edit:

Ok a couple of degenerate cases for economic sanctions would be when you're actively at war with a nation, or the nation is actively at war with an ally. Then you might want to cease trade.

 

[Liquid]

It's all about saving face. After xx years of sanctions, giving in now makes you look weak. As Danoff alludes to, there's an insecurity about admitting that a particular policy does not or has not worked.

 

[Danoff]

It's all about saving face. After xx years of sanctions, giving in now makes you look weak. As Danoff alludes to, there's an insecurity about admitting that a particular policy does not or has not worked.

Yea, imagine the US opening up trade with North Korea... oh well... all those years of sanctions completely failed. But of course that is what has happened.

 

[Liquid]

But of course [trading with North Korea] is what has happened.

Sure. But try admitting that publicly.

 

[Danoff]

Sure. But try admitting that publicly.

I think you meant "But of course [the sanctions completely failing] is what has happened". 👍

 

[Joey D]

I don't support sanctions against Cuba, especially for something tied to what, the 1950s? The US has no problem with trading with communist nations so it seems weird we continue to do that with Cuba. Honestly, if the sanctions were lifted, tourism would go crazy in Cuba since it would offer an experience unlike any other island in the Caribbean.

Also, for purely selfish reasons, I just want a box of Cuban cigars again without needing to jump through hoops.

 

[GranTurNismo]

It's all about saving face. After xx years of sanctions, giving in now makes you look weak. As Danoff alludes to, there's an insecurity about admitting that a particular policy does not or has not worked.

In the short term, this is most likely to be true. Though, perceived weakness does not excuse the fact that ending our crippling and obsolete sanctions against Cuba is a beyond necessary action to take. To be optimistic, the US populace (excluding fringe groups) willingly accepts that race-based slavery, Jim Crow apartheid, Japanese internment camps, denying women the right to vote, among many others, are negative events in our history. Having said that, I'm hoping the same effect happens in the case of Cuba. I was hoping that Obama would be the president who would finally end the embargo, given his attempts to normalize diplomatic relations with the Cuban government. I think it would be a worthwhile move for Biden to pursue quite frankly. Best case scenario, the Biden admin works up a plan with the Diaz-Canel regime to remove all sanctions and set up trade agreements, as well as some sort of reparations for Cubans; of course, the right-wing will smear this act as anti-American and "proof" that the US is moving towards communism, but among the Democratic constituents, this policy will probably be well liked, especially amongst the left/progressive flank, who are becoming increasingly disillusioned by Biden due to him seemingly abandoning his more progressive policy proposals, such as ending the filibuster, $15 min. wage, and bold climate action. After that, the US will formally acknowledge that our policy actions towards Cuba were wrong, playing a major role in the nation's destitution, in the same way that we have acknowledged our wrongs against women and racial minorities in the past. Again, I'm being overly optimistic here.

Anyway, the US officially conceding our vast foreign policy wrongdoings is something I'd like to see a lot more of in the future. I wish that there wasn't such a stigma surrounding this. I guess it gives me solace that twenty years later, it is almost a universally held opinion that the US invasion of Iraq was quite the blunder. We've reached the stage where even the Bushes were forced admit as such.

 

[Dotini]

I would really love to hear a compelling argument as to why the US still has quite harsh economic sanctions on Cuba. Seriously. It's been 60 years since the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred; why on earth is it still relevant to have such crippling sanctions on a tiny island nation that not only poses no economic or imperial threat to the US, nor is it backed by the Soviets or any other totalitarian regime to this date?

The only argument I know of is political, hence it's short of compelling, reasonable, or rational. But because of the block of anti-Castro Cuban refugees becoming voters in the US, politicians become more concerned about these votes than they do the conditions in Cuba.
Though it's no longer an argument, the Monroe Doctrine, vanished US influence including commercial, criminal and military interests in Cuba are all distantly ingrained in current policies, IMHO.

 

[merseyxshore]

Not to be a ‘MSM’ conspiracy guy, but there’s not much reporting out there on this side of things. A more cynical person might say the US want to back out but don’t want to lose face…

 

[Keef]

I'm sure we're all at least somewhat aware of the protests that are taking place across Cuba, and quite a rare happening for a place that almost effectively bans opposition to their government. And this is also a useful example as to how the mainstream media can manufacture consent. From what I've read, the protests are mostly as a result of a move toward economic austerity, as well as certain food and other resource shortages. The main reason for the Cuban government's move toward austerity measures and the food shortages are due to Cuba's largest industry, tourism (which is mostly from the US), completely tanking as a result of the pandemic. Although there have been no confirmed deaths from the protests, they have turned violent in certain instances, prompting police and military action. The issue I have is, the news media as of large, as well as many right-wing figureheads, are framing the protests as nothing more than an uprising against communism (calling Cuba "communist" is a bit of a stretch) and authoritarianism in general.

A couple notes. Most of Cuba's tourism is actually from Canada. I did meet a few Americans there but many more were Canadian, British, or from other Hispanic countries. Having been to Cuba in 2015 and stayed with a friend's family and did local things during that time and had many discussions about life there and politics etc, I would not say the Cuba does an "effective" job of banning opposition. Opposition exists everywhere - literally any Cuban with tourist contact knows the jig is up - but what happens is the Cuban people just keep it hushed. They stay quiet and keep to themselves because it's easier for them that way. I mean hell, I witness Cuban soldiers and police officers and other workers riding to work in the back of dump trucks. Cuba as an institution is barely operable lol.

But the government is absolutely communist, and has actually preserved its principles very well. Homelessness basically doesn't exist because the vast majority of homes are owned and rented by the government (this policy has been loosened slightly in recent years). Basically all commercial space is rented from the government. Imports, exports, rations, etc. But they also have universal healthcare, abortion, education, etc. Buddy they're Marxist-Leninist to a T.

On both sides of the political spectrum, it is almost engrained into Americans that Cuba's poverty and isolation is merely and example of a failed ideology. I will obviously not deny that the sheer brutality and repressiveness of the Castro regime, as well as the pervasive Soviet influence on Cuban government played a substantial role in limiting Cuba's economic prospects, but to point the finger at "communism" for all of Cuba's woes is simply not the whole story. The US ought to take accountability for their role in Cuba's destitution. The Biden administration officially announced their approval of the Cuban protests today, but performative support is meaningless if US sanctions are not to be ceased, or at least weakened to some degree, nor if the current administration does not seek to further foster diplomatic relations with Cuba.

I would really love to hear a compelling argument as to why the US still has quite harsh economic sanctions on Cuba. Seriously. It's been 60 years since the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred; why on earth is it still relevant to have such crippling sanctions on a tiny island nation that not only poses no economic or imperial threat to the US, nor is it backed by the Soviets or any other totalitarian regime to this date? Given the US being a nation that prides itself for supporting capitalism and comparatively free markets, why should it make sense for us to ban all forms of trade relations between the United States and Cuba, in 2021? The UN has voted on 29 occasions, and as recently as a month ago, to end the US embargo on Cuba. Each of the 29 times, all 184 UN nations voted in favor of this, except for the US and Israel, blocking the embargo from being formally repealed.

The US embargo is tremendously thorough, and an exception to what @Danoff suggested about sanctions rarely working. This one has not only worked but everybody else implicated - literally every US all from their governments to their cargo ships - has cooperated rather thoroughly. Our embargo on Cuba is probably the most thorough and effective economic sanction in human history.

That said, Cuba's poverty is not merely a result of our embargo. They've had decades to negotiate other economic partners and circumvent the embargo, and they chose Venezuela. The reason half of Cubans are flushing toilets with buckets isn't because nobody outside the US makes toilets, or because there's no other way to ship them to Cuba without US involvement, it's simply because the Cuban government doesn't give a damn. One of their core strategies is to play the victim of US policies and then publish eerily thorough propaganda at every opportunity. The Cuban government basically says that America is evil and our punishment is the only reason Cubans struggle but they need to band together to fight the good fight. It's textbook.

Problem is, Americans are stubborn and we still go to Cuba. We talk to the people. We buy their wares. Cubans know exactly what's going on, they know their government is full of ****. My buddy's dad has taken multiple vacations to Washington DC, he's not an idiot lol. Most Cubans are on the same page.

I'll also add this tidbit of information, further demonstrating how the US sanctions on Cuba are a form of economic warfare. A memorandum written by the assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, in 1960, outlines that "The majority of Cubans support Castro... The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship. If the above are accepted or cannot be successfully countered, it follows that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government."

The intents are self evident. Punish Cuban civilians for their support of Castro by forcing the vast majority of them into a life of poverty and subservience. Economic warfare is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as involving "an economic strategy based on the use of measures (e.g. blockade) of which the primary effect is to weaken the economy of another state". I fail to see how the above is something other than overt, economic warfare.

Source: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499

The intent was to punish the government but obviously it also punishes the people. That's why the Wet Foot Dry Foot policy was instituted - unlike other immigrants, if Cubans were able to reach US soil they were officially allowed to stay. That's how the vast majority of them got here. And the Cuban government hates them for it - just like how Trumpists hate Americans who leave America, oddly enough. So you could argue that while the main intent was to punish the Cuban government, a secondary intent was actually not to punish Cuban people, but to instead force them out and force them into America. And we managed to force out nearly 1/10 of their population which is insane.

But yes ultimately the Cuban people are good people and deserve better. Our policies should have ended by now and for what it's worth the Obama administration did initiate the Cuban thaw, although Trump shot that down immediately and ruined relations even worse than they were before Obama. Appropriate assistance and technology sharing etc is definitely the way to go for Cuba - they've got a ton of underdeveloped agricultural and industrial capacity and a ton of people who would jump at the chance to work for fair wages that they can actually keep. Their infrastructure needs severe improvement but besides that it would only take a couple decades for them to recover to an economic position even better than Mexico. I hope the Biden administration is working on this but remember we also have a crap ton of our own people to work for, like DC and PR.

 

[Danoff]

A few things I would pick on Keef.

Buddy they're Marxist-Leninist to a T.

I don't think that's true. Cuba has a fairly substantial private sector. They're definitely at attempt at communism, but I don't consider them to have achieved it.

The US embargo is tremendously thorough, and an exception to what @Danoff suggested about sanctions rarely working.

I'll believe it has worked when Cuba throws off its own government and adopts an american-friendly democracy that respects human rights. That's the goal of these sanctions - to make the Cubans create a government we like. It hasn't happened yet, and a revolution won't necessarily result in such a government.

 

[Keef]

A few things I would pick on Keef.

I don't think that's true. Cuba has a fairly substantial private sector. They're definitely at attempt at communism, but I don't consider them to have achieved it.

I'll believe it has worked when Cuba throws off its own government and adopts an american-friendly democracy that respects human rights. That's the goal of these sanctions - to make the Cubans create a government we like. It hasn't happened yet, and a revolution won't necessarily result in such a government.

Their private sector might be substantial compared to Stalinism but that's about it. The vast majority of these "private" businesses are operated out of property owned by the government. I mentioned that this policy has been loosened recently and private property ownership does exist now but it's extremely limited since the vast majority of people have no wealth to buy anything with anyway. Regardless of ownership status, resources are still rationed and scarce, and the only way locals are able to afford any luxuries is through black-market entrepreneurship.

I suppose I could clarify by saying that the Cuban government is thoroughly communist, but society is definitely not. The government actually lets it happen while still attempting pro-communist propaganda which sounds as ridiculous as it looks. The way the people and their dual currency system and black markets operate is recognizably capitalistic, but all of the infrastructure in which that happens is communist and miserable. This probably doesn't make any sense at all but when I was there it didn't make much sense either.

I'd highly recommend you visit with a friend fluent in Spanish, especially somebody who has lived in Cuba. It's a pretty weird place.

 

[Keef]

I responded to someone on Reddit who suggested that "Biden only cars about the Florida vote right now":

The Cuban people actually love the US and were really hopeful for the Obama-era thaw. Cuban-Americans however hated it because they're more interested in punishing the Cuban government - and therefore the Cuban people - than actually helping Cuban people. So you mention that Biden's Florida vote could benefit from his support for Cuban protests but the only reason it could do that is because Cuban-Americans are supportive of anything that hurts the Cuban government. This is largely one of the reasons so many of them switched Republican, because they disagreed with Obama and agreed with Trump on continuing to punish Cuba. If Biden doesn't "support" things that punish Cuba, Cuban-Americans will continue to vote Republican. We learned from Obama that while normalization with Cuba is a morally good idea, it's a politically terrible idea and will lose Democrats votes and ultimately reduce their ability to normalize with Cuba in any way. So we find ourselves in a really stupid place with the Cuba situation. Obtusely, helping Cubans is morally right but Cuban-Americans don't give a [damn] about anything but punishing Cuba proper.

As far as I can tell this is what's going on so it's understandable why Biden is being cautious with the Cuba situation. Cuban-Americans are absolutely, whole-heartedly, unanimously opposed to the idea of negotiating with the Cuban government in any way other than abolishing or destroying it and replacing it with...something, but they probably haven't thought about that yet. They didn't think about it last time, that's for sure.

 

[Tornado]

I'm not sure BLM officially signal boosting the Cuban government was really the best use of their time.

 

[Danoff]

Homeland Security chief says U.S. will not give refuge to those fleeing Cuba and Haiti by boat

"Allow me to be clear: if you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States," Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas warned on Tuesday.

www.cbsnews.com

I find it disheartening that the US has not declared a moratorium on this rule regarding cuban refugees. This seems like an opportune time to open the path a bit for any cubans that might want to seek asylum within the US.

 

[UKMikey]

Homeland Security chief says U.S. will not give refuge to those fleeing Cuba and Haiti by boat

"Allow me to be clear: if you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States," Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas warned on Tuesday.

www.cbsnews.com

I find it disheartening that the US has not declared a moratorium on this rule regarding cuban refugees. This seems like an opportune time to open the path a bit for any cubans that might want to seek asylum within the US.

This must sound particularly galling coming from a Cuban immigrant. What happened to give me your huddled masses yearning to breathe free?

 

[Dotini]

Homeland Security chief says U.S. will not give refuge to those fleeing Cuba and Haiti by boat

"Allow me to be clear: if you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States," Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas warned on Tuesday.

www.cbsnews.com

I find it disheartening that the US has not declared a moratorium on this rule regarding cuban refugees. This seems like an opportune time to open the path a bit for any cubans that might want to seek asylum within the US.

The ony problem with that is that they would become Republicans. However, if they got to Guatemala or Mexico and came on foot, blending in with the legitimate, desirable and correct refugees, then they would find welcome.

 

[UKMikey]

Wasn't this also a rule under Trump, then? I can't read this article in the UK but from the title it looks like righties were preparing to complain about Biden rolling it back.

Expert senses ‘anticipation and concern’ ahead of expected Biden rollback of Title 42 migrant rule

“Whether it’s been Title 42 or (Migrant Protection Protocols) or anything we have seen in the last four years, it has pinned migrants against the border and left them often to be victims of the car…

www.borderreport.com

 

[TexRex]

The ony problem with that is that they would become Republicans. However, if they got to Guatemala or Mexico and came on foot, blending in with the legitimate, desirable and correct refugees, then they would find welcome.

Nevermind fancy or funny words...this is just ****ing garbage. No doubt other Trumpers will love it.

 

[Danoff]

The ony problem with that is that they would become Republicans. However, if they got to Guatemala or Mexico and came on foot, blending in with the legitimate, desirable and correct refugees, then they would find welcome.

Conspiracy and nonsense. The same methods for asylum from Guatemala and Mexico are open to Cubans right now.

Wasn't this also a rule under Trump, then? I can't read this article in the UK but from the title it looks like righties were preparing to complain about Biden rolling it back.

Expert senses ‘anticipation and concern’ ahead of expected Biden rollback of Title 42 migrant rule

“Whether it’s been Title 42 or (Migrant Protection Protocols) or anything we have seen in the last four years, it has pinned migrants against the border and left them often to be victims of the car…

www.borderreport.com

Yes, I believe it started under Obama.

 

[UKMikey]

Yes, I believe it started under Obama.

The LA Times disagrees if I'm reading this correctly.

Biden promised change at the border. He's kept Trump's Title 42 policy to close it and cut off asylum

The Biden administration says migrants can still get protection under a Trump-era pandemic policy. But in a year, fewer than 1% have been able to do so.

web.archive.org

The only Title 42 legislation signed by Obama I can find is this EO classifying SARS as a quarantinable disease.

Executive Order -- Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases

EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - REVISED LIST OF QUARANTINABLE COMMUNICABLE DISEASES

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov

 

[Danoff]

The LA Times disagrees if I'm reading this correctly.

Biden promised change at the border. He's kept Trump's Title 42 policy to close it and cut off asylum

The Biden administration says migrants can still get protection under a Trump-era pandemic policy. But in a year, fewer than 1% have been able to do so.

web.archive.org

The only Title 42 legislation signed by Obama I can find is this EO classifying SARS as a quarantinable disease.

Executive Order -- Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases

EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - REVISED LIST OF QUARANTINABLE COMMUNICABLE DISEASES

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov

Sorry, I confused Title 42 with the end of the "wet foot, dry foot" policy regarding cuban immigrants who raft to the US which was ended under Obama. Is Title 42 the basis for turning people away in international waters? I thought it was the end of the wet foot dry foot policy.

 

[UKMikey]

Sorry, I confused Title 42 with the end of the "wet foot, dry foot" policy regarding cuban immigrants who raft to the US which was ended under Obama. Is Title 42 the basis for turning people away in international waters? I thought it was the end of the wet foot dry foot policy.

It looks like I was reading the article wrongly, then. I wonder whether Republicans would attack Biden on immigration grounds were he to reinstate the policy.

As I understand it from this op ed wf/df gives an advantage to Cuban immigrants over those from other countries.

End the Cuban Privileged Pathway to Citizenship (OPINION) - Latino Rebels

Maintaining the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act is an Insult to the immigrant rights movement.

www.latinorebels.com

 

[Danoff]

It looks like I was reading the article wrongly, then. I wonder whether Republicans would attack Biden on immigration grounds were he to reinstate the policy.

As I understand it from this op ed wf/df gives an advantage to Cuban immigrants over those from other countries.

End the Cuban Privileged Pathway to Citizenship (OPINION) - Latino Rebels

Maintaining the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act is an Insult to the immigrant rights movement.

www.latinorebels.com

It's a confusing subject, it looks like I was reading my own article incorrectly, at least regarding this part:

"For decades, the U.S. government has been turning back the vast majority of migrants encountered at sea."

WF/DF doesn't seem to have prevented migrants from being turned back at sea. That was still going on during WF/DF, it's just that making it to land no longer was the payoff after Obama ended that program (which I think was partly to stop people from drowning in the process of trying to make it to America). Title 42 is not the basis of turning away Cubans at sea either, that's being used to deny asylum applications within the US. Still, I think a moratorium on this program of turning people away at sea might be in order given the unrest in Cuba.

 

[TexRex]

Still, I think a moratorium on this program of turning people away at sea might be in order given the unrest in Cuba.

What purpose is Title 42 reasonably serving when COVID-19 is already very much here and quarantining is already effectively implemented with migrants being held at the border longer than they're supposed to be?

I question the legitimacy of Title 42 as it was rolled out anyway when you consider the messaging at the time, and taking the two together comes off as "COVID-19 isn't real but it's a suitable bogeyman to keep brown people out of the country."

 

[UKMikey]

I apologise for getting Title 42 and wet foot, dry foot mixed up. The original borderreport.com article I posted was blocked in the UK so I couldn't read it and spot my error.

Still, I think a moratorium on this program of turning people away at sea might be in order given the unrest in Cuba.

If Cuban refugees should be provided with a back door, how about Haitian asylum seekers? Should historical precedent count for anything in this instance? Sorry for the off-topic.

 

[MIE1992]

I can't say I know enough about Cuba to give a solid opinion on the matter. I just know a lot of Cubans have moved into Miami because they had such antipathy for Castro - both Fidel and Raul - and the respective policies. I suppose that may say something - I even heard that some Cuban-Americans voted for Trump because they're so spooked by anything resembling the left. Either way, I went to Little Havana once in Miami, and I liked it.