I have a question for those that know.

[wxcrazytwo]

The doctrine of "wet feet, dry feet in Florida, what does this actually mean? There is case in Miami where some cubans reached a pilon on the 7 mile bridge (old), but where not considered touching land (dry) and were sent back. What does this doctrine mean?

[senorpepr]

Basically, the law states that if a Cuban reaches US soil, they may stay, but if they are capture at sea, even if in US waters, they must be sent back to Cuba. In this specific case, they reached a part of the bridge that does not connect to the land. Therefore, they cannot "walk" to dry land, thus they must be sent back. Had they reached a part of the bridge that did connect to land, or even reach land itself, they would have be allowed to stay.

[wxcrazytwo]

Hmm, as always senor thanks. However, I have a questions for ya. Even if the piling is maintained, controled and under the possession of the U.S. does it meet the requirements. This law is very interesting indeed. Living in California for many years, I have never heard of this type of law. Thanks for the clarification dude.

[senorpepr]

Hmm, as always senor thanks. However, I have a questions for ya. Even if the piling is maintained, controled and under the possession of the U.S. does it meet the requirements. This law is very interesting indeed. Living in California for many years, I have never heard of this type of law. Thanks for the clarification dude.

Well, that goes back to the whole dry/wet land thing. Although this piling is controlled by the US, it still is not connected to "dry land". This particular situation is very fuzzy and can be looked at different ways. They ruled that the piling was not dry land so it is not "safe" in regards to this law. Had they went a bit further to soil, it would have been fine.

[wxcrazytwo]

Hmm, as always senor thanks. However, I have a questions for ya. Even if the piling is maintained, controled and under the possession of the U.S. does it meet the requirements. This law is very interesting indeed. Living in California for many years, I have never heard of this type of law. Thanks for the clarification dude.

Well, that goes back to the whole dry/wet land thing. Although this piling is controlled by the US, it still is not connected to "dry land". This particular situation is very fuzzy and can be looked at different ways. They ruled that the piling was not dry land so it is not "safe" in regards to this law. Had they went a bit further to soil, it would have been fine.

Yeah, but the piling must have been connected somehow to dry land for it continue to be standing. Very interesting indeed senor..

[alicia-w]

think about it, the piling is connected to the sea floor. how can that be dry land?

[O Town]

Wow they made it all the way here and didnt get to the other side of the bidge or to land but could see it. They must be really bummed out to say the least. I for one am glad they made that law, they used to rescue them out of the water and bring them to shore and they would stay. And by the way while we were on vacation in Sanibel last summer a raft came ashore a few hotels down from us, it is amazing how many of those rafts actually make it here. They make them out of anything avalible, I have seen one they have in a restaurant in the keys. A pretty sketchy ride they make all the way here. That place has got to be just horrible for them to indure that.