Romney Loves Cubans And Wants Them Here, But Not Other Hispanics

Why does that make him "a racist, hypocritical, opportunist, brown-nosing politician"? Cubans really are different, after all they are forced to live in a country whose economic failings are no fault of their own. They didn't vote in Castro, and they have no say in whatever policies he implements. Factor in the human rights violations, the bans on freedom of speech, and the overall low standard of living (one of the lowest in Latin America) and one could make the argument that all caring lovers of Democracy, human rights, and freedom of speech should welcome in any Cuban wishing to come to the United States.

In other words, I think one can make a stronger argument that it is those who disagree with Romney on this point that are the "racist, hypocritical, opportunist, brown-nosing politicians".

Either way he's a moron. Anyone, statistically can see the HUGE economic benefits that immigration - illegal or not - has been for the US.

To say thumbs up to one group out of compassion (which I don't see the same welcome given to those in Asia or other 'hospital' governments), and not to another out of some ideology is defunct in my opinion.

The Right machine is screaming that we can't take anymore immigrants...that there is enough already, and Romney turns around and says 'bring it on,' is suspect to me.

He's getting spanked in Florida by Rudy, Mike and Fred and is desperate to stay in the game.

Screw the Cuban exception, HP, why don't we pressure Cuban American's to "take their country back" the same why us Mexican-Americans get scolded to reform and take back our ancestral land. I think a Bay of Pigs II would go down a lot less bloodily then a "-10" year (1810, 1910, 2010?) Mexican revolution. Cubans don't have to worry about narco armies (take your pick - gulf, pacific, or both) being unleashed on them if they did.

i tend to be supportive of immigration, even moderate levels of illegal in boom times, but if you are going to restrict, restrict everybody.

This country isn't going to elect a mormon from Massachussets. If this guy wasn't such a jerk I'd almost feel sorry for him.

Cubans really are different, after all they are forced to live in a country whose economic failings are no fault of their own.

So what you're saying is that non-Cuban immigrants are personally responsible for their countries' economic failings? That's ridiculous.

and one could make the argument that all caring lovers of Democracy, human rights, and freedom of speech should welcome in any Cuban wishing to come to the United States.

Well, why not Chinese, or Sudanese, or Iranians, or Venezuelans, or Hatians, or Pakistanis or Iraqis, or North Koreans?

As much as I sympathize with Cuban immigrants, they are really not that different from any of those immigrants. But we're not making special immigration rules for them are we? If you want to be consistent, you should demand that all immigrants be subject to the same rules or, like they say in Puerto Rico con la misma vara.

A couple of points I want to make. First, I don’t agree with the general theme espoused here of “if you are going to restrict, restrict everybody”. There are two general principles one can apply in accepting immigrants - the self interest and the altruistic. Both are, IMO, valid principles to use in crafting immigration laws. We all implicitly acknowledge this. You wouldn’t say, for example, that just because the United States wants to prohibit immigrants with criminal records in their native country that the US should then either restrict all immigrants, or abandon such a policy, would we? A cost/benefit analysis is appropriate when crafting immigration policy, just like it is appropriate in crafting any other policy issue.

An immigrant proponent motivated more by self interest may argue for higher educated immigrants as opposed to lower educated immigrants. The immigrant proponent motivated more by altruism may argue the opposite.

With that in mind, one can make an argument that Cubans, as opposed to Mexicans and other Latin Americans, justify higher levels of immigration based on altruistic grounds. Unlike other countries in Latin America, Cuba is not a Democracy, has more gross human rights abuses and is on the low end of poverty - even by Latin American standards. So unless you are going to argue that altruism should play no part in immigration policy, I can’t see how you can object to those who say Cubans should have special status.

There are two general principles one can apply in accepting immigrants - the self interest and the altruistic.

That's actually a distinction without a difference. "Altruism" is "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others." Of course, the only reason "altruism" may play a role is if in our overall valuation system we believe that a little selflessness is a good thing. And if it is a good thing, then it is in our interest to do good. Whether we get something tangible or intangible out of it - a productive member of society vs. feeling good about ourselves - is irrelevant. Altruism is one aspect of "self-interest" at work.

Sorry, I'm a cynic. Altruism from the Dalai Lama I can believe. From the U.S. Government? Not so much.

With that in mind, one can make an argument that Cubans, as opposed to Mexicans and other Latin Americans, justify higher levels of immigration based on altruistic grounds. Unlike other countries in Latin America, Cuba is not a Democracy, has more gross human rights abuses and is on the low end of poverty - even by Latin American standards.

Why are you limiting this to Latin Americans unless you advocate one policy for Hispanics and another for the rest of the immigrants? "Cuba is not a democracy" really doesn't cut either way. "Has more gross human rights abuses"? Than whom? And what makes them "gross"? Or "grosser" than the other Lat. Am. nations? "Is on the low end of poverty"? Lower than Haiti? Lower than the Dominican Republic? These are ridiculous standards.

The point you're missing, H.P., is that immigration is not about nations but about individuals. No person should get a free pass because of where they came from and what is imputed or supposed to have happened to them. Their cases should be reviewed individually, each on its merits. Cubans as a group don't deserve any special treatment. Cuban immigrants should be allowed to make their case to the appropriate authorities and, if it has merit, they should be allowed in.

If Cuba is such a horrible country, individual Cuban immigrants shouldn't have any problem making their case.

I am not limiting this to Latin America but since immigration from Latin America is such a large percentage of immigrants to the United States, its understandable why some people colloquially use the term.

If Cuba is such a horrible country, individual Cuban immigrants shouldn't have any problem making their case.

As you say, a distinction without a difference. Fine. If you don't like using nations, then substitute "Democracy", "human rights record", and "poverty" where you see Cuba above. In other words, I think it is acceptable to consider "Democracy", "Poverty", "human rights record" in a potential immigrants country of origin when considering said immigrants approval rate. Cubans happen to suffer from all of the above, and collectively, it may be more convenient to speak of 'Cubans', but what I really meant, and what I would guess Romney meant, is the underlying assumptions. Chinese, Haitian, and other immigrants who share one or more of the qualities above could make similar arguments.

I think it is acceptable to consider "Democracy", "Poverty", "human rights record" in a potential immigrants country of origin when considering said immigrants approval rate. Cubans happen to suffer from all of the above

"Potential immigrant"? That's an interesting concept right there.

And individual Cubans may or may not suffer from any or all of the above. What should be considered is this: why is this person here and why does this person want to stay here. That a country has a poor human rights record doesn't mean that this immigrant suffered human rights abuses. Ditto with poverty. And unless the lack of democracy is what forced this person to leave Cuba - as opposed to the lack of capitalism - then the presence or absence of democracy is a non-issue.

Again, - and I think we should just agree to disagree on this one - I don't see anything special about Cuba that deserves giving its citizens special consideration for immigration purposes.