Exile Leaders Quit GOP Over Migrants' Return

NBC 6 Miami ^

[fieldmarshaldj]

If you guys haven't seen this thread, you might want to check it out.

[autoresponder]

A tad off subject, but here are today`s stats on %s of CT hispanics in CT prisons today:

Blacks - 10%

Hispanics - 2.4%

Whites - 1.2%

This is the actual % of each CT racial/ethnic group in CT`s prisons today.

Crime is way down here in CT but some "community" leaders say it is "not fair" and is "racial profiling" to put 10% of CT`s blacks in CT prisons.

I suppose if we release them all from prison crime will not go up like a skyrocket?

Notice the very low prison rate of CT hispanics; only about 25% of the CT blacks in prison.

Hard to argue with these #s.

Many of these CT hispanics are recent residents.

Discouraging #s on CT blacks that have been here for centuries.

Liberia NE.

I myself was quite surprised; this was published in CT`s liberal Times-Mirror newspapers including the Hartford Courant.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"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.

[autoresponder]

  =========  
  S H E R R I  
  =========  

[Cronos]

True. And remember that opening up the gates enabling folks to escape the gulags is what brought down the Iron Curtain.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Welcome back, you have more lives than a cat.

Let's settle the Basulto thing once and for all.

What should the US Air Force do when it encounters three unarmed, light commercial aircraft being piloted by civilians out over international airspace?

If your answer is that they should blow them into a million pieces using missiles designed to destroy warplanes, then I say that you not only advocate murder, but you promote the idea that our military should emulate Fidel Castro's Armed thughs.

Your obvious political inclinations are in full display as your rationalize the actions of a known Communist dictator, then suggest that the US should act in like fashion.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[autoresponder]

This should have been worth an MIT engineering scholarship and/or a US Naval commission.

8mph from a *51 Chevy PU in open ocean.

Gasoline being lighter than sea water, the 55 gallon drums could have been filled with fuel.

This thing will need rustproofing.

[Impy]

I say Castro should be "retired" with a well placed bullet from a sniper rifle.

Most Europeans and most rats might scream but most Cubans would rejoice.

[JohnnyZ]

Let's invade Cuba, clear all this * up

[AuH2ORepublican]

I'll drink to that.

[DoughtyOne]

"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.)

[Luis Gonzalez]

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

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

You've been outed.

[FreePaul]

This administration has done everything it could to make sure that the Mexican migration to the US is not impeded. I don't blame anyone for being upset about sending people back to Cuba. Either send them all back or have an immigration system that we can enforce.

[rrrod]

i agree with you ....cuban americans in fla saved bush last elelction

[rrrod]

atta boy!!!!

[Luis Gonzalez]

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"They became criminals the moment they hijacked the boat."

The Cuban government denies anyone the ability to opwn a boat, asides from that, any boats that were privately owned prior to Fidel's "revolution", became the property of the Cuban government.

The ownership of this boat by the Cuban government is illegal under every single principle that this Nation was founded under.

But let's forget that, and let's use Fidel's own verbiage: he claims that everything in Cuba is owned by "the people".

Well then, "the people" decided that they wanted to go to the US in their boat.

[DoughtyOne]

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.)

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Luis, your attempt to turn this into a racial matter is low even by your standards."

Dredd Scott had nothing to do with race, it was about slavery and ownership of individuals.

But, nice that you try to turn it into a racial thing.

It's that whole browning of the west thing with you and Pat...