This is what Fred Thompson, up to now the one presidential hopeful who has risen above the pandering and rhetoric when talking about Cuba, said Wednesday during a campaign stop in South Carolina about Cuban migrants/refugees arriving in the United States:
"I don't imagine they're coming here to bring greetings from Castro. We're living in the era of the suitcase bomb."
Not the most politic comment, especially on a topic so important to a powerful electoral constituency.
(The liberal media and other nannies, are likely to give Thompson a pass. After all, it's not like he suggested Muslim immigrants might have a proclivity for terrorism.)
Still, Phil Peters thinks Thompson's is a point worth considering, and I agree:
Thompson is putting his finger on something interesting here.
The Administration calls Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism.
Washington also maintains a policy of allowing Cubans who are illegal immigrants – those who arrive in U.S. territory, by boat or across the Mexican border, with no visa and no basis for an asylum claim – to come right in. (The Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 has nothing to do with this practice, and it certainly does not require it. The Act does give Cubans who are here for one year an opportunity to acquire legal status, and they overwhelmingly avail themselves of that opportunity.)
You may agree or disagree with either policy, but it is hard to argue that the two are compatible. If Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism, the open-door policy toward Cuban migrants represents a huge danger to U.S. national security. It is an open invitation to Cuba to send operatives into the United States in the guise of normal migrants.
As Peters suggests, too much about American policy on Cuba is based on contradictions and expediencies. Cuba is a terrorist state, but for reasons political, humanitarian and otherwise — all reasons I agree with — we leave the doors wide open. It's not like we would ever do the same for migrants from Iran or North Korea, other nations on the terror list, and let them stay, no questions asked.
And then there is the greatest current contradiction of current U.S. policy: Wet-foot, dry-foot. We welcome Cubans with open arms if they make it to American soil, because Cuba is un-free, and the U.S. is free, and we believe Cubans deserve the same.
But if those same Cubans don't make it to dry soil, we collude with the same dictatorship we label as terrorist, to send the migrants back, to discourage other Cubans from doing the same.
In the meantime, the dictatorship keeps repressing its way towards its 49th anniversary.
Here's guessing that Thompson was not talking about contradictions and expediencies. Except for maybe his own on Thursday, as he tried to "clarify" his earlier comments. A smart move, perhaps, but disappointing considering how quickly Thompson resorted to something resembling pandering and rhetoric, by reiterating how much he loves Cubans, and the more, the merrier.
But more love is not what we need, what Cubans need, what America needs.
This moment in Cuban history deserves better from the United States.
What is needed in an American president who will rise above the old, tired, anything-for-the-votes rhetoric; break through the pandering and the contradictions; and lead with policies and actions that will help free a nation.
Whether the next president is Thompson or someone else, that must be item No. 1 on the Cuba agenda.
Recent Comments