Are the U.S.-Cuba migration accords in danger?

By Jesús Arboleya Cervera

HAVANA – Whoever the next President of the United States turns out to be, he will face pressure from very diverse groups that, for different reasons and purposes, demand a wholesale reform of the nation’s immigration policy. In this context, it is very likely that the exceptionality of the migratory relations with Cuba will come to the surface.

To many, the U.S. policy toward Cuba constitutes a scandalous inequality in its treatment of immigrants. The guarantee for the legal ingress of 20,000 people per year, the maximum allowed by law, and, in practice, only available to Cubans; the automatic asylum for any undocumented migrant who steps on U.S. soil; and the existence of an exclusive Adjustment Act with an indeterminate time limit that assures Cuban migrants the possibility of obtaining permanent residence long before any other national group, are the source of criticism and resentment from both the conservative xenophobes who oppose any kind of immigration and the human rights defenders who demand equal treatment for all.

If that policy has been sustainable for 50 years, it is because it based its rationality on the premise that Cubans were not immigrants but exiles, and because, historically, U.S. migratory policy toward Cuba has been part of a more encompassing strategy intended to destabilize the Cuban system. This strategy has been embraced by U.S. conservatives and liberals, who present it publicly as an issue of national interest and a commitment to “democracy” worldwide.

On this basis, Cuban immigrants, especially the so-called “historical exile,” received extraordinary economic and social benefits, as well as special treatment, all of which made them the Hispanic group best represented in the country’s political structures. Those conditions determined the relative power achieved by the Cuban-American far right in the political life of the U.S. and explain the reasons why that group has defended its exceptionality tooth and nail.

The massive arrival of Cuban immigrants and their swift incorporation into the local political life as a result of the Adjustment Act suited the domestic interests of the political machinery of the Cuban-American far right, while it constantly expanded its electoral base, especially in the Miami enclave.

Because of this, they accepted the signing of a migratory accord, the only one that exists between the two countries, even though such deal contradicts the counter-revolutionary discourse, which is always against any type of reconciliation.

Matters became complicated when the nature of the Cuban immigrants changed. These people tend to transform – not replicate – the ideological and political patterns of the social base that nourishes them. The first attempt to deal with this reality was an effort to amend the Adjustment Act, conditioning its application to a ban on the ability of the new immigrants to visit Cuba, which implies delaying, for several years, the participation at the polls of those who insist on such visits.

If we follow that logic, we can expect the next step to be an effort to hamper the continuity of the migratory accord between the two countries. Seen from the far rightists’ perspective, it would seem like the perfect move: they would reduce the number of undesirable immigrants, create new conflicts with Cuba and increase internal pressures on the island, although if the possibilities of emigrating are reduced, so might the stimuli.

Surely, that position will find many supporters in the U.S. political system. The government would no longer have to defend an exceptionality that is no longer based on reality or is functional for its policy toward Cuba. The conservatives would see a confirmation of their intention to reduce immigration at any cost and the liberals, who are also not willing to extend that treatment to all immigrants, would assume it as an act of justice.

Nevertheless, from a strategic viewpoint, it is an attempt doomed to failure. First, because it widens the distance between the current political representation of the Cuban-American community and its electoral base, which will see its interests affected in matters as sensitive as family reunification and contact with the native land. In fact, such measures will create enemies who, sooner or later, will come to demand retribution.

Secondly, because this policy does not alter the reality that the Cuban-American community is undergoing transformations whose outcome appears inevitable. Those transformations are determined not only by the ingress of new immigrants but also by the accelerated physical disappearance of the so-called “historical exile,” by the fading of belligerence as an alternative, and by the emergence of new generations that already display political leanings that are different from their parents’ and grandparents’.

If that has not yet made a strong impact on Miami’s political life, it’s because these leanings do not affect the majority of the voters and because the new political figures have been manipulated by the old machinery of the extreme right. But it’s only a matter of time before electoral pressures transform this reality and new tendencies appear that will condemn more than one politician to ostracism or to change his/her positions chameleon-like, as usually happens in U.S. politics. 

On the other hand, where the arrival of new Cuban immigrants can have relevant weight is on the relative balance of the Cuban-American electorate vis-à-vis other Hispanic groups in South Florida. We already see how the specific weight of Cuban-American voters diminishes in relation to those groups. Such a trend would rapidly increase if the number of people of Cuban origin arriving in the U.S. is reduced, negatively affecting the Cuban-American community as a whole.

The intolerance of the extreme right does not allow it to figure this out. Like the scorpion, it chooses to kill the turtle that helps it to cross the stream. It’s in its nature.

Progreso Semanal/ Weekly authorizes the total or partial reproduction of the articles written by our journalists, so long as source and author are indentified.