Cuban Refugees - Essay Example

Cuban Refugees The Cubans should not be permitted to remain in the U.S. Under the U.S.’s wet foot, dry foot policy, the law is very clear. If a Cuban reaches dry U.S. land, they can stay. On the other hand, if they do not reach land, they are turned back. The U.S. made the wet foot, dry foot law as the guideline to follow concerning Cubans trying to reach America. This is strictly adhered to by the U.S. Coast Guard. If a Cuban is in knee-high water, standing up on his own, but is caught by the Coast Guard before he reaches dry land, the Cuban is sent back.

This leads to the conclusion that even if a Cuban is in U.S. waters, they are turned back. The fifteen Cubans in this story were found in U.S. waters, but that does not matter. Under the law, they must be able to reach dry land. If the U.S. makes exceptions for these fifteen people, the floodgates would open. Cubans would only try to make it to the bridges, not to actual U.S. land. Even if the bridge had been connected to the land, the Cubans must be returned. The reasoning behind this theory is simple.

A Cuban can reach U.S. land on a boat if the Coast Guard does not detain them. If we allowed these fifteen Cubans to stay, a precedent would be set. Cubans in U.S. water would have to be allowed to stay. If these fifteen people were allowed to stay because the piling was under U.S. control, other Cubans could argue successfully, that anyone in U.S. waters would be under U.S. control. That would mean boats, pilings, or even debris in U.S. water would be under U.S. control. This would lead to the belief that if a person lands on any one of these things, they should be able to stay.

On the other hand, if the bridge had been connected to the land, the question arises who would have jurisdiction over the bridge? If the Coast Guard patrolled the bridge, then the rules above apply. The Cubans would have been turned back. Yet, if the Florida Keys Police were in charge, then the Cubans should have been able to stay because the jurisdiction would fall to the state authorities, not federal ones. The fifteen Cubans in this story thought they had complied with the U.S.’s wet foot, dry foot policy by climbing on the old piling. The U.S.

Courts cannot take into account what the Cubans believed to be the law. In America ignorance of the law is not a viable argument. In the defense of the fifteen Cubans, they must have been desperate to try to reach the U.S. on a small homemade boat. Castro’s Cuba is not a good place to live. The U.S. offers asylum to people oppressed in their native countries, only if they reach American land. Obviously, the Cuban people are oppressed. The U.S. needs to adopt a different policy if they want to help oppressed people of the world.

In the end, under the current law, the Cubans in this story must return to Cuba. If the opponents of this action do not like the decision, they must work to change the current law. All Americans are entitled to challenge and change laws, but until that happens, we must follow the dry feet, wet feet law.