Jimmy Carter turns 100 years old today. Mr. Carter was President from 1977 to 1981. During those years, he created the modern asylum system when he signed the Refugee Act of 1980, oversaw the admission of Cubans and Haitians during the Mariel Boatlift, assisted refugees from South Vietnam, which had recently fallen to the Communist North, and worked to increase security along the U.S.-Mexico border. During his long post-presidency, Mr. Carter has championed human rights and democracy, advocated for peace, improved healthcare, fought disease, promoted low-cost housing, and engaged in various diplomatic missions for the U.S. government. Among his many honors, Mr. Carter received the Noble Peace Prize in 2002.
On the occasion of the former President’s 100th birthday, I thought it would be appropriate to look back at his record on immigration, and see how his contributions continue to impact asylum seekers and other migrants more than four decades after he left office. (more…)
In a surprise move (at least a surprise to me), President Obama announced that our country would be moving towards normalization of our relationship with Cuba. As part of the deal, the two countries agreed to exchange some political prisoners, and it appears we will be restoring diplomatic relations with Cuba and opening an Embassy in Havana.
Evidence that the embargo is working: A dashing Fidel Castro pre-embargo…
During our long Cold War with Cuba, one element of our “special relationship” has been the Cuban Adjustment Act (“CAA”), a law that allows any Cuban who arrives in the United States to obtain residency here. It’s akin to automatic asylum for any Cuban who reaches U.S. shores.
I have written before about my opposition to this law: In short, I believe that Cubans should apply for asylum in the same way as everyone else. It makes no sense to give automatic asylum to Cubans, especially since other countries—Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq to name a few—are much more dangerous than Cuba, and nationals from those countries must apply for asylum in the normal way.
It seems to me that the CAA and our over-all Cuba policy exists because of our government’s decision that this was the best way to isolate the Castro regime and force democratic change on our island neighbor. More specifically, anti-Castro Cubans in Miami pushed our nation’s Cuba policy towards the all-stick, no-carrot approach that—50 years later—has accomplished nothing. Now, it seems attitudes among the Cuban American community have shifted. To be sure, many still oppose normalization, but—so far at least—we have not seen the type of angry, in-the-streets reaction that characterized the Elian Gonzales affair during the Clinton Presidency. Perhaps there is more widespread recognition that the old policy hasn’t worked, and that we need to try something new.
Fidel Castro, visibly aged due to pressure from the embargo.
So now that we are moving towards a new phase in our relationship with Cuba, it makes sense to end the CAA. The situation in Cuba is less dangerous than in many other countries, and so there is no longer any justification for the CAA based on humanitarian reasons (though I believe there really never was a valid justification for the law based on humanitarian reasons). The only logical reason for the CAA was as a propaganda tool against the Castro regime. I doubt this ever really worked (except maybe in the minds of some in the anti-Castro Cuban community), and—given that we are moving towards normalized relations—it certainly makes no sense at all any more.
All of this is not to say that the Cuban regime respects human rights or allows political dissent. It’s clear that the government represses the political opposition, and that it detains and persecutes perceived opponents. But that type of behavior is, unfortunately, all too common in many countries, and it does not justify a blanket asylum for everyone who comes from a country with a poor human rights record. Indeed, it is exactly why we have an asylum system in the first place.
The CAA is inconsistent with our new Cuban policy. When viewed in context of the overall asylum system, it cannot be justified on humanitarian grounds. It’s time to end the CAA and move towards a new relationship with Cuba.
Congressman David Rivera (R-FL) recently proposed changes to the Cuban Adjustment Act to prevent Cuban nationals from receiving residency through the Act and then returning to visit Cuba. In a statement on the matter, Rep. Rivera says:
The fact that Cubans avail themselves of the Cuban Adjustment Act citing political persecution, and then quickly travel back to the persecuting country, is a clear and blatant abuse of the law. In fact it is outright fraud being perpetrated on the people and government of the United States. If Cubans are able to travel back to the communist dictatorship then they should not have received the residency benefits associated with the Cuban Adjustment Act and they should lose that benefit immediately. My legislation simply says that any Cuban national who receives political asylum and residency under the Cuban Adjustment Act, and travels to Cuba while still a resident, will have their residency status revoked.
Mr. Rivera states that his intent is to reform the CAA in order to save this important benefit for future generations of Cubans.
Reforming the CAA is like upgrading your 8-track.
It is interesting that a politician from Florida–particularly one with the anti-Castro bona fides of Mr. Rivera–would have the chutzpa to challenge the Cuban American community on this issue. It doesn’t strike me as a particularly wise move politically, even if it makes sense from a policy point of view.
Although I am generally pro-asylum, I have long believed that the CAA should be abolished. The fact that (presumably) many Cubans are returning to the home island for a visit after they receive status in the U.S. just confirms the absurdity of this law. Clearly, all the Cubans taking advantage of the CAA are not refugees in the normal sense of the word. If a Cuban person reaches our shores, he should apply for asylum like everyone else. If he demonstrates a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group, he should receive asylum. Otherwise, he should be removed from the United States. Mr. Rivera’s proposed reform–which is ostensibly to help preserve the CAA–seems pointless given that the law is simply not worth preserving.
Indeed, the only real justification for the CAA that seems remotely reasonable is that it gives us a propaganda win over Cuba since it demonstrates that lots of Cubans would rather live here than there. Aside from the fact that our country has been enriched by large numbers of Cuban migrants, I don’t see what this propaganda victory has achieved. The CAA was passed in 1966 and–45 years later–the Castro brothers are still in charge.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a pro-immigrant Congresswoman from California, opposes the proposed change to the CAA:
“No matter what the reason for stepping foot in Cuba, you lose your status,” Lofgren said. “If you go to visit family members you haven’t seen in years, you lose your status. If you go to attend a funeral or donate a kidney to a dying relative, you lose your status. If you go to meet with Cuban dissidents with the aim of transitioning Cuba to a democracy, you lose your status.”
Welcome to the world of refugees from every country other than Cuba. Asylum seekers and refugees who return to their home country for any reason, including donating a kidney, risk losing their status in the United States. Again, while I favor offering safe haven to people who need it, I certainly understand why the government would want to cancel a refugee’s immigration status if she returned to her home country. Of course there might be compelling reasons to return home, and so refugees and asylees who do so can sometimes retain their status. But given the limited resources of our asylum system, a presumption in favor of such people losing their status makes sense.
In any case, it seems Mr. Rivera’s proposal is not getting much traction. A more appropriate proposal would be to eliminate the CAA altogether and require Cubans who fear persecution to apply for asylum like everyone else.
Two Cuban actors who star in an award winning movie, Una Noche, have defected and will be seeking political asylum in the United States. Coincidentally, the movie tells the story of three Cuban teenagers who try to escape Cuba on a raft in order to start a new life in America.
America's newest asylum seekers are also some of its most glamorous.
Una Noche was a low budget film directed by Lucy Mulloy, a 32-year-old Brit who shot the movie in Havana. She says that she was inspired by a tale she heard on a trip to the island nation 10 years ago.
The film achieved unexpected success, and the three stars of the movie–all of whom are non-professional actors–traveled to Germany and later to the U.S. for film festivals. In the U.S., the trio was scheduled to attend the Tribeca Film Festival in New York, where Una Noche won multiple awards. However, two of the actors, Analin de la Rua and Javier Nuñez Florian, disappeared after they arrived in the United States and missed the festival (where Mr. Nuñez Florian shared an award for Best Actor in a Narrative Feature Film with the third co-star, Dariel Arrechada).
Ms. de la Rua and Mr. Nuñez Florian played brother and sister in the movie, and (in a Brady Bunch-esque twist) fell in love in real life and decided to defect together. They recently re-appeared in Miami, represented by attorney Wilfredo Allen, who indicated that they would file for political asylum “based on possible persecution if they return to Cuba.”
Although the couple seems not to have had problems in Cuba prior to their trip to the U.S. (and indeed, they returned to Cuba after a trip to Germany), the public nature of their defection possibly puts them in danger if they return and likely qualifies them for asylum. Of course, under the Cuban Adjustment Act, even if they do not receive asylum, they would be eligible to apply for residency after one year of physical presence in the United States. So either way, the couple should be able to remain in the United States. We will be looking for them in Hollywood.
In August, we reported that Spain and the Catholic Church had brokered a deal with the Cuban government to secure the release of dozens of Cuban political prisoners. The Cubans were to be resettled in Spain. The only problem: They wanted to come to the U.S., not Spain. Now, it seems they will get their wish.
The AP reports that the Cuban dissidents will be coming to the United States where they will receive asylum:
The State Department is working to bring to the USA most of the 39 Cuban political prisoners exiled to Spain this summer… More than 100 family members would join them. [The] first case has been processed and nearly all are likely to accept the offer. [The] plan gets around a Catch-22 whereby Cubans who left the island were no longer considered in harm’s way, and thus not eligible for traditional asylum requests in the U.S.
Apparently, the Cubans preferred the United States because they had family and community ties here. While I understand the desire to resettle in a country where you have connections, this is a deal that would likely not be available to asylum seekers from other countries. Normally, once a person has asylum in one country, he is not eligible to receive asylum in the U.S. This case reminds us that politics (here, our dislike of the Cuban government) can play a role in the asylum system.
I have a case similar to this, where the United Nations resettled my client as a refugee in a country where the client had no community ties or friends, no knowledge of the language or culture, and no prospects for a job. The client came to the U.S. and is now seeking asylum here. We’ll see if the Immigration Court is as generous to my client as the State Department has been to these Cuban exiles.
Last month, Cardinal Jaime Ortega reached a deal with Raul Castro and the Cuban government to free 52 political prisoners who have been held since a 2003 government crackdown. Under the agreement, the released Cubans would go to Spain and receive political asylum. Twenty have already been freed and left Cuba for Spain, along with more than 100 relatives. More are expected to travel to Spain over the next few months.
WWCheD?
The problem is, many of the Cuban dissidents would prefer to come to the United States, where they have relatives and community ties. Originally, the political prisoners and their families believed that they could accept exile in Spain and then travel to the United States. A State Department spokesman last month said that the Cubans would be “absolutely” welcome in the U.S. Now, however, the State Department has informed dissidents that if they accept exile in Spain (and the legal status that comes with it), they would not be eligible for asylum in the U.S. Instead, they would have to immigrate based on family or employer petitions, a slow process that may not be available to many of the dissidents.
While such aliens would likely not qualify for asylum in the United States (since they are “firmly resettled” in Spain), they should qualify for permanent residency under the Cuban Adjustment Act. This would require them to arrive in the United States and remain here for one year. After a year, they could obtain their permanent residency. Of course, not all of them would be able to come here, but those who want to live in the U.S. at least have a viable option.
The case of these Cubans raises a broader question about choosing a country to seek refuge. Many asylum seekers travel through third countries before arriving in the U.S. Indeed, I have represented some asylum seekers who have traveled across three continents and a dozen countries before they arrive in the U.S. Why should we allow such people to seek refuge here when they have skipped over other countries where they could live safely? It’s a fair question.
For me, escaping from persecution is only part of the equation. People are searching for a safe, stable place to re-start their lives. They may not find that in a country that does not normally accept immigrants or where they have no friends or family. Refugees also need community support and jobs. They may need financial assistance, medical care, and mental health care. Many countries–including many countries that refugees pass through–cannot offer these types of assistance. For these reasons, some of the Cuban dissidents would rather remain detained in Cuba (while hoping to come to the U.S.) than relocate to Spain, a country where they have no family members or community support.
