Why are you comparing 1950s Soviet Russia to 2010 Cuba ? It's not even remotely similar. ..
The Cubans trying to flee are trying to get out of poverty. The American embargo against Cuba has had devastating affects on their economy.
BS. You can't have it both ways cubby, either Cuba is great, as you have been claiming, or it isn't, as you now state, because of the US.
The embargo only pertains to America, no other nation is bound by it.
Oh a lot of other factors as well
CNC: Why Cubans "flee" the island
Did you even bother to read that before you deposited it here?
Let me take a quick stab at some of the BS in it for you...
1,
[FONT=Osaka, Arial, Helvetica]Prior to the triumph of the Revolution[/FONT]
Let's start with a simple question, but extremely important one, what kind of visas? Your BS list makes no distinction of what kind of visas.
Beyond that, most, if not all countries require visitors to acquire a visa, before entering it. That way the host nation knows what the intent of the individual is. And guess what. There are some visa's that are actually offered in limited quantities.
2,
[FONT=Osaka, Arial, Helvetica]Since 1st January 1959, the US immigration policy[/FONT]
BS, look up feet wet, feet dry. Many Cuban vessels are turned back, some even by force.
3,
[FONT=Osaka, Arial, Helvetica]Ever since, US authorities started to accord a special treatment[/FONT]
Although I'd love to agree with this paragraph, I can't. After it makes sense by stating those that had committed crimes against fellow Cubans were not returned to Cuba to stand trial. It goes on to blame the US for a mass migration of skilled and educated professionals.
That wasn't the US's fault, that was the fault of the new Cuban Gov't, that saw intellectuals and educated professionals as
[FONT=Osaka, Arial, Helvetica]bourgeoisie[/FONT]. Who would now fear being targeted
.4,
[FONT=Osaka, Arial, Helvetica]Their obsession to discredit the Revolution[/FONT]
Although I won't argue or deny US involvement in the deception used to create the panic behind Operation Pedro Pan, the origin of the plan was formulated in Cuba, by the parents of children, whom were part of the counter revolutionary forces. Who had legitimate reasons to be afraid.
5,
[FONT=Osaka, Arial, Helvetica]Every Cuban arriving in US territory would receive "refugee" status.
[/FONT]Besides being utter BS. The 1951 Convention your cute little list references, made no mention of it being illegal or unethical or anything untoward, to afford refugee status to anyone the receiving country cared to. Even though it was written in regards to European refugees.
The 1967 Protocol gave a broader scope to what a refugee was, and made it a global term. Furthmore, Cuban refugees most certainly fit the definition.
Can you explain how the US' acceptance of refugees was somehow contrary to either accord?
You can learn all about it [FONT=Osaka, Arial, Helvetica]
here.[/FONT] Feel free to do your own research, in the hopes of ending the long standing tradition of depositing uneducated, misinformed, ill-informed and silly posts
6,
[FONT=Osaka, Arial, Helvetica]By the end of 1962, the US Government[/FONT]
Again, I can't defend the paranoia the US felt about having a Communist dictatorship 90 miles off its shores, but lets not get all silly here. The Migration and Western Hemisphere Act was about how to deal with an influx in Cuban refugees that the US was ill prepared to deal with. The same would happen after the fall of Saigon and the influx of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian refugees.
7,[FONT=Osaka, Arial, Helvetica]
From February 1963, the US Government stepped up its offensive[/FONT]
You've got to be kidding? You actually believed that double speak and BS? They are not automatically granted residents status, as your list so kindly explains a few paragraphs down.
8,
[FONT=Osaka, Arial, Helvetica]The preferential treatment accorded to Cuban citizens
[/FONT]You've got to be kidding again?
From you silly list...
[FONT=Osaka, Arial, Helvetica]
"Cuban Adjustment Act" - providing that "any alien who is a native or citizen of Cuba and who has been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States subsequent to 1 January 1959 and has been physically present in the United States for at least one year, may be adjusted by the Attorney General at his/her discretion and under such regulations as s/he may prescribe for an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residency."[/FONT]
That's called an amnesty. Are you against the one presently bantered about in Washington pertaining to Mexicans? Or the one that was already passed?
And you really should note "[FONT=Osaka, Arial, Helvetica]
at his/her discretion". [/FONT]It really does mean something important.
Now, as for no Cuban being returned. That is utter BS. If they didn't reach land, they are automatically returned. Again, look up feet wet, feet dry. Or how about the negotiated return of the "excludables" that the US wanted to return, but Castro refused re-entry to? An understanding of consistency is not your, nor this articles strong suit.
9,
[FONT=Osaka, Arial, Helvetica]The Cuban Adjustment Act
[/FONT]That's actually true, as it should be for all qualifying refugees. Are you against that kind of charity and support for refugees? So where did the automatic residents status go?
10,
[FONT=Osaka, Arial, Helvetica]The inconsistent and arbitrary US immigration policy[/FONT]
You really should read Immigration and Asylum. Or Engineered Migration. It might help you post more intelligent material.
The tensions and unrest in a country where the economy was in turmoil, was peaking. Castro simply let the pressure out, by opening a port. The three times he did this, were preceded by this rise in tensions.
And lets not forget, Castro isn't a moron. He knew full well it would force the US to open a dialogue and forced American policy changes towards Cuba.
Even a simple cursory knowledge in history would prevent you from posting such idiotic posts you know.
11,
[FONT=Osaka, Arial, Helvetica]As a result of the 1980 migration crisis[/FONT]
Wow the inconsistencies in this list, is amazing. Do you remember when it said that all Cubans, no matter their criminal record, were granted refugee status, unhindered?
Then how is it Castro was persuaded to accept the return of, and I quote your list here... [FONT=Osaka, Arial, Helvetica]
"excludables"[/FONT]. Even your own material is as inconsistent as your ideology forces your moral code to be, lol.
Anyways, I've grown tired of tearing you asinine post and link apart. Feel free to do some of your own research and get back to. Hopefully you'll post something that isn't as idiotic as what I just crushed.
Can you name another incident where Interpol went on a man hunt for alleged rape?
Roman Polanski.
Why are independent news reporters listed as potential terrorists the same way gun nuts are? Fear?
Because some of them have ties to terrorist groups.
Do you know of any nation that lets a person out of prison to travel abroad?
Nope, but then again, he isn't in prison.
If the award is that important the ones giving it away should travel to Cuba, or are they banned like we did Galloway?
What I would normally find surprisingly repugnant is, on one hand you would condemn the west for banning the entry of someone who has actually handed money to a terror group. While now try and defame a man that has done nothing more then speak out about the repressive nature of the Gov't, of which he lives under. Why do you defend terror supporters, and condemn a man who has committed no crime, other than to speak out against the Cuban Gov't and its censorship?
Are you for censorship?
Why does your moral compass spin so erratically?
Why is it Hamas, a murderous group, are freedom fighters, and this man, someone who committed the criminal act of staging a hunger strike, a criminal?
Or is your present opinion the way it is because it doesn't suit your agenda or ideological bias?
Like cubby, you've tipped your cards, and not that we were unaware of what you really are, we now see more evidence of it. Clearly.
I love it, Wiki Leaks or what ever its called has a founder that the western world has decided
to go after. He put forth information that threatened the western societies because they know
others will put forth much more damning things on line. First Sweden, they are going after him
on sex charges, and that might be true, however for me it comes to close to the time this whole
story broke.
I personally think the whole thing is a sham, but not because the US is involved, but because the women involved seem to publicity wh!res.
Now the USA wants to try him for things he never did in America, because of
course America can do whatever it wants where ever it wants.
No, the US doesn't want him. The US hasn't even started extradition proceedings. Please, enough of the fabricated, make believe fear mongering. It makes your posts look childish and silly.
It all depends on who is to be silenced and who is doing the silencing. Cuba is no better and no
worse than most other places in the world. Their fight is with America, over an embargo that
most people don't remember, and most were not alive when it came about.
And only involves the US and no other nation.
No America is not worse than Communism, but when they are threatened and they want to
stifle the truth the behave just like the old Communist regimes. Please don't retread the good and
evil routine, it really has worn itself out. Especially since we know more about why the People of
Central and South America dislike them. America assisted in the overthrow of governments in
that region just like Castro has been involved. Can't say one is good and the other is bad,
they both have different agenda';s to further their own particular cause.
I actually agree with that. Hence one of my first posts here being
How banana's in Washington, changed South America
Don't kid yourself DG, some of us actually think for ourselves.
