Exile Leaders Quit GOP Over Migrants' Return

MIAMI -- Since the 1980s, when then Vice President George H.W. Bush swore in 10,000 Cuban exiles as American citizens at Miami's Orange Bowl, South Florida's Cuban exile community has provided a solid voting bloc for the Republican Party, whose hard-line policies toward the Fidel Castro government are looked on favorably by the approximately 400,000 Cuban expatriates living in the state.

But recent rifts with the George W. Bush administration may put the Cuban-American vote in play in 2004. And increasingly, tension between the traditional leadership of the exile community and three Cuban-American members of congress is growing, as some exiles begin to question what they have gotten for their loyalty to the GOP.

On Friday, leaders of a leading exile group, Brothers to the Rescue fought back, announcing that the group will renounce their political party affiliation from Republican Party to protest a U.S. decision to send 15 suspected hijackers back to Cuba. They said the move does not mean the group will support the Democrats, but rather that Cuban-Americans will vote for whoever supports their cause.

Basulto, a familiar figure in Cuban exile politics in Miami, made the announcement at the Versailles Restaurant in downtown Miami, a popular gathering spot for members of the generation that fled the island after Castro came to power in 1954 following a coup that overthrew dictator Fulgencio Batista.

Members of the group publicly filled out new voter registration cards, changing their affiliation from Republican to "no party affiliation."

Basulto said the group's action comes amid what he called the "un-American" actions of the Bush administration in repatriating the migrants.

"I believe that the United States has committed an un-American act under the George W. Bush administration by sending our compatriots back to Cuba, a country where there is state terrorism and where they do not respect any human rights," Basulto said, adding that those sent back are not criminals. "They are called migrants," said Basulto. "They are refugees."

The decision leaves Cuban-American, Republican elected officials in an awkward position, particularly as other prominent politicians like Miami-Dade Mayor Alex Penelas, a Democrat, vie for the national stage. Penelas has announced that he will consider seeking Bob Graham's U.S. Senate seat if Graham chooses not to run for reelection. Graham is running for president.

With U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, Cuban exiles have been increasingly agitating for a U.S. policy of "regime change" in Cuba as well. They want more money for Radio Marti, which broadcasts anti-Castro radio messages to the island. And they want more overt support for dissident groups seeking democratic reforms on the island. This comes as Castro undertakes the largest crackdown on dissent on the island in decades, jailing more than 70 dissidents in recent months and executing a group of men accused of hijacking a ferry boat in a vain attempt to reach Florida.

In fact, Bush administration rhetoric regarding Cuba has been harsh, with everyone from the president to Secretary of State Collin Powell blasting Havana's treatment of dissidents. But the administration's policies have been driven as much by security concerns in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as by concerns for democracy. Keeping U.S. borders secure means increased Coast Guard patrols, and strict enforcement of laws calling for the interdiction of migrants at sea, and the return of any who fail to reach land under the 40-year-old "wet foot/dry foot" policy.

The growing rift between some exile groups, including the Cuban American National Foundation and others, boiled over this week, amid outrage over the U.S. decision to return 15 Cubans to the island. The 15 were accused of attempting to hijack a boat to Florida.

The 15 migrants were returned to the island on Monday, after the U.S. struck an agreement with the Castro government in which Havana promised Washington that the accused hijackers would not be executed, and that, "taking into consideration the exceptional circumstances of the case" prosecutors here would seek no more than 10 years in prison for the two accused of stealing the boat.

The Cuban government praised the decision to return the migrants, along with a decision by U.S. officials earlier in the year to prosecute a Cuban man charged with hijacking a plane full of passengers to the United States, but Cuban-American groups excoriated it, taking to the airwaves on Spanish-language radio stations to issue rare denunciations of a Republican administration.

It wasn't the first complaint from loyal Cuban-Americans about the GOP. In May, Ros-Lehtinen publicly groused that her letters to the White House were being ignored. And NBC 6 reporter Hank Tester reported in that month about a growing dissatisfaction among many older exiles, who have heard Republican presidents since Richard Nixon "talk the talk," but who have seen Castro continue to rule anyway.

But what is new about the complaints is that they come with more than grousing, and they are exposing internal rifts in the exile community as sharp as the differences with Washington.

The three Cuban-American congressmen from South Florida, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Mario Diaz-Balart, all Republicans, issued a joint statement condemning the decision to repatriate the migrants, calling it an "act of infamy in coordination with the Cuban tyranny," and "a condemnable monstrosity," but that proved too little for many in the Cuban-American community, including the CANF's Executive Director Joe Garcia, who called Lincoln Diaz-Balart "impotent" for his alleged lack of influence with the Bush White House, according to The Miami Herald.

As the controversy over the repatriation has boiled over, Garcia and others have been questioning what the community has gotten for its loyalty to the GOP. And Garcia, a Democrat, has been leading a push within his organization to encourage the Cuban exile community to seek influence in both political parties. Former President Bill Clinton won 30 percent of the Cuban-American vote in 1996, though his administration lost much of that support during the Elian Gonzalez controversy in 2000. Still, Garcia and others have begun to talk about modeling their political strategy after that of Jewish Americans, who keep their vote in play between the parties, though a majority continues to vote for Democrats.

The Bush administration has expressed solidarity with those seeking democracy on the island, but American officials have said they will be tough on those who try to hijack planes or boats in order to get to the U.S.

"I will repeat my earlier statement that hijackings of boats and aircraft are extremely serious violations of international law and of United States law," said an English language version of the statement provided by the U.S. mission in Cuba announcing the repatriations.

"The United States will deploy its homeland security forces to interdict any hijacked conveyance bound for the United States," it said. "Any individual of any nationality -- including Cuban -- who hijacks an aircraft or vessel and successfully arrives in the United States will be prosecuted with the full force of the U.S. legal system."

"Folks, there are other ways to get to the US besides putting a gun in someone's stomach."

The argument that you are making here, is that taking up arms in order to gain your God-given right to live free is somehow bad.

I can't figure out if your argument is more anti second amendment, than it is anti conservative.

An individual has a right to be free, and he has the right to do whatever it takes to take back his freedom from them who have taken it away.

These men didn't kill or harm anyone in the process. Human rights trump "international laws" at any level.

See these guys on the picture?

They didn't put a gun to anyone's head, they were crafty, imaginative, daring, and resourceful.

These guys decided that they would either live free, or die trying.

They were sent back as well.

The administration that I have so staunchly supported for so many years, sent these men back.

It’s not a good thing that was done here.

Even while observing the need to watch our borders, something different could have been done.

In the past, other governments have offered asylum to these balseros. when allowed to do so.

It was a bad move for Bush, and the opening that Joe Garcia(D) and the CANF needed in order to bring votes to the DNC. It is no longer the organization that it was under Jorge Mas Canosa.

I think President Bush is in trouble down here.

"Folks, there are other ways to get to the US besides putting a gun in someone's stomach."

The argument that you are making here, is that taking up arms in order to gain your God-given right to live free is somehow bad.

No that's not the argument I'm making, but I can understand you being somewhat confused. The argument I'm making is that we live next door to Cuba. Despite the form of government there, we still have to deal with that government in ways that protect our own people. If we are going to approve of Cuban nationals hijacking aircraft in Cuba and flying them here, then granting them asylum, how can we complain when people commandeer aircraft in the U.S. and fly to Cuba? We can't expect the Cuban government to refuse entry to our hijackers if we're going to welcome theirs with open arms.

I can't figure out if your argument is more anti second amendment, than it is anti conservative.

Luis we have small airports across this nation with millions of aircraft. Only the treaty with Cuba allows us the assurance that those aircraft owners won't be hijacked at gunpoint and ordered to fly to Cuba. The reason they won't be, is because the Cuban government has agreed to return aircraft, owner and hijacker to the U.S.

An individual has a right to be free, and he has the right to do whatever it takes to take back his freedom from them who have taken it away.

Taking back your freedom from those who took it away from you, does not involve hijacking an airplane and escaping. If an aircraft were hijacked and used as part of a coup attempt internally, it might.

These men didn't kill or harm anyone in the process. Human rights trump "international laws" at any level.

We're not talking about an international law here, one that was drawn up at the U.N. or the Hague. We're talking about a private agreement between the United States' and Cuban governments.

See these guys on the picture? They didn't put a gun to anyone's head, they were crafty, imaginative, daring, and resourceful. These guys decided that they would either live free, or die trying. They were sent back as well.

I had seen this floating truck and it's cargo on the news. I think it's designer was very creative. It's crew was obviously quite brave to head out in that contraption. I admire their efforts to attain freedom. The question is Luis, should the United Stated be prepared to take every Cuban that wants to come here? When colonial Americans wanted their freedom, they took up arms and fought for it. They kicked out the government and set up their own.

We talk about the bravery of Cubans who come to the U.S. I don't deny that they exhibit a lot of bravery in doing so. I've got to admit though, if I loved my nation and wanted freedom, I'd rather join with my fellow citizens and take down that two-bit tin-dictator and his henchmen than flee never to see my homeland again. Now that would be an example of consummate bravery.

The administration that I have so staunchly supported for so many years, sent these men back. It’s not a good thing that was done here.

Well Luis, it might surprise you, but I'm not thrilled with this outcome either. Why doesn't the United Nations, the European community and the United States pressure Castro to hold honest open elections? Why doesn't Jimmy Carter or the leftists in our own nation urge this? The fact is, those folks either ignore him, or seem to find Castro to be a very charming individual. Europe does open business with Cuba. Kofi Annon doesn't seem to realize Cuba exists. Instead these entities, including Carter but excluding the present U.S. President and his party, chastise the U.S. at every turn.

Even while observing the need to watch our borders, something different could have been done.

Luis, if we send the message that anyone who can float beyond the territorial waters of Cuba will gain asylum in the U.S., literally millions will depart for the 12 (or whatever it is) mile limit. While I wish these people well, I don't think this is the best outcome to desire.

In the past, other governments have offered asylum to these balseros. when allowed to do so. It was a bad move for Bush, and the opening that Joe Garcia(D) and the CANF needed in order to bring votes to the DNC. It is no longer the organization that it was under Jorge Mas Canosa.

I think President Bush is in trouble down here.

It has been my position that a President should hold strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution. He should be staunchly pro-family, small government, law and order. He should advocate self-sufficiency and an unencumbered existence for individual U.S. citizens. If the former Cuban nationals that are now U.S. citizens can't see the benefits of these policies over what the Democrats offer, then they'll have to vote Democrat. That's part of the reason why I do not favor large numbers of foreign nationals coming to our shores. When those numbers grow too large, there is a danger of them becoming more concerned with their own interests than the interests that are important to the nation they have chosen to become a citizen in. And Luis, that is wrong.

Our nation is not strengthened by folks who will cast all other considerations aside, except for the issue of what our President does with regard to their specific special interest group, when that special interest group is not focused on what is in the best for the United States.

It's not our President's duty to correct problems with Cuba. It is the Cuban's duty to do so.

63 posted on 07/29/2003 12:11 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (The gift is to see the trout.)

To: DoughtyOne

As`I thought, anti-gun, anti-freedom, and resting on the glory that others achieved hundreds of years ago.

Please point out where I advocated Cuban's guns be taken away from them.
Please point out where I criticized any attempts to overthrow the communist government of Cuba.
That's the beauty of our nation Luis, our forefathers set up a system of government that seldom requires us to take up arms against it. I would think that you would agree that setting up that form of government for Cuba would be the best policy for that nation. I don't think advocating aircraft hijackings from there comes in a close second. It also subjects our citizens to hijackings if we grant asylum to folks who hijack Cuban planes to the U.S. Cuba would immediately accept all plane hijackings into Cuba. That presents a number of problems for us.

Go honor Fidel's laws and Bill Clinton's agreements, and throw people who wish to be free back into chains.

I haven't advocated honoring Fidel's laws. I have advocated honoring agreements between our nation and his, that contributed toward a ceasation of hijackings in the United States. Evidently you don't.

These agreements were signed in the late 1960s or early 1970s. What has that to do with Bill Clinton or his agreements?

You've been outed.

Yes, I know Luis. In your mind I've been outed.

Thanks for the comments.

72 posted on 07/29/2003 12:17 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (The gift is to see the trout.)

To: DoughtyOne

The agreement that you are thinking about is actually older than twenty-five years.

I am not at all surprised that supporters of Pat Buchanan would support such agreements.

76 posted on 07/29/2003 1:38 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (The gift is to see the trout.)

Luis, your attempt to turn this into a racial matter is low even by your standards. I mentioned the premise for this agreement between the U.S. and Cuba, which was related to aircraft hijackings in the United States. You chose to ignore my comments and raise the issue of "Dread Scott". Luis, this has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with blacks under slavery. It has nothing to do with whether we like Cubans or not, or desire freedom for them or not. It's a practical matter of whether we wish to have aircraft hijackings in the United States or not.

In the late 1960s or early 1970s, United States commercial aircraft were being hijacked to Cuba. This put large numbers of our citizens at risk. The administration at that time, Nixon or Ford made an agreement with Fidel Castro. If he would arrest and return U.S. aircraft hijackers to the U.S. for prosecution here, we would return Cuban hijackers to Cuba to face prosection there.

The hijackings stopped.

Dread Scott? LMAO... Luis, if you would use that brain God gave you and quit trying to tar folks on the forum with claims of racism, you'd get a lot farther ahead and not offend so many forum participants.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Let's invade Cuba, clear all this * up