Time To Adjust the Adjustment Act

President Obama’s recent visit to Cuba marks a significant turning point in the U.S.-Cuban relationship and, more importantly, the beginning of the end to one of the few remaining relics of the Cold War. Abolishing the trade embargo, which President Obama says the U.S. intends to do, would be the ultimate sign of normalizing relations between Cuba and the United States. [1] Yet, aside from the embargo, there remains a crucial piece of Cuba legislation on the books: the Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA).

The CAA, signed into law in 1966 by President Lyndon Johnson, allows for the U.S Attorney General to “grant permanent residence to Cuban natives or citizens applying for a green card” who meet the conditions of having lived in the United States for at least one year, having been “admitted or paroled” and are “admissible as immigrants.” [2] The law’s initial purpose was to provide a haven for Cuba’s political refugees, escaping from the Communist regime of Fidel, and now Raul, Castro. Nevertheless, as the amount of political refugees coming from Cuba has dwindled and an increasing number of Cubans come to the U.S. for economic reasons, the law’s future is a matter of contentious debate. [3] Many Cuban-Americans, including Congressman Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) have called on Congress and the President to reform the Act, citing its frequent abuse by Cubans looking to take advantage of American welfare benefits. [4] Interestingly, the most passionate advocates for reforming the CAA are strongly opposed to normalizing relations between Cuba and the United States and believe Castro’s government to be politically repressive. For them, reforming the Act means making it possible only for victims of political persecution to take advantage of its protections.

Still, not all proponents of reform agree that the law remains pertinent. While reform advocates from Florida generally support efforts to improve the act’s efficacy, certain politicians have called for complete repeal. Recently, Representatives Henry Cuellar (D-TX) and Blake Farenthold (R-TX) have introduced legislation to repeal the act altogether, maintaining that the law’s provisions are “relics of a bygone era” and that “we should hold all immigrants to the same standards.” [5] For different but more obvious reasons, the Castro regime has urged the U.S. to repeal the law, especially after failed escape attempts from Cuba to Florida have resulted in famine, sickness, and death. [6] Of course, if politicians were to ever consider repealing the law, there would need to be proof of continued, widespread political persecution by the Castro government, which Political Science Professor Richard Gioioso of St. Joseph’s University has been declining recently. According to the professor, “[Cuban] politics seem to have become at least minimally more inclusionary.” [7] Taking this observation into account, it is difficult to justify preferential treatment for a group of people who may be even less persecuted than their fellow Latin-Americans wishing to gain permanent residence here in the United States.

Consider the thousands of children fleeing Central American countries like Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, who most often escape the gang violence plaguing their countries. It is certainly unclear why U.S. immigration policy confers special treatment to Cubans who may or may not be escaping legitimate political oppression, but deports Central American children who have come to the United States to evade the inevitable violence of their native countries. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that even Mexican immigrants should have more priority coming to the United States if they fear cartel violence, or for today’s fervent anti-communists, that Venezuelans should have the same opportunity to escape the purported oppression of their left-wing government.

Given the current political climate surrounding immigration policy, it seems unlikely that  the CAA’s existence will remain undiscussed. Indeed, through the 2016 Presidential election, the nation seems to be in the position to choose the outlook for American immigration policy in the coming years. Whether the United States decides to embrace immigration from Latin America or unapologetically restrict it, the future of the Cuban Adjustment Act will undoubtedly be an important question for both sides to consider.


[1] Liptak, Kevin. "Obama to Castro: Cuban Embargo Is Going to End." CNN. March 21, 2016. Accessed March 25, 2016. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/21/politics/obama-cuban-raul-castro/.
[2] "Green Card for a Cuban Native or Citizen." USCIS. Accessed March 25, 2016. https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/other-ways-get-green-card/green-card-cuban-native-or-citizen.
[3] Gioioso, Richard N. "U.S.-Cuba Normalization and Migration Policy: Changing the Cuban Adjustment Act." The Huffington Post. June 17, 2015. Accessed March 25, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-n-gioioso/us-cuba-normalization-and-migration-policy_b_7604506.html.
[4] Curbelo, Carlos. "Keep the Cuban Adjustment Act, but Clamp down on Its Abusers." Miamiherald. November 29, 2015. Accessed March 25, 2016. http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article47024900.html.
[5] Aguilar, Julián. "U.S. Reps. Cuellar, Farenthold Target Provision Benefiting Cuban Immigrants, by Julián Aguilar." The Texas Tribune. March 23, 2016. Accessed March 25, 2016. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/03/23/cuellar-and-farenthold-file-bill-repeal-cuban-adju/.
[6] Lane, Charles. "Time to End the Cuban Adjustment Act." Miamiherald. March 24, 2016. Accessed March 25, 2016. http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article68129082.html.
[7] Gioioso, Richard N. "U.S.-Cuba Normalization and Migration Policy: Changing the Cuban Adjustment Act." The Huffington Post. June 17, 2015. Accessed March 25, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-n-gioioso/us-cuba-normalization-and-migration-policy_b_7604506.html.
Photo Credit: Flickr User Mohill Ict



The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.