The article is about a judge ruling that stated it was unlawful to send 15 Cuban refugees/illegal immigrants back to Cuba who had reached a battered and abandoned Florida bridge.
Now why was it unlawful? Because of our Cuban wet foot/dry foot policy, which states that if you can reach dry land before getting caught, you can legally stay, but in the waters you have to turn back. According to the government, the 15 Cubans had reached the bridge which was no longer connected to dry land...
WTF! Seriously, this is like a game of tag! Does anyone else the the ridiculousness in this law?!
Mar 1, 06 8:53 am
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Wet Foot, Dry Building
This is absurd! I had no idea:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/28/wetfoot.dryfoot.ap/index.html
The article is about a judge ruling that stated it was unlawful to send 15 Cuban refugees/illegal immigrants back to Cuba who had reached a battered and abandoned Florida bridge.
Now why was it unlawful? Because of our Cuban wet foot/dry foot policy, which states that if you can reach dry land before getting caught, you can legally stay, but in the waters you have to turn back. According to the government, the 15 Cubans had reached the bridge which was no longer connected to dry land...
WTF! Seriously, this is like a game of tag! Does anyone else the the ridiculousness in this law?!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.