31-07-2003 19:31									#31
	Remove this text

I can't believe this. I've had a running mouthoff contest with Boris going for so long, and now we agree, and I'm disagreeing with Ned?

This is, in fact, Bizarro World.

	31-07-2003 19:35									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

But no takers on the inconsistency between going in with the ARMY to Iraq because we're so concerned about their long-suffering oppression, and yet, when no risk is involved (taking refugees seeking political asylum--on a rather inventive "boat"--in), we send them home?

I'd really like someone on the other side to take a crack at explaining that inconsistency away....(and good luck!)

-=Vel=-

	31-07-2003 19:35									#33
	Re: Re: Re: Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Meldor Sorry to burst your bubble but this has been US policy since at least the days of JFK. But don't think it just applies to Cubans. It applies to any refuges found trying to enter the US by the sea. If they are found at sea headed for the US, they are returned to the country origin and any makeshift vessel that they might be using is sunk as a navigational hazzard. Are you too young to remember all the flap over the Haitian refuges? The ones we put in camps at Gitmo before we shipped them back? Have you forgotten about Elian? Have you forgotten that he was taken by Federal troops (which btw had no jurisdiction in a state custidy suit) and return him to Cuba? We have been doing this for years. The only thing "special" about Cubans is that if them manage to get one foot on American soil before they are caught, they are automatically granted political asylum. You, and which ever reporter filed the report, need to actually find out about what you are going to say before you make wild and unfounded statements.

I lived in East Berlin and made it to the West together with my mother in the early 80īs. this wouldnīt have been possible without the allieīs help. under this impression I grew up.
and yes, Iīm not aware about how the US treated Haitian refugees. I donīt see much of an excuse in this example for the current US refugee policy though. do you?

what I know is that itīs always been part of the US policy taking refugees and giving them a chance starting a new and better life in freedom. even if there were exceptions - which would be a sad thing - itīs still better helping some than helping no one. Dubya seems to be the kind of president who helps no one.

	31-07-2003 19:40									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It wasn't a matter for court jurisdiction, Ned. The Justice Dept had discretion in this matter, and she exercised it. They had ordered the family to release Elian, and they refused a Justice Dept directive. IMO, they were kidnappers.

Taking the side of Castro? It had nothing to do with Castro's wishes, it had to do with the boy's FATHER, who wanted his son back! It doesn't make a bit of difference what Castro wanted, or if his desires happend to coincide with the wishes of the boy's father. Are we to kneejerk take up an opposite position to everything Castro does? Castro happened to be RIGHT this time.

Why are you against his father? How do you know what Elian wanted? All we ever heard was the selfish desires of the family to keep Elian as their political tool against Castro. Their actions were reprehensible.

	31-07-2003 20:40									#35
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand Oh, Christ. Check out Mexicans, if you want to weep.

You suprize me sometimes Sloww

	31-07-2003 20:43									#36
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kropotkin And damn it, couldn't we have a decent damn smiley, not some dork with a stupid hat!

Kill the hat smileys

	31-07-2003 20:58									#37
	Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by oedo I lived in East Berlin and made it to the West together with my mother in the early 80īs. this wouldnīt have been possible without the allieīs help. under this impression I grew up. and yes, Iīm not aware about how the US treated Haitian refugees. I donīt see much of an excuse in this example for the current US refugee policy though. do you? what I know is that itīs always been part of the US policy taking refugees and giving them a chance starting a new and better life in freedom. even if there were exceptions - which would be a sad thing - itīs still better helping some than helping no one. Dubya seems to be the kind of president who helps no one.

I am not saying the policy is good or bad. I am just stating what the US policy has been for almost 50 years. If like you, they manage to make it into America and claim political asylum, it will be granted. However, if they are found on the seas, attempting to enter the US illegally, they are treated just as any other person attempting to enter the US illegally, and they are returned to the country of origin. If we did not do this, we would have hundreds of thousands of people from Cuba to Haiti to South America, trying to get here on all manner of craft, knowing they were in once the Coast Guard picked them up.

The new blood brought into the US through legal immigration is still needed and will always be needed. However, to encourage people to immigrate here risking their lives and the lives of their children is irresponsible.



Vel - I disagree with the statement that their is no difference between Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan. The difference being that the later two countries were actively pursuing or supporting elements which were direct threats to the US and its interests. Cuba is not at the present time actively engaged in threaten the US. Castro does have Bio/Chem waepons and he could possibly use them against parts of the US, but he hasn't threatened to do so lately and it is doubtful that he would do so anytime soon. He is too comfortable in his life to piss in his own pot. Kimmie is another story, and what comes of him is yet to be seen.

That said, the US doesn't have the justification of invading Cuba that it did for doing so either in Iraq or Afghanistan. No matter how awful he treats some of his people. Don't get me wrong, I hope he gets overthrown today, but he is not in the same class as the three others mentioned here. His strocities are in no way comparable to Saddam's. I have heard no word of mass murders taking place in the last 20 or so years. Yes, he does kill some political prisoner, and make examples of others, but he isn't wiping out complete villages or even his whole nation. I could even list a whole slew of other nations that would be higher on my list to invade, if we were going to do so based solely on the plight of the people there.

	31-07-2003 21:02									#38
	Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by oedo I lived in East Berlin and made it to the West together with my mother in the early 80īs. this wouldnīt have been possible without the allieīs help. under this impression I grew up.

So? Why should one group of illegal immigrants be treated any differently than another group? Personally, I'd scrap the wet foot/dry foot policy and make the Cubans actually prove themselves deserving of political asylum and generally treat them the sameway we do Hatians ect.

	31-07-2003 21:03									#39
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov It wasn't a matter for court jurisdiction, Ned. The Justice Dept had discretion in this matter, and she exercised it. They had ordered the family to release Elian, and they refused a Justice Dept directive. IMO, they were kidnappers. Taking the side of Castro? It had nothing to do with Castro's wishes, it had to do with the boy's FATHER, who wanted his son back! It doesn't make a bit of difference what Castro wanted, or if his desires happend to coincide with the wishes of the boy's father. Are we to kneejerk take up an opposite position to everything Castro does? Castro happened to be RIGHT this time. Why are you against his father? How do you know what Elian wanted? All we ever heard was the selfish desires of the family to keep Elian as their political tool against Castro. Their actions were reprehensible.

Ploease tell me were in the US constitution or even US law were the US government has any say in any custidy case. Family custidy is a matter for state courts. It was being handled in a state court. The justice Department, which Reno ran is not responsible for these matters. The ATF, who went into the house aren't even close to being authorized to do anything about child custidy. It was a massive breach of the constitution. Period. Just like Waco.

Please cite your source to back it up if you think me wrong.

	31-07-2003 21:03									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

My real problem with this policy (regardless of who started it) is that its inconsistent.

If we were to send refugees coming here from Cuba back, then we should've maintained good relations with Cuba. In fact, had we done so from the beginning, and gotten our foot in the door early when Castro came to US for help before the Russians, we could've avoided a lot of frustrations and saved a lot of lives as well.

But if were going to choose to be enemies with Cuba (or the Castro regime rather) then we should try to welcome as many escaping Cubans who oppose the Castro regime ESPECIALLY when we spend so much time pandering to the Miami Cubans.

	31-07-2003 21:20									#41
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Meldor, it’s not about finding an excuse for invading Cuba, nor is it about comparing Castro’s sins with those of other leaders, it’s about consistency, pure and simple. IF we believe the latest spin regarding the war in Iraq, then the new reason given for the war was our grave concern for the liberty of the Iraqi people. Per the Shrub’s new pet policy regarding the little d*ck-taters of the world, we went in guns blazing to liberate the Iraqis and end their long years of oppression….

AND YET

When a couple guys from an oppressive land much closer to home make a (rather inventive, actually) bid for freedom, what’s our response?

Send them home.

It’s two-faced. It’s shallow. And, it’s fairly typical of the current administration. Since the guys in the “truck-boat” don’t have anything we want, Fvck ‘em, right?

-=Vel=-

	31-07-2003 21:25									#42
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by oedo no bullshit. and I know what Iīm talking about. I saw how much afford, work and money the allies (especially the US) spent to take East German refugees and political prisoneers.

When a person escaped from East Germany what country did they enter?

	31-07-2003 21:25									#43
	Suffering from ads?

Politicians don't have to be consistent or make sense... especially demagogues. What was blue yesterday is green today, and if you stop and think about it too long, then they'll do a trick and distract you.

	31-07-2003 21:27									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Meldor Ploease tell me were in the US constitution or even US law were the US government has any say in any custidy case. Family custidy is a matter for state courts. It was being handled in a state court. The justice Department, which Reno ran is not responsible for these matters. The ATF, who went into the house aren't even close to being authorized to do anything about child custidy. It was a massive breach of the constitution. Period. Just like Waco.

BS, it wasn't a CUSTODY dispute, it was an IMMIGRATION issue. The Dept of Immigration had the SOLE jurisdiction here. The Immigration department has every right to enforce its decisions, through force if necessary. They had ordered the family to hand the kid over so he could be reunited with his LEGAL father. The family REFUSED, defying not only the Deptartment, but US Court orders to comply. US Courts CAN'T grant custody of non-citizen minors to anyone else when the minor's legal guardian is alive and well:

http://immigration.about.com/librar...y/aa042500a.htm

U.S. Immigration law states that a minor may only apply for asylum under the sponsorship of a LEGAL guardian as follows:

"an unmarried person under 21 years of age and includes a child legitimated under the law of the child's residence or domicile, or under the law of the father's residence or domicile, whether in the United States or elsewhere, and, except as otherwise provided in sections 320, and 321 of title III, a child adopted in the United States, if such legitimation or adoption takes place before the child reaches the age of sixteen years, and the child is in the legal custody of the legitimating or adopting parent or parents at the time of such legitimation or adoption."

Put it simply. Let's say your wife KIDNAPPED your son and took him to, say, Russia, where she had relatives. She dies en route, but her relatives get a hold of him and won't let him go. The government orders them to hand him over, you want him back, but they refuse. It's KIDNAPPING then. You're his legal parent, they are holding him against your will. The Russian government should remove the kid by force, if necessary, absolutely. We'd use SWAT teams to raid any other den of kidnappers to free their hostages, after all.

They had no right to hold Elian, legal or otherwise. They're lucky the DOJ didn't have them slapped with charges.

quote: Please cite your source to back it up if you think me wrong.

How about citing your own?

	31-07-2003 21:27									#45
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: When a person escaped from East Germany what country did they enter?

America, right?? Isn't it right next to East Germany?

	31-07-2003 21:28									#46
	Tired of ads?

You win the prize, Dom....and good shot, Sprayber!

-=Vel=-

	31-07-2003 21:30									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: They're lucky the DOJ didn't have them slapped with charges.

I don't think they were lucky not to get slapped with charges... I don't think the DOJ would've done it... simply because the family would've climbed to the top of the tallest tree and started screaming bloody murder, and given the amount of sympathy they got, I think it would've been bad publicity for the DOJ. The public has never really been known for going with what may be legally correct (or intelligent).

	31-07-2003 21:33									#48
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx But no takers on the inconsistency between going in with the ARMY to Iraq because we're so concerned about their long-suffering oppression, and yet, when no risk is involved (taking refugees seeking political asylum--on a rather inventive "boat"--in), we send them home? I'd really like someone on the other side to take a crack at explaining that inconsistency away....(and good luck!) -=Vel=-

You don't buy the saving the world for democracy line do you? If that were true, we would be invading half the planet. It has always been about priorites. Cuba is not a threat (or isn't preceived as one). If along the way we liberate some oppressed people while serving our own interests then so much the better. Right or wrong, its a simple matter of fact.

	31-07-2003 21:33									#49
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Meldor, it’s not about finding an excuse for invading Cuba, nor is it about comparing Castro’s sins with those of other leaders, it’s about consistency, pure and simple. IF we believe the latest spin regarding the war in Iraq, then the new reason given for the war was our grave concern for the liberty of the Iraqi people. Per the Shrub’s new pet policy regarding the little d*ck-taters of the world, we went in guns blazing to liberate the Iraqis and end their long years of oppression . AND YET When a couple guys from an oppressive land much closer to home make a (rather inventive, actually) bid for freedom, what’s our response? Send them home. It’s two-faced. It’s shallow. And, it’s fairly typical of the current administration. Since the guys in the “truck-boat” don’t have anything we want, Fvck ‘em, right? -=Vel=-

No, we treated the guys in the truck the same as we would have if they had come from any other country no matter the form of government that is in power.

We find Chinese (Communist), Phillipino (Democracy), Indonesian (undecided), and others on freighters bound for the US every day. We find Cubans, Haitians, Columbians, and thers on freighters, rafts, small boats every day. What do we do with all of them no matter where they come from? We return them to their country of origin. Period. That is about as consistant as you can get. If they have not touched US soil, they are not entitled to a hearing to determine the merit of their plight and if they should be granted asylum. If they are found in international waters, then it is a no brainer as the US is obligated to do with them as their government wants. That policy has just been extended right up to our shores. If they make it to US soil, they become eligible for a hearing to determine their status. Some are granted immediate political asylum no matter what (Cubans, Viet Namese, Communist Chinese, ect), others must prove their case.

To try and narrow this policy to a single country (Cuba) and then to try and add in the invasion of other countries for other reasons, is to be disengenous at the least. Show me where Castro or Cuba has done anything near to what Saddam has done, or that they have directly aided or abetted terrorist that have attacked the US (Under the current administration), and then I will except that your arguement has some basis.

	31-07-2003 21:34									#50
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I don't buy it for a second, Spray, but that's not the point. We didn't have to invade Cuba....all we had to do was let the boat make it to the USA. No risk to us, no cost in American lives....just....bein' consistent.

We could have done that and still maintained our priorities elsewhere. They were coming to US, after all.

-=Vel=-

	31-07-2003 21:39									#51
	Support Apolyton

Meldor, a couple of points:

1) Fleeing a land and seeking political asylum is not...IS NOT the same as immigration.

2) The current administration's policy toward the little tinpot dictators of the world is....shall we say....a good bit harsher than it has been in the past (two invasions so far, god-only-knows how many more planned).

3) The President has gone on television broadcast that were seen around the world and announced that the US was perfectly within her rights to do all of the above and more. Put all the dictators on notice, told China not to even try to compete militarily with the US, etc., etc.

Given these, the LEAST we could do is cut some innovative guys a break when they're fleeing from the kinds of oppression that Shrub & Co. claim to be fighting tooth and nail against.

To do less is disingenuous. Completely.

-=Vel=-

	31-07-2003 21:39									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ned Was she right to act without a court order while the matter was still pending before the courts?

The only courts competent to rule on the matter (the Federal courts) had already ruled against the Miami family. The state courts have no jurisdiction over immigration issues.

quote: Was she right to invade a private resident with the military?

Given the hysteria in the Miami Cuban community, how exactly do you think it should have been handeld. Anything less than a military style operation (they was Federal Marshals, not the military) would likly have resulted in a riot with people getting killed.

quote: Further, why was the US government taking the side of Fidel Castro and not the side of the boy in this affair?

They did take the side of the boy. The problem with you people is you made it about Castro, when it was always about Elian and his father. The law was absilutely clear, there was no grey area. As Elian's natural father and legal guardian, only he had any say whatesoever in where Elian should live. How would you feel if an uncle took your children away from you?

And let's not forget that two of Elian's male cousins in that house were known criminals, and that the uncle was a man of dubious character. You really believe he boy would be better off living with thugs in the US than his middle class father in Cuba?

	31-07-2003 21:41									#53
	Tired of ads?

What happens to a Hatian if he/she sets foot in this country illegally? Now what happens to a Cuban if he/she makes it to Miami? They are already being treated special. Hell why don't we just station the Navy off their coast and invite the whole island to come to America. I'm sure Hatians and Mexicans and Hondurans would be asking what in the hell is so special about Cubans.

	31-07-2003 21:43									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Sprayber What happens to a Hatian if he/she sets foot in this country illegally? Now what happens to a Cuban if he/she makes it to Miami? They are already being treated special. Hell why don't we just station the Navy off their coast and invite the whole island to come to America. I'm sure Hatians and Mexicans and Hondurans would be asking what in the hell is so special about Cubans.

It's ludicrous hypocrisy in policy, especially since Haitians live in far more dire poverty than Cubans do.

	31-07-2003 21:43									#55
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Ned... this is a Bush bash too far for me...

	31-07-2003 21:45									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

It's not a question of threat... its a question of A) perceived threat and B) public interest.


If Bush tomorrow said Castro was a bad man, the next boat full of refugees will be on shore and having somebody ghost write their autobiographies before the wave of media attention has time to dissipate. And it'd be all about these "brave, hopeful people... coming to the land of promise" blah blah bull****. TIME magazine would have the face of the child, smudged with dirt with the title reading Coming to America: One Child's Story. Jay Leno would have the captain of the Coast Guard vessel on and the dashing young man would go on and on about how he wanted to "do the right thing" and about how bad it is in Cuba...

	31-07-2003 21:45									#57
	Support Apolyton

It's not about who's poorer, Boris....it's about allowing people who are fleeing from oppressive regiemes that we're suddenly over-eager to "change" (Iraq) to come to this country and escape.

That would be in keeping with the present administration's policy.

Sending them home is not.

-=Vel=-

	31-07-2003 21:46									#58
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx But no takers on the inconsistency between going in with the ARMY to Iraq because we're so concerned about their long-suffering oppression, and yet, when no risk is involved (taking refugees seeking political asylum--on a rather inventive "boat"--in), we send them home?

Going in to Iraq with uor army had nothing to do with trying to releive the Iraqi people. It was, officially, about preventing Hussein from keeping his (non-existencet) weapons of mass destruction.

The policy against returning refugees found at sea is designed to save lives. If we let anyone found at sea into the US, that would only encourage more people to take to the sea in boats, rafts, whatever, that smiply aren't capable of making it. Many more people would die in the Florida Straights than do now. Is that want you want, more people to die you heartless bastard?

And since you're all happy too allow open immigration, I assume you'll argue for the US to open the borders to Mexico, China, and India, all of whom would be more than happy to send tens of millions of people here.

Just remember, many Mexicans die in the desert trying to get to the US. It's not as safe as swimming a river into Texas.

	31-07-2003 21:48									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx It's not about who's poorer, Boris....it's about allowing people who are fleeing from oppressive regiemes that we're suddenly over-eager to "change" (Iraq) to come to this country and escape. That would be in keeping with the present administration's policy. Sending them home is not. -=Vel=-

Only problem is that Cuban's coming here are vastly economic refugees, not political ones. Cuba's regime isn't nearly as repressive as, say, Saudi Arabia's. Why don't we allow incoming Saudi's instanct citizenship?

	31-07-2003 21:48									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't see how you can make a statement against hypocrisy in policy while defending Bush... THAT is inconsistency.