CatdaBrat
Mar 04, 2006, 01:09 PM
An AP news item related a case in which a judge ordered federal officials to use their best efforts to help 15 Cubans return to the US, weeks after they reached an abandoned bridge in the Florida Keys but were sent back to their homeland.
Under the government's policy, Cubans who reach US soil are generally allowed to stay, while those stopped at sea are sent back. The federal government said the old bridge that the 15 Cubans reached did not count as dry land because part of the bridge is missing and it does not connect to US soil.
Now nobody knows (unless the news has been updated) whether or not Cuban President Fidel Castro will allow the 15 to return to the US. Many agree with the USCG's decision to return the migrants to Cuba.
The Cubans and their families sought the help of an attorney and filed a lawsuit against the US. A Cuban-American advocacy group also joined in the lawsuit.
I am just not sure I understand the policy of sending the Cubans back home if they are caught off dry land, but if they somehow manage to make it to dry land, they are safe. It sounds like a baseball game when a runner makes it to base or is tagged out.
Does that mean if migrants from Mexico manage to illegally sneak across the border without getting captured, then they are legally "safe"? If not, what's the difference between them and the Cubans?
And what about all this homeland security stuff, when I can't even *******' board a plane without going through a 2-hour delay to be checked and make sure I am not carrying toenail clippers, but boatloads of unnknowns can just float on in?
I had heard that migrants floating in on boats, rafts and "whatever," were discouraged not only for legal reasons, but also for safety reasons, as many attempt the trip and die from being overloaded or being in crafts that are not seaworthy.
If they set foot on dry land, and then are considered legally allowed to remain, doesn't that just encourage more people to take that risk? From their point of view, I understand WHY they want to take such risks, but I am not seeing the logic on the US government's POV.
And people who are trying to come into our country in such a manner as to have to "escape" from the Coast Guard and other authorities, are allowed to sue the government???
It just sounds really weird to me.
Under the government's policy, Cubans who reach US soil are generally allowed to stay, while those stopped at sea are sent back. The federal government said the old bridge that the 15 Cubans reached did not count as dry land because part of the bridge is missing and it does not connect to US soil.
Now nobody knows (unless the news has been updated) whether or not Cuban President Fidel Castro will allow the 15 to return to the US. Many agree with the USCG's decision to return the migrants to Cuba.
The Cubans and their families sought the help of an attorney and filed a lawsuit against the US. A Cuban-American advocacy group also joined in the lawsuit.
I am just not sure I understand the policy of sending the Cubans back home if they are caught off dry land, but if they somehow manage to make it to dry land, they are safe. It sounds like a baseball game when a runner makes it to base or is tagged out.
Does that mean if migrants from Mexico manage to illegally sneak across the border without getting captured, then they are legally "safe"? If not, what's the difference between them and the Cubans?
And what about all this homeland security stuff, when I can't even *******' board a plane without going through a 2-hour delay to be checked and make sure I am not carrying toenail clippers, but boatloads of unnknowns can just float on in?
I had heard that migrants floating in on boats, rafts and "whatever," were discouraged not only for legal reasons, but also for safety reasons, as many attempt the trip and die from being overloaded or being in crafts that are not seaworthy.
If they set foot on dry land, and then are considered legally allowed to remain, doesn't that just encourage more people to take that risk? From their point of view, I understand WHY they want to take such risks, but I am not seeing the logic on the US government's POV.
And people who are trying to come into our country in such a manner as to have to "escape" from the Coast Guard and other authorities, are allowed to sue the government???
It just sounds really weird to me.