What are the laws regarding illegal Cuban immigrants?
440267
If you're illegal, you're illegal. The law is the law...Cuban, Irish, Egyptian, Salvadoranian, etc...the law is the law.
1103738
Nope. Illegal is Illegal. Deport them no matter where they come from.
726235
Only if they can prove they're liberal...  or Communist...  or Marxist...  or are looking for free handouts...  or criminals...  or a terrorist.  Any hard working, well educated individuals who come to this country looking for lower taxes and limited government intervention in their daily lives will be immediately deported.\n\nGo figure.
1007997
first , for complaints.... go to...\n\nhttp://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/cuba9848.htm\n\nthen\nhttp://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y06/jun06/20e5.htm\n\nfor more info on this here .....\n\nEXCERPT FROM THE NET>>>SOURCE HAS BEEN GIVEN\n\n\nThe term "terrorism," in practice, means the terrorism that THEY carry out against US. And the U.S. is not alone in this practice - it is probably close to universal. Cuba is certainly not alone in being treated this way. There is very rich literature documenting the practice generally.... Even the orders of the World Court calling on the U.S. to terminate its "unlawful use of force" (i.e., international terrorism, or maybe even aggression) against Nicaragua, and the supporting Security Council resolution (vetoed by the US), are unknown [in the U.S.], and if brought up, dismissed as proof that the Court is "anti-American" and irrelevant. The Cuban case is unusual because it is so clear, certainly since JFK ordered his staff to launch "the terrors of the earth" against Cuba....\n--Noam Chomsky, September, 2002\n\nTo understand the politics of Cuba, it is necessary to understand the role of the US in Latin America and elsewhere. By examining the history of the US aggression and intervention, we can see clearly the motives that have driven its foreign policy and what it is capable of given the motive and opportunity. It will then be easy to see why the Cuban people must take what seem to us to be extraordinary measures to counter this threat. For them, it is truly a matter of life and death. Recent developments -- shifts in popular opinion in the US, etc. -- are the basis for some optimism that Cuba/US relations may soon improve. Cubans must, however, exercise extreme caution if they are not to meet a fate similar to that of the former USSR, Yugoslavia and others. As William Blum states in the introduction to his recent essay, US Aggression and Intervention, in The Guardian (CPA), \n\nThe engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but by the necessity to serve other imperatives: \n\nto make the world safe for American corporations; \nto enhance the financial statements of defence contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of Congress; \nto prevent the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model; \nto extend political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a 'great power'. \n\nit will come as no surprise to readers that some international organizations, do not see Cuba as democracy. Following is a rebuttal of a typical criticism of the Cuban electoral based on an excerpt (in italics) from a report on human rights in Cuba by a commission of the Organization of American States (OAS). The section entitled "Elections for the National Assembly of People's Power and the Provincial Assemblies" begins:\n\nThe American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man establishes the right to vote and to participate in government at Article XX, in the following terms. \nArticle XX. Every person having legal capacity is entitled to participate in the government of his country, directly or through his representatives, and to take part in popular elections, which shall be by secret ballot, and shall be honest, periodic and free.\n\n38. Political rights, as considered by the Declaration, have two clearly distinguishable aspects: the right to directly exercise power, i.e., to participate in government; and the right to elect those who are to exercise it, i.e., the right to vote. This presupposes a broad conception of representative democracy, based on popular sovereignty, in which the functions by which power is exercised are performed by persons chosen in free and fair elections.\n\nThis is the case in Cuba. In addition to having the right to vote, every Cuban of voting age has an equal opportu
137482
dont go there. havana is your only chance to 'live' (stay alive) somewhere. theres a reason theyre trying to exile to the usa. try puerto rico, easy to get to cuba from there.
1570
Actually MLB wants Cuban players to play. The problem is actually government sanctions against Cuba and Cuba will not be allowed a permit to play.
972800
no way, they were born here so what makes that illegal?
528131
There are actually legal and illegal immigrants.  The terem illegal immigrant refers to someone who has entered a country without going through the proper legal processes to become a citizen of that country.  This usually occurs when the person does not have any skills that the country they are trying to enter wants and are instead denied entry to that country.
996347
unlawfull                                illegal
367189
Elián González (born December 6, 1993) was at the center of a heated custody and immigration battle in 2000 between the Cuban and United States governments, his father, his Miami relatives, and the Cuban American community of Miami. The climactic stage of this prolonged battle was the April 22, 2000 seizure of six-year-old Elián by federal agents, which drew the ire and criticism of many in the Cuban-American community and presidential candidates Al Gore and George W. Bush and prompted a Senate inquiry. However, after the Miami relatives' appeals met several rejections by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, and a refusal to hear the case by the US Supreme Court, Elián González returned to Cuba with his father, Juan Miguel González, on the afternoon of June 28, 2000.\n\nHostility between Cuba and the United States has been persistent since the Cuban Revolution. Over that period, a considerable number of Cubans have tried to leave for the United States, hoping for greater freedom and better economic conditions. This emigration is illegal under both Cuban and US law; any Cuban found at sea, attempting to reach US shores, will be deported by the US Coast Guard or if caught by Cuban police, executed. Since the Carter era, US policy has evolved into the current "wet feet, dry feet" rule: If a Cuban refugee is picked up at sea or walking toward shore, he will be repatriated by force (i.e., sent back to Cuba against his will). If he can make it to shore ("dry feet"), he is permitted to make a case for political asylum. Under a 1995 migration accord with Cuba, Cubans who make it to US soil are generally allowed to remain in the country (a policy applied exclusively to Cubans because those returned to Cuba may face imprisonment or death).\n\nIn November 1999, Elián, his mother, and twelve others fled Cuba on a small aluminum boat with a faulty engine; Elián's mother and ten others died in the crossing. The boat was operated by his mother's boyfriend, who resided in Miami and smuggled Cubans into the US for money (a felony under federal law). Elián and the other two survivors completed the journey across the Florida Straits on an inner tube. Elián was rescued at sea by two fishermen who then gave him to the US Coast Guard.\n\nThe Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) released Elián to his great uncle, Lázaro. Lázaro's daughter, Marisleysis (first cousin once removed to Elián), became something of a maternal figure to Elián. Armando Gutierrez, a local Miami-based Cuban-American activist became the family spokesperson and a close friend of the family. INS officials told reporters neither they nor the State Department had any legal say in the matter. It was demanded that the boy be returned to Cuba to the care of his father, touching off the firestorm that ended only when Elián was taken at gunpoint by federal agents who forcibly entered Lázaro's house. Elián was flown back to Havana with his father, Juan Miguel González-Quintana, Juan Miguel's wife, their son, and a cousin, on June 28, 2000.\n\nElián's mother, Elizabeth Brotons, had taken Elián without Juan Miguel's knowledge, so in addition to the case's political refugee overtones, it was also a child custody battle. The debate was whether US immigration laws mandated that he be returned to his father, as Juan Miguel could speak for Elián only if it was assumed Juan Miguel was not under duress from the Cuban government.\n\nFor much of early 2000, Elián's plight dominated the news in the US and in Cuba. On April 14, a video was released in which Elián "tells" Juan Miguel that he wants to stay in the US. Many considered that he had been coached, as a male voice was heard off-camera directing the young boy. In a September 2005 interview with 60 Minutes Elián claimed that during his stay in the US his family members were "telling me bad things about [my father]", and &quo
820088
well cuba is a communist country where there's certain rules that most of the people disagree that's the reason cubans seem america like an alternative to live ....they can get whatever they want and have freedom of speech ....some other people that is not cuban might have those rights in their countries as well but they have other problems such as economical problems or looking for a job.
1091747
I also feel this law is outdated and should be abolished.  In fact, just tonight, I watched a show on TV that said that some years back the Cuban government released all of their worst criminals and put them on shoddy boats aimed towards the USA in order to get rid of their worst criminals and take advantage of the stupid foot on dry land law for Cubans.  I don't understand why the USA isn't quicker at changing laws that are outdated.  Other countries are so quick to take advantage and they obviously keep right up to the minute on what our laws are.  \n\nRegardless, we still have laws about immigration and I want them enforced and I want ALL illegal immigrants deported and I want this done asap, regardless of the cost, because I believe the cost will be less to the American taxpayers in the long run.  If our immigration laws are outdated, they should  be updated, and if things take too long, they should be changed so that applications can be expedited, but the USA has a right to determine who they want for immigrants and how many of them they want and where they should live and what types of jobs they will do.  It is unfair that they flock to certain states and towns and so overburdening the social services, school systems, corrections systems, and medical care of those areas.  With proper immigration systems, people are told where they can go.  The immigrants aren't the ones to decide where they will go - the government has the say as to where they can go.  With illegal immigration - they flock to wherever they want and this causes some areas to be overburdened and without the proper tax basis to support them and actually causing a negative effect on the legal US citizens and immigrants in those areas.\n\nThere is a real, sane reason why a country should have a say in who gets in and where they will go.
944746
The illegal Mexicans are loyal to Mexico, so don't try blowing smoke up our butts.  The Cubans are loyal to Cuba, not Castro.  When and if democracy ever comes to Cuba, there will be a major reduction of population in south Florida.
899357
Read up on the  Policy call 'Wet Foot, Dry Foot'\n\nby the way Cubans are here legally
566851
None. They are illegal.
109940
First of all, Washington can not expel anybody from a private establishment.  However, if the Embassy (or any other organization) has security concerns about persons who are in a position to do harm to their premises or to conduct espionage around their premises, they can certainly ask the business to kick out the guest/customer.  The business does not have to comply, but might want to in order to please the requester.  \n\nThis would be an entirely optional issue for a private hotel, who could have refused to do as asked, albeit with the warning that they would lose business.  Consider this: you have a neighbor who is obnoxious and playing music all night long and you can't sleep.  Do you have the right to ask them turn it down, yes.  If they comply, fine.  But can you force them to turn it down (without calling the cops)?  No.  If your neighbor wants to stay in your good graces (and not have you wake them up another time) they will do as you request.\n\nForeign governments routinely do this in order to ensure their safety and security.  However, the Sheraton is not a private hotel.  The Sheraton chain is a United States registered business, so the issue of asset control comes into play if the hotel did not voluntarily execute the request...see the article from reuters below.  By the way, I don't know if Mexican law prohibits hotels from evicting guests, but I doubt it.\n\nMEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Protesters waving Cuban flags blocked the entrance to a U.S.-owned Sheraton hotel in Mexico City on Tuesday, calling for it to be closed because it evicted Cuban officials on orders from Washington.\n\nAbout 30 people shouted "Yankees out" as they demonstrated outside the hotel over its eviction of the 16 Cubans who were staying there last week for a conference with U.S. energy companies.\n\nPresidential spokesman Ruben Aguilar said Mexico was looking into the evictions and would apply the full force of the law against the Sheraton if a crime had been committed.\n\n"It is an unacceptable application of a foreign law in our country, which goes against all principles of international law," Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Derbez said in a radio interview.\n\nStarwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide Inc., which owns Sheraton hotels, said it had been asked by the U.S.\nTreasury Department to tell the Cuban officials to leave the hotel because of the terms of the U.S. embargo on the island.\n\nMexican newspapers were filled with angry opinion pieces railing against perceived U.S. meddling in Mexico.\n\nIn Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the Sheraton in Mexico City was a subsidiary of an American-owned hotel group and therefore subject to U.S. laws and regulations.\n\n"Very basically, U.S. law would apply to U.S. corporations or subsidiaries of U.S. corporations, no matter where they may be -- whether it's in Mexico City or in Europe or South America," McCormack said.\n\nHe said the Mexican government had contacted the State Department about the matter, adding that it was the Treasury Department that enforced these laws. "We view this as a matter of asset control," McCormack said.\n\nThe Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which enforces the embargo against Cuba, insists it is illegal to provide services to Cuban nationals and entities in third countries.\n\nAndres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the leftist candidate favored to win Mexico's July presidential elections, said the evictions were "in bad taste."\n\n"Foreign laws cannot be applied in our country," he said on his morning television show.\n\nMexico's relations with the United States have suffered a string of setbacks in recent months. There have been angry words over drug violence along their shared border, U.S. plans to build a border fence to stop illegal immigrants and the killing of an undocumented Mexican by the U.S. Border Patrol.\n\nMexico's friendship with Cuba als
218830
For what country?  And you need to reqord your question...three are no rules for "illegal detainment".  The fact that someone's detainment is either legal or illegal is based on law.  \n\nIn case you are talking about the United States (this is an assumption as many nationalities are represented here) I cite below.  \n\nIn the United States, the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, work with the Immigration and Nationality Act and the accompanying federal regulations (known as CFR 22) to determine when someone may or may not be detained.