U.S. and Cuba Hold New Immigration Talks  

On April 16, 2024, the U. S. and Cuba held another round of immigration dialogue. [1]

The U.S. statement about the dialogue was very noncommittal. It said the following: “So these were bilateral discussions between the United States and Cuba. They are bilateral discussions on migration that take place biannually, twice a year. They reflect the commitment by the United States to regularly review the implementation of the U.S.-Cuba Migration Accords, which date back to 1984. Ensuring safe, orderly, humane, and regular migration between Cuba and the United States remains a primary interest of the United States, consistent with our interest in fostering family reunification and promoting greater respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba.”

The Cuban commentary on this dialogue was more confrontive. It said before the meeting, “that it will insist that the United States ease the sanctions it blames for the migratory exodus from the island and end the ‘special treatment’ for Cubans who enter its territory illegally.”

The deputy director of American Affiars at Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Johanna Tablada de le Torre, said before the meeting. ”The [U.S.] blockade is what weighs most on the bilateral immigration situation.” Cuba blames U.S. for sanctions that are strangling the Cuban economy and the U.S.’ Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 granting “Cubans special entry rights and support upon arrival, for encouraging [Cuban] . . . young people to emigrate.” The U.S., on the other hand, said this migration is due to “the lack of civil liberties and human rights in Cuba . . . combined with a state-dominated economy.”

Cuba also accused the U.S. “of using federal funds to finance the main media and digital platforms that, according to the [Cuban] regime, are those that ‘stimulate irregular emigration.’ [Cuba] also accused [U.S.] senior government officials of participating in what were described as “communication operations of discredit and aggression.”

===========================

[1] U.S. State Dep’t, Department Press Briefing, April 16, 2024; Havana insists that Washington ease sanctions, which it blames for the migratory exodus, Diario de Cuba (April 14, 2024).

Another Documentation of the U.S. Need for Immigrants   

Just yesterday this blog published a lengthy post about how the problems in the U.S. asylum system were promoting increases in U.S. immigration that were benefiting the U.S. economy.[1]

Now the New York Times has published a lengthy article focusing on the positive impact of new immigrants to this country with its declining and aging population.[2]

The Example of the State of Maine

The State of Maine has the oldest population in the U.S. with a median age of 45.1. Its “native-born employees either leave the work force or barrel toward retirement.” This especially presents  a problem for the State’s annual $1 billion business of catching, cleaning and selling the lobsters off its Atlantic coast. As Ben Conniff, a founder of the State’s lobster processing plant (Luke’s Lobster), put it, “Folks in Maine are generally not looking for manufacturing work, especially in food manufacturing.”

In response, the founders of this company started Lift All Boats “to supplement and diversify the fast-aging lobster fishing industry. It aims to teach minorities and other industry outsiders how to lobster and how to work their way through the extensive and complex licensing process, and about half of the participants have been foreign-born.” And Maine’s state legislators are creating an Office of New Americans to attract and integrate immigrants into the work force.”

The Rest of the U.S.

“Nationally, even with the barriers that prevent some immigrants from being hired, the huge recent inflow has been helping to bolster job growth and speed up the economy. . . . The new supply of immigrants has allowed employers to hire at a rapid pace without overheating the labor market. And with more people earning and spending money, the economy has been insulated against the slowdown and even recession that many economists once saw as all but inevitable as the Federal Reserve raised interest rates in 2022 and 2023.”

“Ernie Tedeschi, a research scholar at Yale Law School, estimates that the labor force would have decreased by about 1.2 million people without immigration from 2019 to the end of 2023 because of population aging, but that immigration has instead allowed it to grow by two million.” In the longer run, “economists think the immigration wave could also improve America’s labor force demographics . . . even as the native-born population ages, with a greater share of the population in retirement with each year.”

“In fact, immigration is poised to become increasingly critical to America’s demographics. By 2042, the Congressional Budget Office estimates, all American population growth will be due to immigration, as deaths cancel out births among native-born people. And largely because immigration has picked up so much, the C.B.O. thinks that the U.S. adult population will be 7.4 million people larger in 2033 than it had previously expected.”

“Immigration could help reduce the federal deficit by boosting growth and increasing the working-age tax base.”

However, “nobody knows how long today’s big immigration flows will last. Many are spurred by geopolitical instability, including economic crisis and crime in Venezuela, violence in Congo, and humanitarian crises across other parts of Africa and the Middle East.” This, as we in the U.S. know, has sparked a lot of political unrest over this development.

Nor does anyone know about the future course of the U.S. economy. If it slows, “fewer immigrants might want to come to the United States, and those who did might struggle to find work . . . [and] compete against American workers for jobs, particularly those with lower skill levels.” However, “recent economic research has suggested that immigrants mostly compete with one another for work, since they tend to work in different roles from those of native-born Americans.”

============================

[1] Problems in U.S. Asylum System Help Promote Increases in U.S. Immigration, dwkcommentaries.com (April 11, 2024).

[2] Smialek, Immigrants in Maine Are Filling a Labor Gap. It May Be a Prelude for the U.S., N.Y. Times (April 12.2024).

Problems in U.S. Asylum System Help Promote Increases in U.S. Immigration

A lengthy Wall Street Journal article provides details on the well-known promotion of increases in U.S. immigration by the many problems in the U.S. asylum system. Here then is a summary of the basic U.S. law of asylum, the current U.S. system for administering such claims and a summary of the current problems with such administration.

The Basic Law of Asylum

On July 2, 1951, an international conference in Geneva, Switzerland concluded with the signing of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees by the conference attendees and the opening of the treaty for accession or ratification by nation states.[9] By its Article 43(1) it was to enter into force or become a binding treaty 90 days after the sixth state had acceded or ratified the treaty. That happened on April 22, 1954.[1]

This treaty adopted the following definition of “refugee” in Article 1(A)(2) as any person who:

  • “[As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951] and owing to well- founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

The bracketed phrase [“As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951”] was the provision that limited the coverage of the Convention to the problems still being faced by many World War II refugees still scattered across Europe. This limiting phrase was eliminated in the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees discussed below.

Excluded from this definition of “refugee” in Article 1(F) was “any person . . . [who] (a) . . . has committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity . . . ; (b) . . . has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee; [or] (c) . . . has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the [U.N.].”

The Convention granted refugees certain rights within a country of refuge as well as imposing on them certain obligations. The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their “illegal entry or presence.” This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach national immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum.

By 1966, it had become apparent that new refugee situations had arisen since the Refugee Convention had been adopted and that all refugees should enjoy equal status. As a result, a new treaty was prepared to eliminate the previously mentioned limitation of the Convention to those refugees created by pre-1951 events. This was the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees that went into force on October 4, 1967.

There now are 146 countries that are party to this Convention and 147 nation states (and the Holy See) that are parties to this Protocol and the Convention including the U.S. which ratified same on October 4, 1967 and November 1, 1968.[2]

Twelve years later the U.S. adopted a statute to solidify U.S. obligations under those international treaties. That was the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980.[3]

And in 1996 that statute was amended to define past persecution to include forced abortion or sterilization or punishment for failure or refusal to undergo such procedures and to define fear of being forced to undergo such a procedure or punishment for refusing to undergo same as future persecution.

Another amendment to that statute was enacted in the REAL ID Act of 2005 which required that an asylum applicant must prove that race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership was or will be “at least one central reason” for his or her persecution.

The Current U.S. System for Administrating Asylum Claims[4]

 The U.S. has various means for administering asylum claims.

First is the U.S. State Department’s U.S. Refugee Admissions Program that “accepts referrals of individuals determined by international agencies or other governments to be particularly vulnerable to persecution under these treaties.“

The U.S. also has a complex system of evaluating and deciding upon individual applications for asylum by foreigners at the U.S. international borders or other points of entry by U.S. officials at those borders or by asylum officers, immigration judges or the administrative Board of Asylum Appeals and by U.S. federal courts.

The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, which is led by the Chief Immigration Judge, establishes operating policies and oversees policy implementation for the immigration courts. OCIJ provides overall program direction and establishes priorities for approximately 600 immigration judges located in 68 immigration courts and three adjudications centers throughout the Nation.”

Current Problems in the U.S. Administration of Asylum Claims[5]

During the U.S. 2023 fiscal year (ending September 30, 2023), “the U.S. received more than 920,000 applications for asylum. . . . Since a single application can cover multiple members of a family, these  figures underestimate the actual numbers of people seeking asylum.” Such family groups, “who now almost always ask for asylum, make up about half the roughly two million people encountered by authorities who illegally crossed the U.S. frontier with Mexico last year. Another half million came through legal ports of entry, many using a Border Patrol smartphone app that launched in January 2023 to make an appointment to cross and ask for asylum.”

“The law in the U.S. typically gives migrants who have a reasonable claim of persecution the right to live and work in the country while their cases progress through the courts. So many are now coming that the U.S. lacks the capacity to quickly screen their cases, either at the border or in courts, where a typical asylum case now takes four years. “

“Even if an application is ultimately rejected, migrants by then have put down roots, often had American children and are rarely deported because of the costs and logistical challenges. They are left in limbo—they lose the right to work legally but aren’t kicked out. “ As a result, they “simply melt . . .  into the underground society of undocumented migrants and making a new life.”

“The growing use of asylum claims overwhelmed the system and made it nearly impossible to address cases on the spot—immigration officials at the border can screen entrants and determine whether they have a ‘credible fear”‘ of being returned to their own country, rejecting those outright who don’t meet that requirement. Only a few hundred screenings a day out of several thousands of border encounters now take place.” In fiscal 2019 the number of border encounters resulting in immediate repatriation to the applicants’ home countries fell to about 30%.

Conclusion

Virtually everyone agrees that the asylum system needs overhauling, but the dysfunctional Congress has been unable to pass such a bill. Any such “reform” should also evaluate the U.S. need for immigrant labor in our society with an aging, declining population.[6]

Moreover, every U.S. citizen today (other than Native Americans) should proclaim, as does this blogger, “I am a proud descendant of immigrants!”

==================================

[1] Refugee and Asylum Law: The Modern Era, dwkcommentareis.com (July 9, 2011); Multilateral Human Rights Treaties Ratified by the U.S., dwkcommentaries.com  (Feb. 9, 2012).

[2] The 1951 Refugee Convention;. Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.

[3] Weissbrodt, Ni Aolain, Fitzpatrick & Newman, International Human Rights: Law, Policy, and Process at 1040-42 (4th ed. 2009). Any subsequent statutory amendments?

[4] U.S. State Dep’t, U.S. Refugee Admissions Program; Office of the Chief Immigration Judge,

[5] E.g., Luhnow, Caldwell & Forero, The Explosion of Asylum Claims Driving the Global Migrant Crisis, W.S. J. (April 8, 2024); Need to Improve U.S. Asylum System, dwkcommentaries.com Feb. 1, 2023).

[6] E.g., Here is a sampling list of relevant dwkcommentaries.com posts: Iowa State Government Encouraging Refugees and Migrant Resettlement (Feb., 3, 2023); Comment: National Worker Shortages in U.S.(Feb. 3, 2023); More Details on U.S. and Other Countries’ Worker Shortages (Feb. 9, 2023);Other States Join Iowa in Encouraging Immigration to Combat Aging, Declining Population (Feb. 22, 2023); Biden Administration Announces Proposed Restrictions on Asylum Applications  (Feb. 27, 2023); Wall Street Journal Editorial: U.S. Needs More Immigrants (July 25, 2023); Increasing Migrant Crossings at U.S. Border Call for Legal Changes (Aug. 16, 2023); Overwhelmed U.S. Immigration Court System (Sept.1, 2023); U.S. Has Long-Term Labor Crisis (Sept. 26, 2023); Presidential Determination of Refugee Admissions for Fiscal 2024 (Oct. 4, 2023); Congressional Dysfunction Hampers U.S. Immigration Policies and Actions (Oct. 7, 2023); Migrants from All Over Flocking to U.S. (Nov 4, 2023); Washington Post Editorial: Improving U.S. Asylum Law and Procedures (Nov. 28. 2023); U.S. Border Crisis Blocks U.S. Immigration Reform (Dec. 7, 2023); U.S. States That Could Have Greatest Benefit from Immigrant Labor (Feb. 28, 2024).

U.S. Criticism of Cuba’s Labor Export Program 

On April 3, 2024, the U.S. State Department’s Office To Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons published its critical report on Cuba’s Labor Export Program.[1]

U.S. Summary of Cuban Labor Export Program[2]

“Each year, the Cuban government sends tens of thousands of workers around the globe under multi-year cooperation agreements negotiated with receiving countries.  According to reporting from the Cuban government, there were roughly 28,000 workers in over 60 countries by the end of 2021.  The greatest number of Cuban workers in foreign countries are medical professionals.  The COVID-19 pandemic increased the need for medical workers in many places around the world, and the Cuban government helped fill the gap by increasing the number of its medical workers abroad, including through the use of its Henry Reeve Brigade, which Cuba first initiated in 2005 to respond to natural disasters and epidemics.  There are serious concerns with Cuba’s recruitment and retention practices surrounding this program, exacerbating workers’ vulnerability to being subject to forced labor.  In the 2023 TIP report, the Department carefully documented government-affiliated Cuban workers’ current or recent presence in 56 countries around the world.  According to the Cuban government, medical professionals compose 75 percent of its exported workforce.  Experts estimate the Cuban government collects $6 billion to $8 billion annually from its export of services, principally the foreign medical missions’ program.”

“The conditions of each medical mission vary from country to country.  However, in 2021, 1,111 former participants filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court and the UN, claiming the Cuban government exploited them and forced them to work in the labor export program.  The complaint stated 75 percent of these participants did not volunteer for the program, 33 percent never saw a contract, 69 percent did not know their final destination, 38 percent had their passport confiscated by Cuban officials once they arrived at their destination, 76 percent had “minders” and were subjected to surveillance, 76 percent could not freely associate with locals, 79 percent had restrictions on their movement, 91 percent were told they could not return to Cuba if they defected, 75 percent suffered threats or witnessed coworkers being threatened, and 40 percent were separated from their children as punishment for defecting.  Many medical professionals reported being sexually abused by their Cuban government supervisors.  While the medical missions remain the most prevalent, the government profited from other similarly coercive labor export programs, including those involving teachers, artists, athletes and coaches, engineers, forestry technicians, and nearly 7,000 merchant mariners across the world.”[3]

“The Cuban Ministry of Interior labels workers who do not return to the island upon completing their assignment as “deserters,” a category that under Cuban immigration law deems them as “undesirable.”  The government bans workers labeled as “deserters” and “undesirables” from returning to Cuba for eight years, preventing them from visiting their family in Cuba.  In addition, the government categorizes Cuban nationals who do not return to the country within 24 months as having “emigrated.”  Individuals who emigrate lose all their citizen protections, rights under Cuban law, and any property left behind. These government policies and legal provisions, taken together, coerce workers and punish those seeking to exercise freedom of movement.  A report published by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child noted concern over Cuba’s policy to prohibit parents who terminated a civilian contract abroad from reuniting with their children.  According to an international NGO, by 2021, the Cuban government had sanctioned 40,000 professionals under these provisions, and in 2022, there were approximately 5,000 children forcibly separated from their parents due to the government’s policies surrounding the program.”

U.S. Recommendations to Cuban Government [4]

This U.S. report made the following recommendations about this program to the Cuban government:

  • “Remove existing protocols used by the Ministry of Interior punishing and labeling medical workers who terminate their employment in foreign countries as “deserters.”
  • Revise Cuban immigration law currently labeling and punishing those who don’t return to Cuba after departing an international mission as “undesirable.”
  • Cease banning workers labeled as “deserters” or “undesirable” from returning to Cuba.
  • Allow former participants who terminate their employment to return to Cuba without punishment or retribution.
  • Allow workers to review proposed employment contracts with a reasonable time to consider the agreement.
  • Compensate workers fairly and similarly to other foreign workers in their country of destination.
  • Allow government-affiliated workers to befriend locals and move freely without supervision.
  • Cease the separation of families as punishment for terminating civilian contracts abroad.
  • Allow workers complete control of their personal passport and professional certifications.”

Reactions

On April 3, 2024, “Three Cuban-American congressmen announced . . . a series of measures that seek to prohibit . . . the granting of visas to anyone involved in “the exploitation of Cuban doctors.”[5]

The U.S. previously has made similar criticisms of the Cuban Labor Export Program, all to no avail.[6]

Although Cuba has an obvious economic incentive for its Labor Export Program, especially in its current economic problems, the above criticisms of the Program are justified and Cuba should end same.

=========================

[1] State Dep’t, Trafficking in Persons and Cuba’s Labor Export Program (April 3, 2024).

[2] The State Department report also summarized a 2021 complaint by 1,111 former participants about this Cuba program with the International Criminal Court and the U.N., but did not discuss what happened with this complaint.

[3] The International Criminal Court apparently has made no decision on this complaint, presumably because its jurisdiction is limited to crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity (large scale attacks against a civilian population involving murder, rape, imprisonment, enforced disappearances, enslavement, sexual slavery, torture, apartheid and deportation), grave breaches of the Geneva conventions on armed conflict and armed aggression. (Iint’l Crim. Ct., The Crimes.

[4] The State Department report also made recommendations to workers in the Cuba program and to governments hosting such workers.

[5] The US will not give visas to officials involved in the trafficking of exported Cuban doctors, Diario de Cuba (April 3, 2024),

[6] Here are some of the previous dwkcommentaries posts on this subject: U.S. Accuses Cuba of Being a State Sponsor of Trafficking in Persons (Jan. 18, 2018), Cuba Remains on “Tier 2-Watch List” in U.S. State Department’s Annual Trafficking in Persons Report (July 1, 2018); State Department Unjustly Downgrades Cuba in Annual Report on Human Trafficking (June 22, 2019); U.S. Unjustified Campaign To Discredit Cuba’s Foreign Medical Mission Program (Sept. 4, 2019); U.S. Litigation Over Cuba Medical Mission Program (Feb. 12, 2020), U.S. State Department’s Latest Report on Cuban Human Rights (April 15, 2022); U.S. Accuses Cuba of Being a Sponsor of Trafficking in Persons (Jan. 18, 2024),

 

 

Russia Is Responsible for Havana Syndrome Attacks on U.S. Personnel

“The former head of the Pentagon’s investigation into the mysterious health incidents known as Havana Syndrome told the CBS investigation show 60 Minutes he believes Russia was behind them and was attacking U.S. officials abroad and at home.”[1]

This television show, in partnership with The Insider (a Russian exile media outlet) and a German magazine (Der Spiegel), reported on new evidence connecting a possible domestic incident of Havana Syndrome to Russia and identified a Russian military intelligence unit, identified as 29155, as the possible culprit of some of the suspected attacks.

60 Minutes also reported that at last year’s NATO summit in Lithuania a senior Pentagon official suffered an “anomalous health incident” (the U.S. term for Havana Syndrome) that required medical care.

Greg Edgreen, who ran the investigation into Havana Syndrome for the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency from 2021-23, said that as a result of the incidents, U.S. officers abroad have been “neutralized.” When asked by the show’s host if he thought the United States is being attacked, he answered, “My personal opinion, yes, by Russia” because there are “no barriers on what Moscow will do.”

“Sources told the [Miami] Herald that many of the officers injured were involved in work related to Russia or were stationed in places where Russian spies could work with ease, like Cuba, China, Vietnam and most of Europe. Some incidents in Hanoi, Bogota, London and India happened ahead of or during the visits by senior U.S. officials.

This blog previously has published posts about the Havana Syndrome.[2]

==============================

[1] Torres, Russia is behind Havana Syndrome, attacks on U.S., former lead Pentagon investigator says, Miami Herald (April 1, 2024); Russia would be behind the ‘Havana Syndrome’, according to an investigation, Diario de Cuba (April 1, 2024), 

[2] Search for posts about HAVANA SYNDROME, dwkcommentaries.com.

How Cuban Government Fuels Inflation

Rafaela Cruz, a Cuban analyst for Diario de Cuba, asserts, “Ending inflation is not a priority for the Cuban regime.” Instead, “the Government exacerbates inflation as another [means] to maintain power and profit” by the following means:

1. “They raise taxes when economic activity is almost non-existent.”

2. “Subsidies (direct distributions) decrease when food is more expensive and scarce.”

3. Tax incentives for the creation of MSMEs are withdrawn even though their number is [very] low.”

4. “Castling is the monopoly of foreign trade, causing bottlenecks that make imports more expensive.”

5. “Salaries of some workers rise at the expense of [reducing] those of the rest.”

6. “Increase public spending by printing large amounts of money.”

7. “Prices of basic goods and services … rise.”

8. “The peso remains overvalued, which encourages imports.”

9. “Little, and poorly invested, in sectors far from domestic inspection.”

======================
Cruz,  nine reasons that show that the Cuban Government fuels inflation, Diario de Cuba (Feb. 28, 2024.

 

 

 

Victor Manuel Rocha, Former U.S. Ambassador, Intends to Plead Guilty to Charges of Acting as a Cuban Agent    

In December 2023, Victor Manuel Rocha, a naturalized U.S. citizen. was charged with acting as an agent of a foreign government (Cuba) and defrauding the U.S. as well as committing wire fraud and making false statements to obtain and use a U.S. passport.[1]

On February 29, Rocha in federal court said he will file a change of plea, indicating he is prepared to plead guilty to two counts of conspiring as a foreign agent, each of which carries a maximum prison sentence of five to 10 years. And his female attorney indicated in court that she and prosecutors have reached an agreement on his possible prison term, which was not specified at this hearing.[2]

This development came just hours after the widow of a prominent Cuban dissident who had been killed in a mysterious car crash filed a wrongful death suit against Rocha.

Rocha’s sentencing is scheduled for April 12, when the plea agreement will be revealed.

===========================

[1] U.S. Indicts and Arrests Victor Emmanuel Rocha on Charges of Acting as a Cuban Undercover Agent, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 23, 2024);COMMENT: Developments in Criminal Prosecution of Victor Manuel Rocha, dwkcommentaries.com (Feb. 14, 2024).

[2] Mazzei, Adams & Londono, Former U.S. Ambassador Accused of Being Cuban Agent Signals Guilty Plea, N.Y. Times (Feb. 29, 2024); Wu, Former U.S. ambassador admits to serving as secret agent for Cuba, Wash. Post (Feb. 29, 2024); Weaver, Former U.S. diplomat to plead guilty to acting as a secret agent for the Cuban government, MiAMI HERALD (Feb. 29, 2024); Goodman & Mustian, Former career US diplomat to admit working for decades as a Cuban intelligence agent, apnews.com (Feb. 29, 2024).

President Biden’s New Executive Orders Regarding Cuba 

On February 28 President Biden signed two executive orders regarding Cuba: extending for another year the state of national emergency with Cuba and protecting U.S. citizen data.

Order Extending State of Emergency with Cuba[1]

This order was first enacted on March 1, 1996, “to address the disruption or threatened disturbanceof international relations caused by the February 24, 1996, destruction by the Cuban Government of two unarmed civilian aircraft” registered to the United States in international airspace north of Cuba.”

In 2004 the order was expanded to deny any monetary and material suppport to the Cuban government, and in 2016 and 2018 it was modified based on continued disturbances or threatened disturbances of U.S. international relations with Cuba.

Finally the recent order banned the “unauthorized entry of any U.S.-registered vessel into Cuban territorial waters . .. . because such entry would facilitate a mass migration from Cuba” which would pose “a disturbance or threaened disturbance of the international relations of”
the U.S.

Order Protecting Data of U.S. Citizens[2]

This order protects the data of U.S. citizens from espionage by other states, including those the U.S. has determined to be sponsors of terrorism, including Cuba.

A White House statement asserted  that “companies are collecting more data from Americans than ever and it is often sold and resold legally through data brokers. Commercial data brokers and other companies can sell it to countries of interest or to entities controlled by those countries, and may fall into the hands of foreign intelligence services, armies or companies controlled by foreign governments.

It also specifically vetoes the transfer of genomic information, biometric data, personal health, geolocation, financial and other types of personal information.

=================================

[1] White House, Notice of the Continuation of the National Emergency with respect to Cuba and of the Emergency Authority Relating to the Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels (Feb. 21, 2024); The US extends the state of national emergency with respect to Cuba for one more year, Diario de Cuba (Feb. 29, 2024)

[2] White House, Executive Order on Preventing access to Americans’ Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern (Feb. 28, 2024); Biden signs an order to protect the data of Americans from the Cuban regime, Dirio de Cuba (Feb. 28, 2024)

 

U.S. States That Could Have Greatest Benefit from Immigrant Labor

This blog has published many posts about the U.S. need for immigrant labor.[1] Now a Washington Post article supplies a national statistical analysis of that need.[2]

The article opens with the following general statements:

But this “shortage is not distributed evenly across states.” Here is a list of the 15 states with the most shortage measured by unemployed workers for every 100 job openings:

Rank State Unemployed Workers for Every 100 Job Openings
1 South Dakota 29
2 Maryland 32
3 North Dakota 36
4 Vermont 37
5 New Hampshire 40
6 Nebraska 40
7 Alabama 40
8 Maine 43
9 Massachusetts 43
10 South Carolina 43
11 Montana 47
12 Virginia 47
13 Tennessee 50
14 Colorado 50
15 District of Columbia 50

“Generally, it is the states with fewer immigrants that are experiencing the most severe labor shortages.” Many of them also suffer from an aging population and thus a native labor force that is hardly growing. Yet the state with the greatest need for workers, South Dakota, has a governor, Kristi Noem, who “ is doing all she can to keep foreigners out, sending troops from the state National Guard to ‘stand alongside’ troops from Texas at the ‘war zone’ at the southern border.”

It also is instructive to look at the following list of the top U.S. industries with foreign-born workers.

Industry Share of Foreign-Born Workers
Construction 30%
Transportation & warehousing 25%
Accommodation & food services 24%
Manufacturing 21%
Wholesale trade 19%
Health care & social assistance 18%
Real estate & rental 17%
Information 17%
Retail trade 16%
Finance & insurance 16%
Educational services 14%
Arts, entertainment & recreation 13%

“Of course for migrants to help, they must be legally allowed to work, and the U.S. laws and bureaucracy for same is drastically in need of reform, and Republicans in control of the U.S. House of Representatives have been blocking that effort.

=============================

[1] See, e.g., these posts to dwkcommentaries.com:Washington Post Editorial: Improving U.S. Asylum Law and Procedures (Nov. 28. 2023);Migrants from All Over Flocking to U.S. (Nov. 4, 2023);100,000+ Cubans Obtain Humanitarian Parole in U.S. (Oct. 23. 2023); Congressional Dysfunction Hampers U.S. Immigration Policies and Actions (Oct. 7, 2023); U.S. Has Long-Term Labor Crisis (Sept 26, 2023);Overwhelmed U.S. Immigration Court System (Sept. 1, 2023); Increasing Migrant Crossings at U.S. Border Call for Legal Change (Aug. 16, 2023); Wall Street Journal Editorial: U.S. Needs More Immigrants (July 25, 2023);Iowa State Government Encouraging Refugee and Migrant Resettlement (Feb. 3, 2023); Other States Join Iowa in Encouraging Immigration to Combat Aging, Declining Population (Feb. 22, 2023).

[2]  Porter & Zhou, Here’s which states could benefit most from migrant labor, Wash. Post (Feb. 14, 2024),

 

U.S. State Officials in Havana Promoting Exports of U.S. Agricultural Products to Cuba

On February 18 a delegation of 13 U.S. state agricultural officials began a five-day mission to Cuba to promote Cuban imports of U.S. agricultural products. Their leader was Ted McKinney, the CEO of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA).[1]

The NASDA press release for this mission said its purpose “is to identify and address trade barriers for U.S. agricultural products, gain a better understanding of trade rules and regulations as well as the political and economic environment in order to strengthen the United States’ trade relationship with Cuba. While in-country, NASDA will meet with government officials, as well as industry and private sector leaders, to learn more about how the U.S. and Cuba can collaborate in the future.” The delegation includes representatives of seven state agricultural agencies (Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana and South Carolina) plus Ernesto Baron of FTA International and USA Poultry and Egg Export Council and Paul Johnson with FocusCuba.

February 19 Events[2]

On February 19, the delegation met with Cuba President Miguel Diaz-Canel, who offered the following official welcome.

”It is a pleasure and a satisfaction to have you present in Cuba in such an important composition, with Secretaries of Agriculture from several states and representatives of the US agricultural sector. “This is a sector with which we have a long-standing relationship, which has always had an understanding and sensitivity towards the Cuban people; a sector that has always worked to find paths that tear down walls, paths of greater rapprochement and benefit for both countries. If it were not for the blockade, there would be many mutual opportunities for work, to advance for the benefit of both peoples.” Cuba is “a small country, but not a negligible market” and his Government works “to ensure the food of eleven million Cubans.”

“This is a sector with which we have a long-standing relationship, he said, “a sector that has always had an understanding and sensitivity towards the Cuban people”; a sector – he added – “that has always worked to find paths that break down walls, paths of greater rapprochement and benefit for both countries.”

“if it were not for the blockade, we would have many mutual opportunities to work, to advance for the benefit of both peoples.”

“We are a small country, but not a negligible market; We work to ensure food for 11 million Cuban men and women,.”

“The activism of US farmers was fundamental for the Congress of the northern country to approve the Sanctions Reform and Expansion of Exports law in 2000, which allowed the Island to buy food there, although in disadvantageous conditions, imposed by anti-Cuban sectors and against the will of American farmers.”[3]

Afterwards Diaz-Canel said in a social media post, between the authorities of the regime and the US farmers “there has been a permanent dialogue,” which is why delegations from that sector are frequently received in Cuba.

February 21 Press Conference[4]

At the end of their Cuba trip, Ted McKinney, the NASDA CEO, several NASDA members and Ernesto Baron (USA Poultry and Egg Export Council) held a press conference at a Havana hotel on February 21.

McKinney said, “There may be new opportunities and we are optimistic about the possibility of future cooperation with Cuba” and they would convey to U.S. authorities the “positive and optimistic atmosphere” they saw during their stay in Cuba.” They saw the greatest possibility for cooperation in meat production, grains and food processing. And they thought if the U.S. embargo did not exist, bilateral agricultural exchange would be about $1 billion annually. But “we do not have that role of interceding to relax the (economic) sanctions of the embargo.”

Cuban Confession of Ineffectiveness of Food Law[5]

The day before the NASDA press conference, Cuba’s Prime Minister, Manuel Marrero Cruz, confessed that its Food Sovereignty Law of 2022 had not produced satisfactory results in that violations, corruption and lack of control have proliferated in “strategic tasks such as the delivery of land and livestock in usufruct,” according to Workers, and said that it cannot be allowed “that those who benefited from those embezzle state resources with them” and feel they are absolute owners.” Also needed review of “everything related to possible distortions in hiring, in exports and foreign investments as sources of foreign exchange earnings, in the application of science and technology, and in the attention to producers, to the productive bases, the mountains and the rural areas.”

There also were strong statements from Salvador Mesa (Cuba’s Vice President and member of the Political Bureau of the island’s Communist Party) and from Jorge Luis Tapia (vice prime minister) “about the need to review the organizational structure of the Ministry of Agriculture, hiring, confronting  theft and slaughter of livestock and production plans.”

Reactions

As a U.S. citizen who wants the U.S. embargo of the island to end as soon as possible, this blogger is glad to learn about this U.S. agricultural group’s trip to Cuba and its voicing a similar opinion.

===================================

[1] A US state agricultural committee seeks to trade in Cuba despite the embargo, Diario de Cuba (Feb. 19, 2024); NASDA, Press Release: State agricultural officials to address trade opportunities between the U.S. and Cuba (Feb. 16, 2024)

[2] Leon, The United States agricultural sector “has always worked to find paths that break down walls,” Granma (Feb. 19, 2024);Diaz-Canel receives the US agricultural delegation and pushes it to continue skipping the embargo, Diario de Cuba (Feb. 20. 2024).

[3] In 1993 Cuba legalized micro-enterprises and established a tax regime for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. (U.N., The tax regime for micro-enterprises in Cuba.)

[4] U.S. agricultural officials. ‘optimistic’ about their visit to Cuba, deny that they can do business, Diario de Cuba (Feb. 22, 2024); Ballaga, The US agricultural sector is interested in doing business with Cuba (+Video), Granma (Feb. 22, 2024).

[5] The Government of Cuba admits that its Food Sovereignty Law does not have palpable results, Diario de Cuba (Feb. 21, 2024).