Unlike the character in García Márquez’s short novel, the First Colonel Mario Méndez Mayedo does have someone to write to him. In fact, as many as can be conceived: he has received in his name, or redirected to his interest, thousands of comments, queries, congratulations, observations and proposals.
It is not for less. For weeks he has been and is the most visible face of the Law on Immigration draft law, both in official and non-official media, as well as on social media where its contents are hotly debated. Cuba is already a country with more than 2.5 million migrants — around a quarter of the population residing on the island. And many more Cubans — who knows how many — aim or dream of becoming migrants.
Since the second half of the 19th century, due to various internal and external causes and processes, the external migratory flow has been a constant phenomenon on the island, especially magnetized by the neighboring United States, the largest recipient of these population movements.
Such dynamics have had and have disruptive implications and consequences, from excesses, family tragedies, geopolitical blows and counter-blows, to expanding into the most hidden folds of national sentimentality and cultural imaginaries.
In this situation, with the 1959 revolution as a turning point in history, a diaspora present in more than a hundred countries on four continents is confirmation of the gigantic proportions of the migratory phenomenon, transversal to the entire island society, which demographically decreases and will no longer reach 12 million inhabitants.
Cuban emigration, therefore, is the other side of the nation and any political project is obliged to add it, not as an appendix, but as a natural piece of its integrity on a level of functional, ethical and symbolic horizontality.
An interlocutor with a calm manner and fluent conversation, Méndez Mayedo is the head of the Department of Identification, Immigration and Aliens, of the Ministry of the Interior (MININT), and its public agenda, given the proximity of the discussion of the draft law in the National Assembly this mid-July, has contained a series of presentations and discussion sessions in the institutional space, in addition to a recent press conference with Cuban and foreign media.
The senior officer at the head of one of the departments that, due to the daily events in immigration matters, is presumed to be one of the most hectic in the MININT portfolio, set aside almost 40 minutes to attend to an interview with OnCuba.
As a scoop, he revealed that the draft law — at this point a work in progress — continues to assimilate the influence of public opinion and will therefore have changes to its wording when it is presented to deputies for approval or rejection.
Law and demography
In 2023, the Cuban population maintained the trend of aging and natural decrease. During the period, around 90,300 births were recorded, the lowest figure in the last six decades. It is stated that the Cuban population will no longer reach 12 million inhabitants and now, with the current migratory dynamics in constant growth, how could this new Law on Immigration help reduce or slow down this critical bleeding of the population in Cuba?
A first angle is the objectivity of these statistics. ONEI [National Office of Statistics and Information] statistics have support and establish a statistical base for the country of different sectors and organizations. In the immigration case, it is the Ministry of the Interior that provides this information; but, unlike other countries, it is not based on estimates, it is objective and also has legal support. In other words, the ONEI analyzes are based on the current law that defines 24 months to declare a person who resides outside the country as an immigrant.
However, in practice it happens that we are not emigrating so much because we are in a moratorium. In other words, the reduction in the numbers reported by the ONEI is not the real reduction that is occurring in the Cuban migrant population. This is not a difficulty for the ONEI; there is already a consensus to analyze the “effective population” criterion.
When the ONEI publishes the closing data for 2023, it would already have applied a concept of effective population, a term more in line with statistical requirements.
These data must reflect a tendency towards decrease in the Cuban population, we could say a marked tendency towards decrease. There is also a problem, that of births, where a decrease is also observed. These two indicators confirm that there is a decrease in the Cuban population. The Law on Immigration contributes to having backup for greater objectivity in the figure we give. It is the main contribution that this draft law offers.
It also has implications in Law and in immigration categories. The law could create the conditions to reinforce something that is logical in migratory flows (being on one side and the other, the circularity process, etc.) and give greater facilities to foreigners to settle here.
Today, for a permanent resident to obtain that status faces a very closed process. They have to be married and have children. Now we are going to provide other facilities. For example, to foreigners who have been here on business, who have lived here for twenty or thirty years and like Cuba, we are going to give them facilities and we can have an increase in foreigners residing in the country. With the modifications present in the law, this reality is tempered a little to international trends. I am not saying that we are going to increase the Cuban population with foreigners, that is not the idea….
It is ruled out that it is a way to encourage immigration….
We are not encouraging immigration, but it is a phenomenon that is present and it seems to us that the Law on Immigration does not purely resolve this, rather it seeks objectivity in the data. But it does create the bases for the legal and legislative framework of Cuba to adjust concepts and categories that favor this gradual, indirect return of Cubans, which will depend greatly on economic stability and the reversal of the current situation.
In public interventions, you have noted that the law establishes recognition of third-generation Cubans born outside the island and that would also be a contribution of the law to somehow confront demographic decline.
Correct. In general, the majority of the residences of Cuban citizenship that we are granting, that is, the positive response to requests for Cuban citizenship to Cuban children abroad — and who therefore live abroad — is a contribution to our demographics. That goes to the statistics. Objectively they are residing abroad; and in the case of grandchildren the same thing happens. In other words, everything depends on whether a part of them, in the future, begin to reside in Cuba in parallel with their residence abroad. In other words, the law extends obtaining Cuban citizenship to grandchildren.
Migratory categories
If, as the authorities have reiterated, the property rights of those Cubans who have left the country, and who since 2012 are considered residents abroad, will not be lost under any circumstances, what is the relevance, the comparative advantages of a figure such as effective immigration residence compared to the status of resident abroad? If these Cubans who declare themselves residents abroad enjoy all these prerogatives and property rights, why not leave it there instead of designing another category, which also presents certain temporal requirements and permanence in the territory? Could it be assumed that there will be differences in duties and rights between both categories? How are those people who have accepted repatriation included in the new law?
There is an immigration reality that we have to reverse: the obsolescence of the 24-month term. It was already impractical, because permanent residence in Cuba for up to 24 months and a few days abroad could imply in some cases that they maintain it, which is a fiction in practice.
The issue of properties comes up and we have reiterated that these residents in Cuba who until today had 24 months and which was extended with the moratorium, have properties in Cuba, even if they live in Madrid or Kentucky, and what we are proposing is that the logic indicates that they will not lose any patrimonial rights. We have been categorical about that. Not only because we infer it, but because we are recognizing and living the logic that today in those 24 months people have properties, but they do not live in Cuba most of the time. They don’t lose them.
That doesn’t have to happen now. The Law on Immigration of a country, neither in this one nor in any other, can interfere in other areas of society, and that is why we have focused on patrimonial matters. The updating of our legislation must fully determine the scope of effective residence in a group of rights. Logic indicates that the majority of these rights will not be affected; but everything is in what each law definitively determines.
Is it not within the jurisdiction of the Law on Immigration or are such matters simply delegated to other regulations?
It is not in its jurisdiction. The Law on Immigration lays the foundations for the rest of the legislations regarding immigration, in terms of status. That is important.
And would the Law on Immigration govern others that in some way accompany it: Citizenship and Aliens, for example, and would it always be a legislative necessity to look towards it as a guide?
It does not govern because it does not direct the process, but it is a starting point. In this legislative draft, we would have to ask ourselves what the concept of permanent residence is like — which does not exist in the current law, what exists is residence in the national territory — and what the effective resident is like. Those are things that we have to adjust.
In any case, as a result of the consultation that we are doing (it has not been the longest, but it has been an intense consultation and everything, we are processing everything: what enters through the Parliament website, what enters through an email account, comments), we are taking everything into account. We only do not take into account what is not worth taking into account, the aggressive, the usual; but objectively we may have analyzed more than a thousand criteria.
Many people comment on their personal situation. Others make proposals, arrangements, subsections. We are working intensely so that, as a result of the consultation and to live up to that consultation with Cubans outside and inside, adjustments are made to the draft law. Unquestionably, this issue of patrimony must be clarified in the text, not inferred.
Do you understand that there is a difference between the category of resident abroad and that of effective residence?
Not migratory. It is the will of what we have said. And in terms of assets there are no differences. Today that would be a contradiction, because today in those 24 months you have a MSME, you have a house, a car, you go to Spain, you rent that car, you leave some other properties on loan; in other words, they are the realities of today, which do not even begin with the moratorium, but with the end of the 24 months.
I remind you that there was a law, 989 of the year 1961, the confiscation of assets from those who left the country, and we repealed that in October 2012, when the updating measures began that later came into force in 2013. There is a logic, from that moment on there is no longer any confiscation, and I, even if I emigrate, can have those means at my disposal; but we are not talking about emigrants, we are talking about residents abroad, those who spend more time outside than inside, those who do not have an effective residence in Cuba. These people, in reality, could do with their means and their assets whatever they wanted, they sold them, put them on loan, transferred them; that is, they freely made combinations. Therefore, it would not make sense, it is not logical according to legal logic, to provide something contrary to these practices. It would be a contradiction.
Repatriates and residents abroad: The polyclinic or the Cira García?
Now, Colonel, another concern of many is how repatriates fit into the regulatory redesign.
They fit in that this repatriate is, for our purposes, a resident in the national territory, even if he does not live in Cuba.
They live and do not live here. They often alternate.
An important part does not live in Cuba and retains their identity card. And if you want, I’ll advance a possible question: the identity card is under my direction, but it is not an issue of the Law on Immigration; it should not cover whether or not they should have that document. Since 2013, the identity card has not been withdrawn. The case could also be that in 2025 the Law on Identity will be discussed. It has a thousand variants and many contents, but I am sure that it will be an aspect that will be taken into account.
Currently residents abroad have their identity card, because they never lost it. How far can we extend this document for every Cuban who lives outside the island for the purposes of being fully identified? In reality, they do not need it in practice, although they may have a sense of belonging to the homeland; but in real life, with the passport you fully identify yourself here, there are no limitations. Unquestionably, the Law on Identity will have to cover that part and how far we go in identifying people who are abroad. In the questions we are asked, the issue of the identity card appears. I appreciate it more in a sentimental sense than a practical one, although for some it can be very practical.
I was asking because some people who have opinions on these matters, asked me about the case that they visit the island, as residents abroad and not as actual residents in the country, and they fear that if they get sick or suffer some mishap, for example, they are told that they have to seek care at the clinic for foreigners and not at the polyclinic in their community. Is that so?
According to current law, this is not the case. The proposed Law on Immigration does not go into that detail, it cannot go there. Objectively, it can’t.
Ambiguity and discretion
It can be seen, from the comments on the social media, that there are those who suggest or reproach that the Immigration draft law contains a high level of ambiguity and discretion in delicate matters such as the entry into or exit from the country of certain people or the cancellation of citizenship, for example. It is understood that the State has interests to defend and that many times they do not coincide with the interests of the citizens and vice versa. How does the Law on Immigration focus on this State-individual relationship?
It is a philosophical question…. It seems to us that there is no ambiguity in the Law on Citizenship. There is a legal detail and that is that the Law on Citizenship is regulatory; that is, it does not need a regulation. It will have clarifications, but it does not need an additional regulation, because we had time and it was suggested to us in this case to make it regulatory. I can assure you — I have not read all the opinions, but I have read the majority, preparing for this meeting — that in reality, in relation to the issue of Citizenship I perceive that there is manipulation and misinformation.
An example…?
For example, it is sought to simplify the renunciation of citizenship to the simple fact of entering Cuba with another passport, and we have tried to demonstrate that it is something complex, at least it is serious, and really few had realized that you become a foreigner.
Beyond the fact that you enter with the passport of another country, the renunciation of citizenship, if the State accepts it, if you are not stateless because you have another citizenship, you are a foreigner in Cuba. You do not have any limitations to enter, but the Cuban State has no responsibility with you, objectively. This is an issue that requires responsibility when addressing it.
Likewise, there is the comment about whether we give an olive branch to those with the I-220A…. What the usual people are saying is that then the solution is to go to Cuba with a I-220A, which as you know is a legal limbo in the United States in which some 300,000 people are trapped.
Citizenship: a matter for naturalized foreigners
I insist, the issue of the renunciation of citizenship has been irresponsibly manipulated. The term loss of citizenship has been confused, something elementary that is in world legislations. In other words, we have carried out comparative studies and what we are proposing for the loss of citizenship is quite simple, but, I emphasize, it is for naturalization, it is about foreigners.
Not for Cubans?
Not for Cubans. The law says so, therefore they are individuals who by naturalization obtained Cuban citizenship, met the requirements and have an effective residence in Cuba and is one more Cuban, with all the provisions of the law. So, we are talking about the case of a foreigner who obtained Cuban nationality, and begins to reside abroad, and in three years does not contact us. I still cannot tell you — because it will be in the regulations — what form this contact will take, whether it is through embassies, a phone call, an email; the way contact is made with the Cuban embassy in three years is a technical detail. If in three years contact is not made, Cuban citizenship is lost.
And are we facing a large group of these cases?
First of all, we are talking about a small group and there we are ruling out Cubans, even Cubans who obtained nationality from Cuban parents abroad, that is, by birth, not by naturalization. They are technical details, but that is confused in the manipulative hemorrhage. For example, someone has called us through these communication channels that we established and asked us if they are in Mexico waiting for CBP One, and in three years they do not return to Cuba, etc…and I ask what one thing has to do with the other. First of all, this is not for Cubans; that’s the manipulation. And in the case of deprivation of citizenship it is something very exceptional. I repeat, very exceptional. We only withdraw Cuban citizenship from the Bay of Pigs invaders through a criminal sentence.
Has it ever happened again?
No, never again. And so that you have it as a reference, which is quite graphic, neither Orlando Bosch nor Posada Carriles had their Cuban nationality cancelled. They were not Bay of Pigs invaders. This, I repeat, is exceptional, and you will not find a better example than that.
And what is your vision of the regulations?
Going to that other aspect of your question, the State has to defend itself. The Cuban State has exceptional conditions of hostility in this case. It is a historical reality. Removing ourselves from that reality will not lead us to carry out an objective analysis with the entry or exit limitations. What I mean: that such limitations are repeated is not something new, they are almost word-for word in the current law.
Article 306, which regulates these issues, including the bearers of secrets, dates from 2012 and remains. I reiterate that it is a sensitive issue, but it must be seen in the context of the conditions in which Cuba develops. And laws may have specific aspects, but it is not possible to cover them all, and some terms are not ambiguous, but rather general and allow maneuvering with certain categories; but it is not ambiguity.
Life is very complex. I’m telling you, the amount of dynamics we see every day exceeds what we can talk about publicly about these issues. Can you imagine an individual who has raped a girl, who served a sentence for that, how they are going to receive him in his neighborhood? It does not mean that we are going to limit his entry into the country, but they are realities that we have to address that are very complex.
Political participation beyond the seas
It is stated that there is a will of the State to make a kind of Casa Cuba where we can all fit, those of us who are here, those who are abroad, and among other actions for this, it encourages, at least in print, Cubans’ investment in the economy, in social development plans, etc., through various modalities. But there is a feeling that this is necessary, but not sufficient for the integration of that large Cuban community abroad that is rapidly growing. What could the Law on Immigration contribute to allow the political participation of the diaspora? I’ll give you an example. When the Family Code or the Constitution itself was voted on, both in referendum, there was at least the possibility that Cuban residents could come to Cuba to vote, there were no possibilities of a remote vote for those who were not on a state mission. How would the Law on Immigration contribute to this participation in the political destinies of the nation and how could this act of democratization be more viable in the future?
The immigration categories established by the law do not cover this aspect and I insist that the Law on Immigration in relation to these issues is a reference point without being a guide, so the electoral law is the one that covers these aspects. That’s the logic.
Now, it is true that there is a variant by mail and the question is: How would Cubans in Florida vote, and where would they do it? I’ll give you another practical example. Today, due to a logistical problem, the members of the medical contingent in Venezuela do not vote for their respective delegates to local governments on the island. Their geographical disintegration makes it inoperative.
Although I was referring to the nation’s major issues.
With the referendum on the Constitution, how would Cubans in Florida vote? There is no consulate there, on what corner or in what building would they not plant a bomb? Because extremists are like that. We see it every day in the world. The current conditions are impractical, especially in the place where we have the largest concentration of Cubans, disconnected — a part of them — from the national reality. We have only one consulate in Washington, with the limitations of going there, and on the other hand, 52% of Cubans are concentrated in Miami Dade.
Returning to the consultation on the Law on Immigration. I consider that it has been beneficial and has exceeded expectations. There is a criterion as to why a referendum was not held. In reality, referendums cannot be held for all laws in Cuba. The option chosen, which was an intense consultation, is giving results. We are having contacts with deputies, with specialists and the opinions from Cuba and abroad have been very useful, honestly. In fact, that will have a direct impact on the quality and final version of the document that deputies will see. In parallel to this meeting, we are reworking some articles, opening up some ideas, I don’t think it is due to ambiguity, but because there are changes based on the criteria and that is why we are doing the consultation. Based on all this, I can tell you that it has been an interesting and useful process.
And the regulation? People talk about it with or without suspicion….
The law cannot come out without the regulation and we are working in parallel on that body. This is not really an obscure document, because first the regulation is published and before, for its preparation, a group of agencies, entities and organizations are consulted. The law cannot come into force if the regulation is not in place. And the regulation cannot, by elementary legal logic, go beyond the ranges of the law itself.
It is true that there are things that many would like to see in the law, but they are very tactical details that should be in the regulation. It makes no sense to update a law in one or two years, that would give extraordinary legal uncertainty. That is the idea, while we vary the regulation in aspects that we have defined and in aspects that we are modifying based on the consultation. The consultation also has an impact on the regulation. We can categorically say that.
Author
Angel Marqués Dolz
