http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38605338
Right or wrong thing to do?
Obama clamps down on immigration as final act of office
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38605338
Right or wrong thing to do?
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
That's not so much clamping down on immigration as much as normalising relations with Cuba. As I understand it this rule only existed to encourage people to leave Cuba.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Or to give sanctuary to those fleeing a dictatorship only just off America's waters. Remind me when did Cuba last have free and fair multi-party elections?
Cuba's last elections were in 2013 where there was a choice of only one candidate per constituency. Unsurprisingly the Communist party managed to equal their record best percentage of the vote winning 612 of the 612 seats they stood in.
You'd think America might want to consider waiting to see if Cuba manages to legalise other parties (not yet done), or hold free elections (not yet done) or even allow an opposition to form (not yet done) before clamping down on migrants from Cuba.
One wonders if a lack of free and fair elections is grounds for asylum. Is that the standard applied in the UK?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It's one of them, along with the principle that you should claim asylum in the first safe nation that you reach. If one of the Channel Islands was ruled by a dictator then absolutely I'd imagine we'd accept a lot of asylum requests from there. Cuba is closer to the USA than I am to London.
No one suggests that Cuba is a paragon of democratic governance. Yet the wet foot/dry foot policy is unique to Cuba (rather than the many other undemocratic regimes around the world) and results in all sorts of crazy unintended consequences. It is somewhat ridiculous that Cuban professional baseball players get automatic residency in the US (after paying smugglers a hefty sum) while far poorer people fleeing political injustice and violence elsewhere in the Americas are routinely deported. Then there are the awful stories about Cubans trying to get to the US - either middle class Cubans who can afford a plane ticket to somewhere in Central America and then make the (costly and occasionally dangerous) land route up to the US, or the poorer ones who chance it on boats/rafts to FL.
My only concern with this is the optics - it looks like we're legitimizing the regime even in the absence of substantial reform on their part. But both the embargo and our skewed immigration policies wrt Cuba should have been done away with a long time ago. I guess Obama figures there's little risk in pissing off the Cuban American community now, which is the only reason the policy has remained unchanged as long as it has.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
There are mixed feelings regarding this in Florida. Obama has generally done cuban relations a solid so they seem to be taking the "this could lead to good things" route. It obviously fucked up plans for families that were trying to get relatives or friends into america, but lets be honest some of those plans are as old as when your child self decided to become an astronaut. But at the very least there is certainty a sense that this has been expected to happen for a long time. The water crossing is extremely dangerous and puts a lot of unneeded stress on our coastguard. Putting this policy in line with the rest of the countries was a smart move in that regard. The coastguard's time can be better spent actually protecting our coastline and disrupting drug smugglers.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It does seem odd if this is the right policy for the right reasons that it wasn't done years ago and was instead left to the last possible minute.
If this is something that can be done by executive action is there any sign it can or will be reversed by the incoming administration via executive action?
You do understand that the US gives asylum to those seeking it for political reasons right? Cuba isn't suddenly excluded from that. In fact removing wet foot/dry foot puts them on the same playing field as asylum seekers from other dictators.
The old policy obviously hasn't work to bring the glorious forms of US freedom and capitalism to cuba. Maybe if we stop treating those who flee with preferential treatment we might see more progress made inside of cuba, where such movements should come from anyway.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I appreciate that, though that could have been changed at any point in the last 8 years rather than doing it while dashing out the door.
It just seems weird to me, I much prefer our system that after an election once we know the winner they take over immediately [possibly within hours of the vote] rather than this changing laws after having been replaced malarkey.
See also Wiggin's reply. If that was the reason, the same rules would apply to other dictatorships in the americas (and let's be honest here, some of those were actually supported by the US). Giving sanctuary to those fleeing a dictatorship is indeed a nice extra, but you're extremely naive if you think that's why the rules were there. And as also been said by others this just places Cuban immigrants on the same level as other immigrants.
You're right Cuba isn't exactly a great country right now, but it's moving in the right direction. I'm guessing the idea is to reward those steps and encourage more.
I agree that's weird but as it is that's how the US works. Unless you'd like the government to basically stop doing anything in the last three months this is what you can get. The Cuban relations are ongoing all the time.
Plus now a next administration can of course reverse this, but there is a different between making the next administration actively reverse something as opposed to the next administration not taking this step.
Yeah, that's easy to say if you live on an island where people can't just walk to.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Obviously it at times results in some pretty weird outcomes, but I've grown to appreciate the value of the transition period.
First, there are a lot of very good ideas that can't be done for fear of political repercussions - certain pardons/commutations, certain issues of deep concern to a powerful electoral group (e.g. Cuban Americans), etc. The lame duck period allows the President to push through some modest changes without fear of substantial political fallout to his party. Obviously there are limits - most executive actions, if they are a really bad idea, can be relatively easily rolled back by the next president, nothing involving the legislature is likely to happen, and anything really bad but irreversible could spell trouble for your party in midterms. I think there's some value to the system.
Secondly, our presidential system doesn't have shadow ministers like you get in a parliamentary system, so sometimes there isn't an obvious shortlist for critical Cabinet posts. Even if there is, the confirmation process takes time, which a newly inaugurated President doesn't have. This means that the transition period allows for vetting, nominating, and confirming cabinet positions so a smooth transition is possible.
The biggest problem IMO is when there are tricky and critical events going on during the transition - you get this weird dance between the outgoing and incoming president. This happened with GWB and BHO because of the financial crisis, and it is happening now with BHO and DJT, though most of the friction here is less understandable. Otherwise, though, I think the system has some surprising benefits.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
For example, the shooting at the airport. Our idiot Governor called Trumps camp. Never got around to Obama.
The guy was a shit stain before being elected, but that was a new low.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
This is a primary factor but you're neglecting the single most important aspect of it (or maybe you just folded it into the shadow ministers even though it really should be explicitly mentioned). Rand's new leader is someone who was already in the ruling body. This is not necessarily the case for the President and here we have a guy who has never held a single elected or governing office before. This is not a shadow prime minister this is someone with zero government infrastructure or training. Even with more experienced President-elects, they usually have either no executive experience or no federal experience.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Other than being Leader of the Opposition (shadows) or holding other shadow posts many new post-General Election PMs have no executive experience, though they all have legislative experience. Eg Blair and Cameron had only ever been opposition MPs. It's more common to have a more experienced leader take over midterm eg May, Brown and Major.
Your executive is an adjunct to your legislature. They have the most important experience, and they're practiced in thinking about executive issues (if not in acting directly) from time spent as shadow ministers. It does not begin to be the same thing, Rand.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Another upside to our system, correcting a few wrongs with some good ole fashioned pardons.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/politi...ted/index.html
I wonder if wikileaks will cough up Assange now.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It's possible, Trump plainly regards him as a comrade in arms now that they're both Russian agents. . .
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
LOL
Though it will become amusing if he does pardon Snowden. Everyone on the left who cheered Obama's Manning decision will suddenly express outrage and demand an investigation in the links between Trump and the Kremlin.
Since the US hasn't indicted Assange for anything, it's hard to understand how he could agree to extradition to the US; his pledge was meaningless. He is wanted for extradition to Sweden for sexual assault/rape charges. While I'm sure the US isn't a fan of his, he has not been formally charged with anything.
Re: Snowden, he similarly can't be pardoned without going through the US justice system first (e.g. submitting documents for clemency), something he has singularly failed to do.
I have to say I'm not really a fan of this commutation; even though I have no doubt that Manning felt that her actions were those of a patriot, they seriously compromised some important and sensitive pieces of US intelligence and statecraft. Nowhere near the furore of the Snowden leaks, of course, but I think that people who leak large troves of privileged information shouldn't be surprised if the book is thrown at them. *shrugs* Obviously I don't get a say here, though, and the good news is that I doubt that Manning can do much more damage in the future. So perhaps her clemency might be seen more through the lens of an act of mercy.
I'm waiting for someone to do an analysis of the other nearly 300 commutations/pardons announced today to see if there are any other surprises. Most of the ones Obama has done so far have been fairly low on controversy (though the number is indeed high), but I'm sure he sneaked some more in here that might raise some eyebrows.
edit: Yeah, not such a fan of the commutation of Oscar Lopez Rivera either.
Last edited by wiggin; 01-18-2017 at 06:01 AM.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Had to google Rivera. I don't really understand why Obama did that. Guy's essentially a terrorist.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote