Max J. Castro. Published Tuesday, October 2, 2001.
The Miami Herald
The nation's new climate is recasting nearly every policy debate in a
different light. That is no less true with respect to a pair of issues of deep
interest to South Florida: immigration and Cuba. In each case, a trend toward a
more-flexible policy was visible before Sept. 11, albeit much more so in the
case of immigration. Will the trends continue, or will hard-line approaches
prevail as they often do during na- tional crises?
The answer is uncertain, but advocates have been hard at work framing the
implications of the terrorist attack in ways that will foster their objectives.
Immigration: There is little doubt the momentum has shifted. The last five
years had not been kind to the anti-immigration lobby. Recently, it seemed as if
the Bush administration and congressional Democrats were competing over which
side was more pro-immigrant. The president was considering giving legal status
to millions of undocumented Mexican immigrants; the Democrats offered a path
toward legal residence and eventual citizenship to an even-larger number of
immigrants without regard to country.
Since Sept. 11, immigration opponents clearly feel that the pendulum has
swung in their direction. Some seem barely able to contain their glee. "Caught
with our borders down!'' proclaimed the Internet magazine of ProjectUSA, an
organization that promotes an anti-immigration message through billboards.
Yet the real agenda of anti-immigration groups is the same now as it was
before. It has little to do with homeland security and much with bias toward
immigrants. In their own words, which betray them, the main thing ProjectUSA and
other anti-immigration groups would like the government to do is stop all
immigration to give "the assimilation process time to counter the growing
presence of unassimilated, impenetrable culturally antagonistic ethnic
enclaves.'' They want "another immigration time-out similar to what we had
between 1925 and 1965.''
The truth about 1925-1965 is that it was a time in which racist rules,
enacted during the anti-immigrant hysteria of the 1920s, governed immigration
policy (as they did many other aspects of public life). Is that the Utopia to
which immigration hard-liners want us to return? Still, immigrant advocates have
their work cut out; a foreign threat plus a deep recession is the perfect
breeding ground for xenophobia.
That is not to say that the Immigration and Naturalization Service should
not do a better job of controlling the borders. But consider that in 1998 more
than 30 million visitors were admitted into the United States. How do you keep
track of 30 million people? Even Cuba, a tightly controlled island, failed to
prevent a group of amateur terrorists masquerading as tourists from bombing
several Havana hotels and restaurants in 1997. Only better human intelligence
and a more-humane, intelligent foreign policy, not a Draconian immigration
policy, will make us safer.
Cuba: Hawks are trying to parlay the fact that the island is on the State
Department's list of nations that sponsor terrorism into a tougher U.S. stand,
perhaps even military action.
Doves counter that the list is influenced by politics: Nations that should
be on the list are not (Afghanistan), while nations that should not be are
(Cuba). They argue that Cuba is on the list largely to satisfy hard-line exiles
and that U.S. officials privately acknowledge that Cuba currently does not
sponsor terrorism. They say that the United States should take Fidel Castro up
on the offer to cooperate in the fight against terrorism and use that as a
springboard for better bilateral relations.
It is anybody's guess who will prevail, but it seems certain that hawks
won't get what they want. The U.S policy on Cuba is already a sore point with
the very international community that the United States is trying to rally. It
would be folly to create a rift for the sake of a secondary and unnecessary
fight.
maxcastro@miami.edu
Copyright 2001 Miami Herald | 
