The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I'm not sure. You're the brains around here...

scaeagles is right. Your friend never had illegal status. All Cubans who reach shore are automatically granted political sanctuary. That's what pisses off the Haitians so much.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

scaeagles is right. Your friend never had illegal status. All Cubans who reach shore are automatically granted political sanctuary. That's what pisses off the Haitians so much.

Well that's cool!
I'm wondering why there would be such a distinction in the rules for people who come here from Cuba vs Mexico (and Haiti for that matter). I mean, we think Communism is wrong but we also think the way Mexico is run is wrong. We draw the line because one is a Communist country? (I'm being more inquisitive and not snarky here... in this post at least.)

[Alex]

Essentially is a hangover from the Cold War. Nobody really supports it (or the embargo of Cuba) any longer but it can't be changed without appearing soft on Communism.

It is easy to oppose such measures against new countries, harder to actually stand up and say they should be abolished against existing dictators.

Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians also had a period where, if they could get here, they were pretty much summarily granted asylum. East Europeans and Russians who managed to defect were also summarily granted asylum. The hook on which these asylum claims is made is that merely the act of trying to leave your home country is grounds for execution if you're returned.

If Vicente Fox started firing squads for any nationals returned by the United States then things might change.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

If Vicente Fox started firing squads for any nationals returned by the United States then things might change.

Well, let's hope he doesn't...


I just thought of another thing to add to my post above. During WWII, we put Japanese Americans into camps. Did that make us any safer? No. Was it a knee jerk reaction to Pearl Harbor? Yes. Did people feel safer after we did that? Probably. Was it right of us to do? Absolutely not.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Well, let's hope he doesn't...


During WWII, we put Japanese Americans into camps. Did that make us any safer? No. Was it a knee jerk reaction to Pearl Harbor? Yes. Did people feel safer after we did that? Probably. Was it right of us to do? Absolutely not.

The reason why it was wrong to do was because these people had not broken any laws and were here legally. During the war, would it have been wise to let a million Japanese cross our border without any checking whatsoever? Would we have been wrong not to do so?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I just thought of another thing to add to my post above. During WWII, we put Japanese Americans into camps. Did that make us any safer? No. Was it a knee jerk reaction to Pearl Harbor? Yes. Did people feel safer after we did that? Probably. Was it right of us to do? Absolutely not.

Can you continue on this thought to help explain its relevance to the illegal immigration debate? Not being snarky, just not getting what you mean.

I think it would have been completely appropriate to view illegal Japanese immigration as a threat during WWII. I don't see anybody advocating any kind of poor treatment for legal immigrants in the current debate.