The debate over immigration and refugees has been a central issue to several presidential campaigns this year, particularly on the Republican side. From refugees fleeing persecution and warfare in the Middle East, to immigrants seeking safe harbor from gangland violence and faltering economies in Latin America, the question over the United States’ role in the process continues to come to a head.
While candidates on the Republican side seem to preach a philosophy of walls, no amnesty, no jobs, and no path to citizenship, they neglect the current laws we have in place that allow Cuban refugees, if they can get here, to have permanent resident status. Surprisingly, only Donald Trump has spoken out against the law in its entirety.
Cuban immigrants have long had significant protections under our legal system. In 1966, the Cuban Adjustment Act allowed all Cubans who could reach the United States a chance to gain permanent residency after a waiting period of two years. This law has been modified over the years, reducing the waiting period to apply for permanent residency to one year and turning back those picked up in U.S.-owned waters or those with a criminal background.
In its final form, this law essentially gives preferential treatment to Cuban immigrants who can claim refugee status. This allows most Cubans, if they can get here, carte blanche to begin a new life with immediate access to the same welfare programs as U.S. citizens.
One of the biggest problems with this law stems from its potential for abuse, especially in regard to children. The law only stipulates that one of the parents must be Cuban, not even that the child be from Cuba. In many cases, children of mixed Cuban descent are offered the same benefits as if they were from Cuba themselves. Children who have never lived in Cuba are consistently gaining protection under the law through this loophole.
Problems also arise once the person has gained their residency. Cubans have headed back to Cuba once they’ve gained permanent residency and access to government benefits. Under the current law, there is no recourse against people who perform this type of fraud.
Ethically, there are also problems. Why do we still help Cuban immigrants to the extent that we do if their standard of living and safety are much better in Cuba than for many Syrian refugees and Latin American immigrants? Wouldn’t it be more fair to offer everyone the same chance at a life in America?
One candidate, Marco Rubio, has suggested reform of the law to remove loopholes, yet has failed to address the ethical dilemma of the law: the unfair advantage it gives to Cuban immigrants over other immigrants. Candidates speak of America as the land of opportunity, fairness and freedom, yet they have no issue in giving Cubans a better chance than anyone else. Why do we treat Cubans more kindly than people actually fleeing a warzone?
Frankly, the candidates are simply pandering to the large Cuban population of Florida. This is particularly ironic given what the candidates believe about the Democrats and immigration. Florida is not an insignificant state in a general election, so the motivation makes sense, but can they really claim to be “hard on immigration” if they support this law?