Ending the Cold War Cuban Contradiction

April 4, 2016

Guest blogger: Alexina Del Vecchio, first year law student, University of San Fancisco

Immigration scholars have long called for an end to the “Cuban Contradiction” in U.S. immigration and refugee policy. The Obama administration’s historic normalization of relations with Cuba brings the double standard of treatment of Cubans into stark contrast, and makes the contradictory policy even more antiquated and arbitrary. The special treatment of Cuban refugees has been outdated for some time, and the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba is the perfect opportunity to revisit the policy.

This special treatment of Cubans in U.S. immigration policy is entirely related to Cold War politics and completely disconnected from actual refugee or human rights concerns. The 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act was repealed in 1995 by the Clinton administration in response to the the 1994 Balsero Crisis. Prior to 1995, Cubans were nearly automatically accepted as political refugees. While the 1995 policy ended the Cuban Adjustment Act, it began the current policy known as “wet-foot, dry-foot.” Cubans who arrive on dry land in the United States are welcomed and allowed to apply for Legal Permanent Resident Status after residing in the United States for one year. In contrast, migrants fleeing violence, government corruption, and abject poverty in Central America are turned back at the border, or subjected to removal if they are discovered out of status regardless of how long they have lived in this country or how much they have contributed, or, perhaps most disturbingly, irrespective of the conditions they have desperately attempted to escape.

After President Obama’s announcement last year that the United States would formally normalize relations with Cuba, Cuban migration to the United States has surged, as rumors are circulating that the opening of relations could mean the end of the preferential treatment of Cubans. In the summer of 2015, the Coast Guard increased their enforcement efforts to keep up with the increase in “rafters” attempting to reach Florida. It also has become increasingly popular for Cubans to enter through Mexico. Laredo is now the most popular port of entry for Cubans seeking entry to the United States, because it enables them to avoid being caught by the Coast Guard and sent back to Cuba.

The contradiction is particularly upsetting when comparing treatment of Cubans and Haitians. Both nations have histories of oppressive governments known for human rights violations, both are plagued by poverty, and both send asylum seekers by boat. Many immigration advocates are frustrated that “Cubans are getting to walk into the US while Haitians are getting shot and executed in Haiti.” Many observers believe the policy will remain and point to the power of the Cuban-American lobby in the United States; the large population of Cubans who have established themselves economically have sizeable political sway, particularly in and around Miami.

The policy toward Cuban immigrants may have made sense in a Cold War context, but the political reasons for the policy are no longer relevant, and the circumstances and standard of living in Cuba today fail to justify the policy. The Central Intelligence Agency’s World Fact Book reports that living conditions in Cuba are far superior to the rest of Latin America. The Cuban education system is widely regarded to be the best in Latin America, with a literacy rate at 99.8 percent, which is higher than in the United States (99 percent), and far above Honduras (80 percent). Life expectancy in Cuba is longer than every other country in South or Central America, and even the infant mortality rate, which is usually a good indicator of the quality of healthcare, is lower than the U.S. rate. The argument simply cannot be made that Cubans require special treatment because conditions in Cuba are exceptionally bad.

Moreover, the comparatively unwelcoming treatment of non-Cuban migrants and would-be asylees from the region is particularly concerning particularly; this is particularly so, since the economic or government conditions in many of the countries from which these migrants are fleeing result from U.S. policies, such as the installment of right wing regimes over the course of the 20^th century. The United States has supported authoritarian regimes in Mexico, Honduras, Venezuela, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Bolivia, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, and more, whether by military aid, financial support, or direct coup. See DeConde, Alexander, Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy, Volume 1. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2001. Furthermore, U.S. participation in the globalized economy and “free trade” policies in the region contribute to the cycles of poverty in many of these nations, directly cause human rights abuses and the exploitation of laborers. Because the United States has supported the circumstances causing the conditions in those countries, migrants from those countries are treated as an inferior class of migrants when compared to those fleeing Cuba, which the United States has politically and economically opposed for more than fifty years. The treatment of migrants and refugees is entirely political, and the American opposition of the Castro government is the reason for the preferential treatment, not because living conditions in Cuba are worse than elsewhere.

Human rights activists argue that there is still much needed reform in Cuba, such as unlocking websites, ending detention of political prisoners who have not been charged, and fulfilling the government’s promise to allow fact finding visits by international human rights organizations. Although Cuba has a long way to go in terms if human rights, so do so many other developing nations from where asylum seekers are fleeing. The preferential policy needs to end not because Cubans do not deserve to be welcomed into the United States, but because the policy effectively discriminates against all non-Cubans migrating for the exact same reasons.

Regardless of any speculation over how the normalization of relations with Cuba will affect the progress of human rights, it is time for the U.S. government to acknowledge the outdated and arbitrary nature of the preferential treatment of Cubans. The move may be unpopular. But by facing any backlash or anger from Cubans and Cuban Americans over being treated the same as migrants from the rest of the region, the United States will be forced to reckon with the double standard and the broken system currently in place for dealing with those fleeing oppressive regimes or dire living conditions throughout the region.