Sorry, but he’s right. Nobody gave a shit about Cuba until Castro came to power. If Batista had remained in power, Cubans would be turned away just as quickly as Haitians.
That still doesn’t explain why the US doesn’t afford Haitians refugee status given the human rights conditions in Haiti. It explains only why Cubans are, not why Haitians aren’t.
Cuban-Americans have a highly organized and energetic voting bloc, significantly in the key electoral-vote-rich “swing state” of Florida. Washington has to listen to them. Nobody has to listen to the Haitians. It’s that simple, and has nothing to do with their color (although I would agree it does not help matters any that practically all Haitians are black – whereas only a minority of Cubans are).
And your own cite that sparked this whole angle of discussion acknowledged that Cubans are the exception, not the rule. Haitians don’t get the same status as Cubans because the Haitians don’t have a political bloc that’s as influential as the Cuban exiles. If it wasn’t for the Cuban exiles and the public demonization of the “communist Castro threat,” Cubans wouldn’t get that exception either.
I don’t think people who endorse anti-immigration policies realize that in order to lead the world econmically the US constantly needs to increase its purchasing power at a rate that Americans can not sustain naturally by reproducing.
A minefield spanning the US/Mexico border would cost almost nothing (cassetes of mines deployed from helicopter at about 30 cents a mine) and would put an end to a vast majority of land based border crossings (loss of life/limb is a much greater deterrent then possible heat stoke and having to climb a fence). But without those people here the Wallmarts of the world will no longer be able to tell manufacturers how much they are going to be selling their products for.
The US government realizes this and so instead of truly dealing with the immigration “problem” they are gonna add yet another token obstacle to the border. If they really cared about border security they’d come up with a legal way for any person who wants to work to enter the country, but you can’t have your cake ant eat it too.
I don’t agree it’s that simple and I don’t agree that being black has nothing to do with it. Throughout its history the US has had exclusionary immigration laws based on race. Today it can get away from that type of overt racism but that doesn’t mean it can’t make it more difficult for people of color to immigrate through complicated rules and regulations.
Cubans are the only nationals that are afforded instant asylum. The Haitians are treated exactly like any any other nationals (except Cubans) would be.
You can’t just scream RACISM. You have demonstrate it. Not everything that happens to a person of color is BECAUSE OF his color.
Correction
That should say “can’t get away with overt racism”
Nope not everything. But when it does it is called racism.
I’ve noticed on these boards that accusing the US of racism really hits a nerve. How do you prove racism? Does racism still exist in the US even after all of the civil rights legislation that was passed to eliminate it? Can it be proven?
- Access to United States citizenship has repeatedly been restricted by race, beginning with the 1790 Naturalization Act which refused naturalization to “non-whites.” Other efforts include the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1924 National Origins Act. While officially prohibited, U.S. officials continue to differentially apply laws on illegal immigration depending on national origin (essentially declining to enforce immigration laws against European who overstay their visas) and racial appearance (differentially awarding visas to foreign nationals based on race).*
Hmmm? We don’t seem to have any problem maintaining a replacement-level birthrate. And besides, why does our “economic leadership” depend on our “purchasing power” instead of our industrial productivity? And why does our “purchasing power” depend on the size of our population?
Wikipedia agrees that used to happen. The country-of-origin quota system, overtly designed to maintain America’s character as a white man’s country, was abolished by the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1965. And we can see the difference in the much wider range of people who have emigrated to the U.S. since that year. E.g., before 1965, one hardly ever met an American Muslim who was not a Black Muslim (a home-grown movement which most of the world’s Muslims regard as heretical); or a black American direct from Africa, whose ancestors were never American slaves; or a Hindu grocery store clerk or Pakistani cab driver.
That said, I would concede that racism does play a role in the grassroots immigration-restriction movement (which, nowadays, often euphemizes “race” into “culture” or “language”). See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=310401 But this movement’s ideas are not public policy. At least, not any more.
Show that a set of people get treated differently due to their race.
Yes and yes. There are studies that consistently show whites getting preferential treatment in housing, for instance, even when other factors (income, jobs, etc.) are equal. It’s not anywhere as bad as it was 20-30 years ago, but nobody is going to say that racism in America has been eliminated.
And citing past instances of racist immigration policies is not going to cut it, either. They existed, everyone knows they existed, but that’s not to say that racism is still the overriding force.
I’m sure that happens. However, I’d like to see a cite besides a Wiki article that doesn’t reference any particular study. Also note that Wiki says that the official policy is that differentially applying laws based on race is illegal and it does nothing to show that the current official policy towards the Haitians is racist in nature. As has been cited (even by you) the Cubans are the only exception to the law, and not the rule. And people have provided valid reasons why Cubans are the soleption that have nothing to do with race.
I am not much of an economist but I was under the impression that the reason Wallmart is so powerful is because of the number of clients it has. Either the US provides the clients that its Wallmarts need to stay on top or the manufacurers overseas will start getting all types of crazy ideas about what they should sell their products for and who they should sell them to. Right now the amount of consumers the US has limits their options pretty severely. But if the population does not keep up - US will no longer be able to dominate economically the way it does right now.
Being against illegal immigration does not mean you’re against legal immigration. I can only speak for myself, but I am very much in favor of easing immigration restrictions – for people of all countries, not just Mexicans/Latin Americans. (Remember Bush’s plan to give special status to Mexican workers?) We need to make it easier for the best and the brightest to work in this country. Also, as a country that prides itself on its immigrant past, we should provide opportunities for the poor and uneducated people from around the world to come here and prove themselves.
Having said that, I am very much against illegal immigration. We have every right to determine who we allow into our country, and how many people we allow into our country. We also have the right to determine where these people are coming from – not based on the primary race or religion of the country of origin, but based on factors such as how many people from that country are already here, how many immigrant countries are underrepresented, etc. There are plenty of Russians or Nigerians, for example, who would love to immigrate here, and I wouldn’t mind easing restrictions on them to counterbalance the flood of Mexican immigrants. The government, as I understand it, already has a similar system in place – allowing more visa lottery tickets to people from underrepresented countries, etc.
OK, you’re so concerned about “breaking the law,” how about this: Let’s take the land away from all those American farmers & meat packers who hire them. Massive forfeiture, baby. After all, they’re the big lawbreakers, not the poor desperate Mexicans just trying to survive.
Until I hear some full-throated calls for shutting down businesses & imprisoning American employers for labor practices, I can’t take the condemnation of someone crossing an arbitrary line on a map seriously.
What’s the name of this logical fallacy?
Perhaps it’s because you love to toss out the charge absent actual facts?
Tell me about it man… 
You do indeed, but the truth is if you like your economy you have to let in a large number of people and the US is not doing that(legally) at the moment.
I realize that illigal immigration implies that terrorists and drugsmugglers can pretty much come and leave here as they please, but the US can not let that get in the way of the economic benefits that the rest of the illigal immigrants bring to the table. The options available are rather limited really:
- Those who want to work and consume are able to come here at will
- Anybody can come here at will (as is presently the case)
- Bite the bullet, become a monster in the eyes of the international community and minefield the borders. Pleasant, socially acceptable passive methods are either prohibitively expensive or ineffective (just like the stupid wall is gonna be)
The wall is yet another non-measure that does nothing but make the US look just a tit worse in the eyes of its neighbours
Give it a rest monty. Because I’m unable to “prove” something to your peculiar standards means it isn’t true now does it.
Did OJ kill his wife? Oh yeah? Prove it.
This has already been said in this very thread. And has also been already said, there are plenty of calls to punish people who hire illegal immigrants.
(I think the anger towards the employers is not quite as loud because there are, I would think, fewer of them: one employer might hire ten or twenty or a hundred illegal immigrants to work his farm; that’s ten or twenty or a hundred illegal workers to get mad at, and one employer to get mad at. Also, given the proliferation of fake IDs and birth certificates, not everyone who hires illegal immigrants is aware of the fact.)
Why are those the only options? It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. There should be a reasonable way to figure out how many immigrants the country wants/needs, and then awarding visas accordingly. The system as it currently stands doesn’t meet that need, but with some ingenuity and reforms it could do so.
You’ve done this repeatedly in the pit related thread that benefited from a mercy kilng. You cannot use the fact that U.S. immigration policy has been racist in the past to prove it is racist today.
As has been explained to you but you seem unable to digest, Cuba is an exception to U.S. immigration policy. You might as well compare Cuba to Grenada, Martinique, Madagascar, Ireland, or Switzerland. In fact, the only country that enjoys such an exception is far from lily white. Why are you so hung up on seeing racism? The vast majority of posters on SDMB are are not racists and are quick to point it out when it occurs. Yet, you argued for an entire thread and could persuade no one (I’m pretty sure) that your assertion was correct. Sheeze.