Cuban American Democrats Feel Emboldened

By her own account, Susana Betancourt earned her anti-Castro cred by helping to represent Bacardi in its trademark fight over Havana Club Rum against the Cuban government -- and winning.

At 37, she's a successful and politically active Gen-Xer, a rising star in Miami's contentious political scene, working to lure Cuban Americans away from the Republican Party.

With Democrats in control of Congress and Raúl Castro running Cuba the past six months as his brother Fidel remains ailing, some believe change is on the horizon. Last week, a bipartisan group, including Arizona Republican Rep. Jeff Flake, and New York Democrat Charles Rangel, once again introduced a bill in the U.S. House to allow travel to Cuba.

SUSANA BETANCOURT:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16576318.htm

Comments

[escoosmi]

Hernandez said. ``I am hoping that the Democratic Party, which is the one that really planned for the reentry of Cuban exiles into Cuba when this first happened, will be at the helm when, hopefully, we are back in Cuba.''

Can somebody explain to me what this lady "really" meant by saying that it was the Democratic Party that "really planned for the reentry of Cuban exiles into Cuba when this first happened"? Is she inferring that Cubans and Cuban-Americans who identify with the GOP have no legitimate intentions or plans to one day return to Cuba? Quite a wacky statement to conclude a pretty wacky article...

[nonee moose]

scooz:

I think she may be referring to the party in power at the time "re-entry" (that's probably a euphemism, for what exactly, I don't know) was first contemplated. She might have it wrong by a couple of Eisenhower years, if that's the case. Nevermind, the point may be only to argue that it is the Democratic party which is now claiming ownership over the rising sentiment that Cuba policy needs "adjustment". The debate my be one of degrees only.

[cantinflas]

Hmmm. Let me see...the last time a democrat was in the White House four us citizens where murdered by Fidel Castro and jack-booted government agents pushed old men to the ground and pepper sprayed defenseless women to retrieve a child at gunpoint and send him back to Cuba.

To say nothing of the fact most Cubans are pro-life Catholics who reject gay marriage and other social issues pushed by Democrats.

So tell me again Joe Garcia, why should I vote for a Democrat?

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

Shilling for a company (Bacardí) that essentially underwrote Fidel Castro's revolution because of the family's hatred for "ese negro Batista" hardly establishes one's bona fides as an anti-Communist in Miami. Castro betrayed Bacardí as he betrayed everyone else who supported him. Except that not everybody contributed millions to his cause.

[David]

Cantinflas
What has the Republican party done for Cuba? Here is a secret: The Republicans KNOW they will fool Cubans into voting for them as long as Fidel and Raul run the show. They are in no hurry to get rid of them. Once they are out of power, the Republicans have no way of controlling the Cuban vote.

[nonee moose]

IF the Republican's have been riding the "anti-Kennedy" wave, they need to get on the stick and work to retain the C-A vote. IF there are C-A Republicans who are knee-jerk anti-Kennedy's (as opposed to informed "anti-Democrats", on whatever valid basis), that demographic (bless their hearts) is a dying one. And IF the Democratic party can use its rising power to strike reasonable, AND DELIVERABLE, positions that resonate with the growing sentiment of a growing, and more informed (and more detached) demographic, then yes, perhaps the C-A vote will begin to mirror the national political spectrum more closely... IF

[usambcuba]

What has this Administration and the Republican party done for the Cuban American community? NOTHING. Actually, what they have done is hurt the community under the convoluded rationale that current policies somehow will force Castro out and Cuba to be democratic and free. All it has done is hurt their own people. Nothing has changed in Cuba. But they are all the happier to take your money and tell you what you want to hear. The issue sadly became a political whore.

The chicken that will come home to roost when Castro dies is the realization that all these policies that were supported by the hardliners was a big failure.

You want a reason to vote Democratic -- they are not supporting our policies that hurt Cuban American families and violate our rights to travel.

[Changui]

As a Cuban American and registered Republican I must say that the US policy towards Cuba is due for a change. Let Americans travel freely whenever they wish. Let's try to work with Cuba to establish diplomatic relationships. I will NOT vote for any politician that will support sanctions against the people of Cuba.

[jose]

i too am cuban-american born in Miami in 1980. I agree with the last comment. . . the sanctions have obvsiouly not worked and travel restrictions are immoral. - two wrongs doesn't make a right. .

time for change! go Dems!

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

jose:

You are right: two wrongs don't make a right. But what do a billion wrongs make? Communist Cuba. Yet you would reward the billion wrongs but take exception to two.

[curt]

Viva to the Bolivarian Youth! At least Miami-Dade has some intelligent people looking for change.

[nonee moose]

LOL, curt. funny as ever. i spit up my coffee when i read that.

tell me, is it hard to breath with your head up your ass?

[nonee moose]

btw, curt, if the bolognarian utes are looking for change, maybe they should start with the couch. i hear there's always change under the cushions...

[curt]

Nonnie, hope that coffee burned your tongue. Next time try to swallow the coffee. I heard that caffine can boost inteligence. Maybe then you will see things more clearly.

[usambcuba]

DELAHUNT INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO LIFT RESTRICTIONS ON AMERICANS TRAVELING TO CUBA

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Bill Delahunt (D-MA), Chairman of the International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Congressman Ray LaHood (R-IL), a member of the House Committee on Appropriations, held a press conference today regarding legislation they introduced that will permit Cuban-Americans to travel at will to Cuba in order to provide assistance to their family members living on the island.

This is the text of Congressman Delahunt's statement at today's press conference:

I'm Bill Delahunt from Massachusetts, and I'm the Democratic co-chair of the House Cuba Working Group. Today my colleagues and I have introduced "The Cuban-American Family Rights Restoration Act."

This bill would allow American citizens and permanent residents with relatives in Cuba to travel there whenever they want, without having to get permission from the US government. It would allow them to carry remittances with them in any amount to give to their families. And it would prohibit the President from imposing any restrictions on family travel.

This bill is about our Cuba policy. A policy that I believe has been a total failure. A policy that has reduced American influence on the island to almost nothing as dramatic changes are occurring.

But the restrictions imposed on families by the Bush Administration make it about something much more. This is about moral values. Family values. This bill is an effort to change an immoral policy. One that has caused incredible pain and suffering to our own citizens as well as Cubans. And tarnished our image in the world.

As part of the US embargo, ordinary Americans are prohibited from traveling to Cuba. But until 2004, Cuban-Americans were effectively exempt from this restriction, if the purpose was to visit relatives. These family visits are critical for Cubans on the island. Their relatives bring money, medicine, clothes, and humanitarian supplies. But they are just as important for Cuban-Americans. Because these visits let them fulfill that most basic of human obligations: helping your family. They tell those still on the island: We care. You have not been abandoned. We won’t let politics interfere with family.

But in 2004, President Bush imposed brutal new restrictions on Cuban-Americans. He redefined the word “family” to exclude aunts and uncles and cousins. Now Cuban-Americans can only go to Cuba if they get permission. Even worse, they can only go once every three years. With no humanitarian exemptions, not even for terminal illness or death. The callous nature of this policy was revealed by one of the authors of the policy. Here’s what he said:

"An individual can decide when they want to travel once every three years and the decision is up to them. So if they have a dying relative, they have to figure out when they want to travel."

That was Dan Fisk, who was then Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere. Now he works in the White House. Think about what he said. If your mother and father die within three years of each other, you have to decide which funeral to attend. Imagine having to make that choice. It is stunning in its cruelty.

It’s anti-family. It’s anti-American. And it only magnifies the pain and the anguish and the heartache that Cubans and Cuban-Americans already have to suffer because of the dispute between our two governments.

There’s no need to describe each of the cases of ordinary people who have been hurt by this immoral policy. I’ll just mention one: that of Carlos Lazo, who won the Bronze Star in Iraq. But when he was home on a two-week furlough, and wanted to visit his sons in Cuba, he could not. Carlos risked his life for us in combat in Iraq, and we deny him the right to see his sons? That is heartless. That is wrong. And it goes against everything that America claims t be about.

Many Cuban exiles recognize this, even those who are fiercely opposed to Fidel Castro. Here’s a quote from a blog on the Internet that’s called “Kill Castro.” So you can guess where its authors are coming from. But they support ending restrictions on travel and remittances. This is what they have to say:

“Why do we want to go against the grain of normal human feelings, which are – according to our culture – to help people in need? Why do we want people to forget about their families and to ignore their pleas? Is it going to destroy the tyranny? Or is it going to send a message to Cuba that is totally negative? Do we think that the people of Cuba is really going to ignore the fact that some of us are for their punishment? Who gave us moral authority to tell free people –Cuban exiles – what to do, and who gave us moral authority to impose only one view on them? Our position is that there should be total freedom to do what you want, go to Cuba, or not, send money or not, and that's going to be your own personal decision and responsibility. It's not our position to dictate what anybody should do.”

That is why we are introducing this bill today. So while this bill may technically be about US policy toward Cuba. But what it is really about is restoring some of America’s moral authority. If we are truly going to be a leader on human rights, we need to end this immoral policy. And this bill will do that.

Now I’d like to introduce my colleague Ray LaHood of Illinois, a member of the Cuba Working Group.

[nonee moose]

curt, baby, you're doing it again...

if i boost my intelligence any more then i could only enjoy your lower order existence with a curiosity reserved for the odd insect that gets caught on my windshield... wait a minute, nevermind...

do the one where you shout Viva! again. I love that one...

[curt]

How about this noneee. Viva Hugo Chavez for introducing 21st century socialism to Venezuela and exposing the evils of capitalism. I traveled to Venezuela recently where I saw elderly people learning how to read & write for the first time. I also visited hospitals & schools in areas where there were formerly none. Hopefully Chavez's style of socialism will spread throughout Latin America and other impoverished areas in the world.

[nonee moose]

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH wait... HAHHAHQAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Stop it! HAHAHAHAHAH

Curt, you're a professional, right? No amateur is this good. You take this act on the road?

But you know what? The Venezuelan people get what they allow. I don't wish it for them. Lord knows, they should have learned from the Cuba experiment. But so be it.

What cracks me up is that you can sit here, in the good ole', with your internet access and your frapuccino, with the expectation that "21st centruy socialism" will provide you with those very comforts. Good luck to you, comrade.

You think you fight the good fight here? En la frontera, eh? You big pussy. You just want to see the naked heathens. Much respect.

[roberto e]

More licenses to do business in Cuba have been issued by the Bush Treasury Dept than the total in the previous 41 years

As a Democrat I know that guys like Charlie Rangel have always supported Castro for more philosophical reasons than $$$$$$$

While as a former Republican I know that that State and Congressional Republicans , Cuban Americans included receive millions in donations from pork barrel supporters of the tax teat sucking Agri/Medical and Energy lobbies that are pushing to lift the embargo.

These same Cuban American legislators like David Rivera and others at the same time deny families the opportunity to visit and aid their families in Cuba while.

Only thru visiting can we re-establish contact with a nation and its people

I rather prove to Charlie Rangel that he is wrong by showing him what was done to Elias Biscet and countless other dissidents.
Than give another Dollar to Cuba LIbre shouting Republicans like Rivera,Rubio,Diaz Balart who takes $$$ from groups doing business in Cuba then they stop people from helping their families in Cuba

I do agree with Charlie Rangel on bringing back the Draft with no deferments.
So we can draft the sons and daughters of tax teat-sucking parasites like the new REPUBLICAN MINORITY.and yes the elite of the Democratic party and some of their rich supporters also

By not allowing Cuban Americans to visit we are allowing Cuba to repeat its past like in the Treaty of Paris where the Cuban people were not represented ,back then only the Spanish, Spanish land owners in Cuba, and the USA were represented
Today its the Castro family, a few generals and the US and Spanish corporations thru their respective governments.

By limiting contact between Cubans we are doing their bidding or do some of the Harliners already know that?

[Ceyaotl]

Look Castro will suck up any profit that comes his way. Until he is gone any money spent or sent to Cuba is going right into the Communist pockets. Cubans are now getting most of their produce from the U.S. Thanks to Bush right after the 2000 election. No matter how much time has made people forget how much of a killer Castro is and no matter how much the Left in this country try and pass today off as "Better than the past". The communist still run Cuba. The people are poor and have no say in their government. So we should deal with the devil now because the people on the edge of hell only get a little burned? If Castro had his way the USA would have been nuked a long time ago. Yes family members there still need money sent to them but only to survive. We should have invaded a long time ago. My heart is sad for the Cuban people.

As far as the Democrats being the Party of choice now. huh! I guess if that is what you want to think you go right ahead. There is not one conservative word in the Parties platform. They have only recently decided they were religious because it is the only way to get elected. Show me one real Catholic or one real Christian that believes in abortion in any trimester and under any condition and I will show you a liar that is a Liberal.

[Gilberto Acevedo]

Further reflecting on the travel-restriction law, one has to, inevitably, come across the question of ‘where is the line between unjust law and state crime?’ Genocides, concentration camps, violation of human rights, and other forms of state decrees designed to produce human suffering are classified as state crimes. Examples of which are China, former Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba. Whereas in the case of the U.S., we refer to the travel restriction as an unjust law, is a matter of speaking democratically. But in reality the law is a criminal mechanism put in place by the President, aimed at producing human suffering and family desolation.
Hence, it is a civil duty to be dismissive and further disobedient of bad laws. In jurisprudence we have apparently taken the phrase ‘lex iniusta non est lex’ as a simple slogan, and have neglected the fact that those unjust laws must be fought outside the courtroom. Most judges are political subordinates to those who enact bad laws, and are particularly unsympathetic to anyone who challenges any law, period. Judges who become sympathetic to dismissive advocates are often referred to as renegades or activists. And that can be politically disenfranchising, therefore, and eventually, judicially disenfranchising.
Throughout the history of legal proceedings, we have being interested to learn that what it was unjust in ancient world, remains unjust today. The difference is that yesteryear unjust laws had fewer abdicates than today. Earlier than St. Augustine’s dismissive judgment on unjust laws, Plato sustained that where enactments respond to other than to the “common interest, are not true laws.” Aristotle, too, was concerned about democracies formed by unjust constitutions, and contended that those were not “constitution[s] at all.”
Now let us take a glance at how Cicero criticizes unjust laws:
“Those who formulated wicked and unjust
statutes for nations, thereby breaking their
promises and agreements, put into effect
anything but laws.”
So is the case of the travel-restriction law, where the very principle of justice is not, as it should be, an essence of law. The law of reciprocity indicates that law is the tool to apply for and deliver justice; conversely, law is the tool designed to achieve justice. Law should never become a tool to achieve injustice. An unjust law is not a statute at all, even when a powerful man puts it in writing and threatens with enforcement thereof.
Aquinas, who adhered to Augustine’s dismissive judgment, was apparently fascinated with a passage from De libero arbitrio I v II: “lex mibi esse non videtur, quae iusta non fuerit” (For that which is not just does not seem to me to be a law). Interestingly enough, while most modern legal analysts are concerned with the philosophical correctness between justice and law, the president departs from that virtuous set of ethics without any regards to the harms he creates to the credibility of us as a nation.
We have grown relatively relaxed to the belief that government will not rewalk the paths of the past, and generally do not expect unjust laws to be enacted; even when we are well aware that injustice can take place anywhere at any time. That is, we understand that there are unjust men, but that there should not be unjust laws.
But I wanted to refer to Cicero earlier because is he who most closely prescribes the formula for this difficult incursion. Conventionally speaking, one has to agree that a promise under oath is a binding accountability to the people and institutions governing that solemn moment. The President swore under oath, before the nation and the entire world, to defend the Constitution of the United States. He agreed to be faithful to those essential principles and “so help me God.” Does that mean that the only way that he can be stop from breaking that pledge is through a divine intervention? I think not. We all have the power to stop him. We can all be dismissive of unjust laws; and the best power at hand is our democratic prerogative to disobey his unjust order.
I did not want to make this dismissive judgment endlessly tedious by citing historic passages, but I will briefly visit history to extract enough foundation for my argument: Had not Rosa Park and Martin Luther King disobeyed an unjust law, we would all still be segregated.
The most troublesome aspect of unjust laws is that law enforcement is tasked with enforcement thereof; and that is what makes it a state crime. It is noble, furthermore a civil duty, to refuse enforcement of an unjust law. Likewise, it is a civil duty to disobey it. And I would put the metaphor quite differently than that of Kretzmann’s. A soldier has the obligation to follow orders, as long as the command does not involve the commission of a crime. Unless the soldier can show to have followed such order under duress, he, too, is guilty.
I mentioned ‘crime’ deliberately, not by misschoosing my words. If a law is enacted to produce harm through incarceration as a way to enforce it, more than unjust, it is criminal. If it simply offends the Constitution, but stands to produce no harm, I think of it from the civil system perspective. But when it involves the use of state force, it raises its category from civil wrong to state crime.
Waiting for Congress to repeal a law that is producing harm to me and my family, is not an option for me. I am not constitutionally bind to obey an unjust law, and this dismissive judgment on §515.560 et seq. is my constitutionally and naturally given right, as a citizen of the United States of America, to say NO to the President’s unconstitutional stance, that I do not need a special license to comfort and care for my love ones. I will visit my children, grandchildren, siblings, nephews, cousins, aunts, and uncles as soon as I can and when I please. And what I do with my after-tax hard-earned money is not an option of government. That is solely my business.