jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (23 posts)

Example of the hypocrisy of the US immigration law!

  1. maxoxam41 profile image77
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    Indeed, according to a law, unique in the entire world, adopted by the United States Congress on November 2, 1966, any Cuban entering the United States legally or illegally, peacefully or violently, on January 1, 1959 or later, will after one year automatically receive permanent residency status and a variety of social benefits. [11
    The real objective was to deprive Cuba of its human factor and to brain drain. What our government wouldn't do for its own interest?

    1. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Greetings, Max. It is good to see you.

      It seems you are misrepresenting The Cuban Adjustment Act (Public Law 89-732) dated November 2, 1966 for reasons known only to you. Having actually read the law you already know most of your post is untrue. The law does not provide any special benefits for Cubans except for modifying the time-based elements connected with eligibility and processing as stipulated by other immigration laws. {1}

      Every sentence in your post contains a distortion of fact:

      No. 1: For starters, the law only applies to legal, not illegal, immigrants from Cuba, specifically, “a native or citizen of Cuba …who has been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States” and who also "has been physically present in the United States for at least one year.” A 1995 US-Cuba agreement known as the Cuba-U.S. Migration Accord was written into this law as an amendment. Under the accords, Cuban refugees who reached the US mainland would not be return to Cuba but they would have to be officially admitted into the US to be eligible under this law. {2}

      No. 2: The words “peacefully or violently” are blatantly untrue since they are neither stated nor implied in this law.

      No. 3: A qualifying native or citizen of Cuba does not automatically receive permanent residency status after one year. Under this law, a refugee must make “an application for such adjustment,” and must be “eligible to receive an immigrant visa,” and must also qualify to be “admissible to the United States for permanent residence.”

      No. 4: The law does not provide a variety of social benefits as you claim it does. Any benefits that might result from a change of status are the same as would be available to any immigrant granted permanent residence status.

      No. 5: You have no way of knowing the real objective of this law. It does not encourage a “brain drain” but it does provide a fast-track for processing and approving applications for permanent residency status “by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe.”

      No. 6: Example of the hypocrisy of the US immigration law? Your post neither explains nor justifies such a claim. All governments without exception pursue policies in their own interest. Duh?

      I hope you will restate your post with more truth and less innuendo so we can all have a meaningful discussion.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      http://www.state.gov/www/regions/wha/cu … t_act.html
      http://www.state.gov/www/regions/wha/cu … ccord.html

      1. maxoxam41 profile image77
        maxoxam41posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        To reassure you none of the sentences written were mine but from a US secretary. I tried to find the source of the quotation, unsuccessfully!

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am not sure it matters who said it if it is obviously wrong

          1. maxoxam41 profile image77
            maxoxam41posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Indeed it is. I don't open my mouth if it is not factual. It is a point of honor.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Max. Many thanks for your candid reply.

              You wasted our time with garbage. You opened this thread charging the US government with hypocrisy. You made false claims without using quotation marks, without citing a source, and without fact-checking your statements to be sure that they are true. You now own these lies, Max, they are your lies.

              I find it interesting that you are precise about the date the law was enacted but you can not remember the source. You include the exact date of effective eligibility written into the law but you can not find the source. You accuse the government of hypocrisy and you did not even read the law yourself. You expect your readers to believe that, as a matter of honor, “I don’t open my mouth if it is not factual” and you admit ALL of the claims in your OP statement are not factual! I expect a person who says telling the truth is a matter of honor would at least fact-check his own comments.

              I am sorry, Max. Please tell us again who is the hypocrite in this thread.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

              1. ReuVera profile image85
                ReuVeraposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I have to say this is a general tendency with Max and his posts.....

              2. maxoxam41 profile image77
                maxoxam41posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Here you go. Now it is the lynching. Does it make it wrong? Wasn't it a US representative that said it? It is what is important! Not that I made a mistake! Contrary to most of you I don't take the name of the person that wrote the article, I don't write on the side who the quotation is orginated from. I forget the quotations, BiG DEAL! Relax, I am human.
                It is interesting to see that most of you didn't bring anything to oppose the statement though. It is a lesson for me.

                1. psycheskinner profile image81
                  psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Um, we don't know it was because you can't remember.

                  In any case it is a demonstrably false rumor, and an honorable person would just admit that.,

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image77
                    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No it was not a false rumor. Someone said it. The writer used it as a reference to his article.

            2. psycheskinner profile image81
              psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It isn't factual, and you don't even know whose lie or mistake it is. IMHO your honor needs to take better notes.

  2. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    Where is the hypocrisy?  Somethings things are treated differently, because they actually are different.

    1. maxoxam41 profile image77
      maxoxam41posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Can you be more explicit?

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I need you to explain where you see the hypocrisy.  What things are you comparing and why you think the difference exposes some kind of pretense or lie on the part of... I'm guessing the US government.

        1. maxoxam41 profile image77
          maxoxam41posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I guess in a time where Obama's administration refuses to accept the illegal people on the US soil, in a time where Americans point out immigration as a factor of unemployment, to accept a race over  another on the pretext to destabilize a country is hypocritical. I thought it was clear.

          1. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Um, Obama is pushing for fast tracking illegals, and generally speaking seem as soft on illegals -- so...

  3. profile image0
    Sarra Garrettposted 4 years ago

    Cubans who reach Florida soil brag on how it only took them 4 days in a boat to get here.  Once they are on American soil they are allowed to stay and are not deported back to Cuba.  As far as Obama being against illegals, that's totally wrong.  Obama loves the illegals that are in this country, gives them free college educations and free resources that Amercans can't get.

    1. maxoxam41 profile image77
      maxoxam41posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's what I meant Cubans like Brasilians had a prioritary status. Either the US is against immigration, either it promulgates it. Either the US can afford economically migrations of new people on their land, either they can't. But to use it as a tool to deprive Cuba from its manpower, its brains, it's a bit much for me to admit.
      As for Obama's policy to privilege the youth versus the elderliness it obviously responds to economical reasons.

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Nonsense. Every mainstream government or party supports some types of immigration and not others.  The are not just for or against it. And in every country categories with an advantage include the young, healthy, skilled and non-criminal.

        1. maxoxam41 profile image77
          maxoxam41posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The republicans associate illegal immigration as economically unsustainable meaning that the jobs taken by those workers should belong to an American. 7,5% was the last unemployment rate that I checked of. By following the same logic, since we can't function economically with an influx of manpower how can we afford the penetration of our soil of a legal immigration?
          I did not say I can't remember I said I can't find the article. I invite you to find it for me. The website was www.voltairenet.org.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Are you implying that the negative economic impact of 10 million illegal aliens equates to the same as 1,000 legal cubans?  Keep in mind that if those Cubans are caught offshore they are returned to Cuba.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Howdy Sarra.  I hope things are a little better for you. I was happy to read you moved to a new place.

      Sarra, you said President Obama “gives them [undocumented students] free college educations and free resources that Americans can't get.” Please share some specifics with us because honestly I can not find any such programs.

      I have been following the immigration situation in this country for a few years. It led me to write Illegal Immigration and the Economy about a year ago. Therefore, I was surprised to read your claim that the current administration is providing “free” college educations and other “free” resources that are not available to citizens. It prodded me to do a little more research. However, I find nothing to support your assertions.

      There are a few privately funded tuition assistance programs, at least one case of a scholarship with other assistance offered by a religious order, a year old state program in California, and an initiative by a state funded college in Denver, Colorado likely to face a legal challenge. Firstly, none of these are opportunities for a “free college education” provided by the Obama administration and, secondly, since all are matched by similar programs for citizens, none qualify, as you say, as “free resources that Americans can't get.”

      In Massachusetts, for example, Hampshire College Alumni and other supporters have donated nearly $300,000 thus far to a fund for illegal immigrants. This private school reports that the fund will help at least one student per year. {1}

      A “need-based scholarship for undocumented immigrants in California, sponsored by Santa Clara University’s Jesuit Community, helps provide full tuition, as well as room and board, for approximately four incoming freshmen and one transfer student (or current Santa Clara upperclassman) yearly.” {2}

      I did not find any federal government programs that offer free college education, Sarra. One public institution in Colorado offers a reduced tuition in between the regular state resident and the out-of-state student rates. More than 100 undocumented students are paying tuition under this policy. Metropolitan State University of Denver, maybe in defiance of State law, provides this discounted fee only to a student who attended high school in Colorado for at least three years, received a high school or general equivalency diploma in the state, and still resides in Colorado. {3}

      Under 2011 legislation passed in California, undocumented immigrant students pay resident tuition rates if they were graduated from a California high school and can prove they are on the path to legalize their immigration status. They can also apply for state aid if they meet the same requirements as all other students after all the other legal residents have applied. {4}

      I rely on you, Sarra, to let me know if I missed something. Where will I find information about President Obama's free college education? I find lots of benefits extended to immigrants that are available to citizens as well. I have yet to find an example where non-citizens qualify for a form of assistance that is not also available to Americans. I am looking forward to your input.

      I am hoping things continue to improve for you, Sarra.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/11539
      {2} http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/ … university
      {3} http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/us/de … rants.html
      {4} http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f95_1318128202

 
working