There’s always been something peculiar about America’s “wet foot, dry foot” policy — an immigration protocol based on whether a Cuban refugee had stepped on American soil or was floating in some dinghy off the Florida coast. Feet on dry
There’s always been something peculiar about America’s “wet foot, dry foot” policy — an immigration protocol based on whether a Cuban refugee had stepped on American soil or was floating in some dinghy off the Florida coast. Feet on dry land yielded a welcome mat and a path toward U.S. citizenship. Feet in the water meant a trip back to life with Fidel Castro.
There’s always been something peculiar about America’s “wet foot, dry foot” policy — an immigration protocol based on whether a Cuban refugee had stepped on American soil or was floating in some dinghy off the Florida coast. Feet on dry land yielded a welcome mat and a path toward U.S. citizenship. Feet in the water meant a trip back to life with Fidel Castro.
It was part of an overall policy, anchored by the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, that fast-tracked legal residency for Cuban migrants coming to the U.S. The act reflected Washington’s concern over Cubans fleeing persecution from Castro’s oppressive regime. Wet foot, dry foot emerged in the mid-1990s, when thousands of Cubans fled the island in boats and makeshift rafts built from doors and inner tubes in a desperate, dangerous sojourn across the Florida Straits. President Bill Clinton reached an agreement with the Castro government to turn back Cubans intercepted at sea. But those able to set foot on U.S. land were allowed to stay.
President Barack Obama shut down wet foot, dry foot last week, a logical step in his push to normalize relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Will President Donald Trump let the change stand? It’s hard to predict, based on his typically contradictory musings about Cuba. But he should.
America’s policy has rested on the premise that Cubans leaving their country were fleeing political persecution — and Trump has noted, correctly, that the Cuban people still are not able to worship freely or criticize their government without consequences. But what about refugees fleeing abuses in Syria or Venezuela, for example? They are not automatically welcome here.
Many Cubans are drawn to the U.S. by economic motives. They simply want a better life, as do the legions of immigrants from Mexico, Guatemala and the rest of Central America. But those migrants have never had the leg up enjoyed by their Cuban counterparts.
Obama’s move to normalize relations with Cuba foreshadowed the end of wet foot, dry foot, encouraging many Cubans to attempt a crossing while they still could.
It’s clear the policy change will create hardship for some. Cubans en route to the U.S. — either by boat or via the Mexican border — are out of luck. In some cases, families have been cleaved. The Associated Press told the story of Luis Alberto Rodriguez, who arrived in Laredo, Texas, on New Year’s Eve, hoping his wife and two children would soon join him. He wept when he heard about Obama’s announcement, uncertain when he would see his family again.
Will Trump be swayed by such stories? Trump hasn’t articulated a Cuba policy yet. Instead, he has contradicted himself on several occasions. He should let it stand.
As Trump formulates his policy toward Havana, he should think about the fallout if normalization with Cuba unravels. Five decades of embargo and diplomatic dead air have not brought Cuba any closer to democratic and human rights reform. There should be no turning back.
— Chicago Tribune
