Talk:Wet feet, dry feet policy

Cuban Adjustment Act

The opening paragraph refers to "a consequence of the 1995 revision of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966". Was the Act itself revised ? Or just the way that it is applied ? -- Beardo 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Act wasn't changed, just its interpretation. Exactly how the agreement was codified (I assume it was), I don't know. MorrisGregorian 05:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Dissident crackdown

Maybe I have missed something, but I don't see why the arrest of the dissidents is relevant here. -- Beardo 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh - it's gone ! -- Beardo 15:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

People smuggling

I wonder if there should be some mention of the phenomenon of the lanchitas - those smuggling Cubans into the US for money. -- Beardo 15:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No less/no more than 20,000 immigrants?

"The United States agreed to admit no less than 20,000 immigrants from Cuba annually"

Elsewhere on internet I read conflicting reports on whether the U.S. is limiting immigration visas to maximum 20,000 per year since 1994, whether it is a target, or whether it is a minimum. How can this one point result in such different interpretations?! Which is right?

Edit: That was probably a mis-type of the person who wrote that, I think they confused the meaning of "no fewer than." The US has a maximum quota of 20,000 Cuban immigrants, but does not have a minimum to the number allowed. Therealjayrock (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Disregard that, there are always more than the US knows what to do with and they don't bring in less than 20,000 just as a token of how many people arrive.

Haitian/Cuban contrast

This policy largely came to light in 2000 with the Elián González debacle, which was complicated by the nearly simultaneous repatriation of some 400 Haitians without asylum interviews to see if they qualified to stay. There should be some mention of this disparity in the article, as it was a major part of the argument over letting Elián stay vs. repatriating him; many people said that not only did the policy mean they were legally obligated to repatriate him, but that not doing so was doubly bad because they did repatriate the large group of Haitians arriving in extremely similar circumstances. I'm trying to research this for material to add a section to the article, but anyone's welcome to "beat me to it." Lawikitejana 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Potential plagarism

Look for plagarism from this CRS report: http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-9147:1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.30.198 (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC) yeahn so thats bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.186.94.220 (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No copyright issue - that source is a U.S. federal agency and cannot be copyrighted. Plagarism is a different issue. Rmhermen (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wet feet, dry feet policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/15/cubans.ap/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

About to change - January 2017

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/01/12/obama-ends-wet-foot-dry-foot-policy-cubans/96505172/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/obama-scrapping-wet-foot-dry-foot-policy-cubans-44742995

-- Beardo (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Several recent edits seem to have been vandalism. There were then changes that corrected parts, but left things that were wrong.

I will revert to the last good edit. In doing so, I will revert this change - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wet_feet,_dry_feet_policy&diff=764798638&oldid=763461439 - I don't know if that change was correct but adding "Bay" is not fixing a typo. I will also remove a reference that was added - that is an opinion piece and not the sort of source that we ideally want. -- Beardo (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wet feet, dry feet policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112075240/http://www.dominicantoday.com/app/article.aspx?id=16234 to http://www.dominicantoday.com/app/article.aspx?id=16234

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Wet foot, dry foot policy (in the singular)

According to the article, the policy is also known by the name "wet foot, dry foot" (in the singular). It is also referred to as such in various other articles. However, there's no redirect from wet foot, dry foot policy to this article (nor is there any other article there). I think there should be a redirect, but I cannot create it myself because I'm not registered (I've got no idea why anyone can edit anything, but not create articles or redirections, but that's another issue); if a registered user sees this, please consider doing it. 2A02:8109:A380:B58:E480:A6D5:1F9A:B144 (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

End of policy

The article currently states that President Obama announced the cessation of the policy in January 2017, but what does the ending of the policy mean? Does it mean that Cubans are now allowed to pursue residence in the US also when they're intercepted in water? Or does it mean Cubans are no longer allowed to stay in the US even if they make it to shore? Or something else? It will be great if someone who knows (and who is authorized to edit) could specify this. 2A02:8109:A380:B58:C013:A0C9:319A:CC14 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Special Cuban Migration Lottery

The closing sentence of this sub-section notes that Cubans are (paraphrase) still being paroled into the USA from the 1998 lottery. No date is given for this assertion, and it stands as of December 2021.

While I understand that US immigration is a lengthy and arduous process, 23 years seems excessive, especially without some type of explanatory note supporting a comment like this.

As an Australian my experience with US immigration extends to an electronic waiver. There are likely to be others with a far greater depth of understanding of a lottery program such as this, plus the possible changes under the various administrations in the almost quarter century since the last reported ballot.

Is someone more competent than me willing to check into the claim as it stands in the article, please? Thank you. Ayrendal (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect dates?

At the end of Recurring issues and criticism section it says

"On February 28, 2007, a federal judge ruled that the United States government had acted unreasonably when it sent home the 15 Cubans. The judge ordered the government to make its best effort to help the immigrants return to the United States. Fourteen of the 15 Cubans re-landed on December 15, 2006, and were given migrant visas."

This implies that they were returned before the date of the ruling by the federal judge. In the archived source the date mathces with 15 demcember 2006, and I think it is the date of the judge that is wrong in this case, but the date of the judge rulling is unfortunately not mentioned in any of the sources. I suggest removing the date of the ruling, as we dont know when it actually took place 185.107.12.135 (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adding Immigrants Quantitative Sources for Latino Immigration History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jennifregreen23 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Katherine.Holt (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)