3 House Republicans from South Florida with Cuban roots carefully navigate Trump's immigration policies
A few dozen women gathered at a posh Miami brewery on a recent evening to listen to U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart outline the Republican plans to retain their slim House majority in next year's elections.
In an hour of remarks, Diaz-Balart did not bring up immigration on his own.
Diaz-Balart is one of three House Republicans in South Florida with roots in Cuba. Together, they are treading carefully in discussing President Donald Trump's immigration offensive, which includes directly targeting some Cubans and Venezuelans, key parts of the GOP's base in Florida.
Democrats are targeting at least one of these lawmakers, zeroing in on U.S. Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar's district as a possible House seat they could flip next year.
Miami Democrats set up a billboard on a heavily traveled expressway showing the three House members and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a former Florida senator who is also of Cuban descent, with the label "traitors."
Vehicles on the Palmetto Expressway drive past a digital billboard reading "Traitors, to immigrants, to Miami-Dade, to the American dream," alongside pictures of Florida politicians with roots in Cuba, including from left, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and U.S. Reps. Maria Elvira Salazar, Carlos Gimenez, and Mario Diaz-Balart, Friday, April 25, 2025, in Medley, Fla.
Rebecca Blackwell / AP
Diaz-Balart, Salazar and Rep. Carlos Gimenez have defended Trump despite the president's efforts to eliminate protections that allow hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, Cubans, and other migrants to live and work legally in the United States.
Last November, Trump became the first Republican presidential candidate since 1988 to win Miami-Dade County, the metropolitan area with the highest share of immigrants in the country. While Republicans believe the rightward shift among Latinos indicates support for stricter border restrictions and mass deportations, Democrats think such measures may backfire on these lawmakers if these restrictions hit too close to home.
In his recent visit with Republican women, and after not mentioning immigration, one of the few questions Diaz-Balart fielded was about temporary protections to Venezuelans, which Trump is trying to end. Diaz-Balart justified Trump's actions, saying the president was doing "exactly what he said he was going to do."
"We have a lot of friends who are in this situation, and they have no way to adjust," said Milena Mitraud, a lawyer who asked the question.
Here's a closer look at the three lawmakers
Maria Elvira Salazar
Salazar, 63, has been perhaps the most vocal of the three, saying Trump must not eliminate some of the immigration protections that are popular among Miami residents, specifically advocating for Cubans and some Venezuelans. A federal judge recently intervened to block the Trump administration from ending temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans. After the judge's ruling, Salazar gave Trump — not the judge — credit for "doing the right thing."
Salazar has blamed Democratic President Joe Biden for creating a system under which Cubans were no longer being allowed to apply for legal residency a year after arriving in the U.S. under the Cuban Adjustment Act. She said she has put pressure on the new administration to stop arresting those Cubans who were allowed under that system and said she intervened and secured the release of a nursing student.
She made the argument that she is pushing for immigration changes — anathema to much of the Republican base nationally — in a video she posted to X only in Spanish.
"We are the only ones in Congress who are helping you," she said. "We're trying to make that piece of trash paper the Biden administration gave them so that they can receive parole and then benefit from the Cuban Adjustment Act."
The former broadcaster recently agreed with a Univision anchor that she was "the only Republican" trying to work on immigration changes. She talked about a "new dawn" in saying that Trump would be as effective on immigration as Republican President Ronald Reagan was in countering the Soviet threat.
"Things are changing," she said. "President Trump has said that those illegals who are criminals should leave, and I agree. They should be kicked out. But the lady who has been here cleaning for 10, 15, 20 years, or the one who is picking tomatoes, or the one who is picking oranges, or the one who is peeling potatoes in a New York restaurant, we must give them dignity."
Salazar, in an opinion column for the Miami Herald on Friday, defended her record on immigration in response to a letter by a Cuban American health care businessman published in the newspaper. The former GOP political donor accused Salazar, Diaz-Balart, Gimenez and Rubio of "complicity and cowardice" in the face of Trump's "cruelty toward immigrants."
"I don't belong in any letter calling out inaction. I've been on the battlefield in Congress, willing to take the political risk and lead the charge," she wrote.
Mario Diaz-Balart
Diaz-Balart, 63, joined Salazar and Gimenez releasing a joint statement after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced she was revoking deportation protections for Venezuelans. The lawmakers said they stood in solidarity with Venezuelans, who may be persecuted or oppressed if deported to their native country.
"The Venezuelan people have endured repression, corruption, and human rights abuses for far too long in Venezuela, and it is still not safe for many to return," the joint statement said.
But the dean of the Florida congressional delegation has mostly defended Trump's actions, blamed Biden for allowing record-high numbers of immigrants into the U.S. and claimed many migrants who arrived during the Biden administration are criminals. Studies show immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans, but some immigrants in the U.S. illegally have been convicted in recent murder cases that gained notoriety during the campaign.
When meeting with Republican women in Miami this month, Diaz-Balart told them he is working with the administration to create a "process" to screen people who come from countries where it is more likely they would have a legitimate case of asylum. He said that while working on that, they have asked to allow those who are already here and are not a threat to the public to remain in the country. But he was still critical of those who are arriving illegally.
Carlos Gimenez
Gimenez, 71, a former mayor of Miami-Dade County, has defended Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration while expressing solidarity with those Venezuelans who receive temporary legal protections.
But the Cuban-born congressman has gone a step further in proposing cutting off remittances and halting all travel to and from Cuba. That would impact many of those who have arrived more recently who have relatives living on the island.
In a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Gimenez said there could be limited exceptions authorized by the State Department.
"The murderous dictatorship in Cuba is on life-support," he said in the letter. "The regime cannot even keep the lights on. And America must stand with the Cuban people to topple this pathetic gang once and for all."
In a statement, Gimenez's spokesman Roberto Lugones said the lawmaker believes these actions eliminate Cuba's revenue streams while "supporting the brave Cuban people in their quest for freedom." Regarding immigration protections, Gimenez wants cases to be decided on an individual basis.
"Congressman Gimenez supports a case-by-case solution for exiles with legitimate political asylum claims who are stuck in immigration limbo due to Joe Biden's incoherent and reckless open-border policies," the statement said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
12 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___ Suman Naishadham in Madrid contributed to this report.
Hamilton Spectator
23 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
As it attacks Iran's nuclear program, Israel maintains ambiguity about its own
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear program because its archenemy's furtive efforts to build an atomic weapon are a threat to its existence. What's not-so-secret is that for decades Israel has been believed to be the Middle East's only nation with nuclear weapons , even though its leaders have refused to confirm or deny their existence. Israel's ambiguity has enabled it to bolster its deterrence against Iran and other enemies, experts say, without triggering a regional nuclear arms race or inviting preemptive attacks. Israel is one of just five countries that aren't party to a global nuclear nonproliferation treaty. That relieves it of international pressure to disarm, or even to allow inspectors to scrutinize its facilities. Critics in Iran and elsewhere have accused Western countries of hypocrisy for keeping strict tabs on Iran's nuclear program — which its leaders insist is only for peaceful purposes — while effectively giving Israel's suspected arsenal a free pass. On Sunday, the U.S. military struck three nuclear sites in Iran, inserting itself into Israel's effort to destroy Iran's program . Here's a closer look at Israel's nuclear program: A history of nuclear ambiguity Israel opened its Negev Nuclear Research Center in the remote desert city of Dimona in 1958, under the country's first leader, Prime Minister David Ben Gurion. He believed the tiny fledgling country surrounded by hostile neighbors needed nuclear deterrence as an extra measure of security. Some historians say they were meant to be used only in case of emergency, as a last resort. After it opened, Israel kept the work at Dimona hidden for a decade, telling United States' officials it was a textile factory, according to a 2022 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an academic journal. Relying on plutonium produced at Dimona, Israel has had the ability to fire nuclear warheads since the early 1970s, according to that article, co-authored by Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists, and Matt Korda, a researcher at the same organization. Israel's policy of ambiguity suffered a major setback in 1986, when Dimona's activities were exposed by a former technician at the site, Mordechai Vanunu. He provided photographs and descriptions of the reactor to The Sunday Times of London. Vanunu served 18 years in prison for treason, and is not allowed to meet with foreigners or leave the country. Israel possesses dozens of nuclear warheads, experts say Experts estimate Israel has between 80 and 200 nuclear warheads, although they say the the lower end of that range is more likely. Israel also has stockpiled as much as 1,110 kilograms (2,425 pounds) of plutonium, potentially enough to make 277 nuclear weapons, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a global security organization. It has six submarines believed to be capable of launching nuclear cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles believed to be capable of launching a nuclear warhead up to 6,500 kilometers (4,000 miles), the organization says. Germany has supplied all of the submarines to Israel, which are docked in the northern city of Haifa, according to the article by Kristensen and Korda. Nuclear weapons in the Middle East pose risks In the Middle East, where conflicts abound, governments are often unstable, and regional alliances are often shifting, nuclear proliferation is particularly dangerous, said Or Rabinowitz, a scholar at Jerusalem's Hebrew University and a visiting associate professor at Stanford University. 'When nuclear armed states are at war, the world always takes notice because we don't like it when nuclear arsenals ... are available for decision makers,' she said. Rabinowitz says Israel's military leaders could consider deploying a nuclear weapon if they found themselves facing an extreme threat, such as a weapon of mass destruction being used against them. Three countries other than Israel have refused to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: India, Pakistan and South Sudan. North Korea has withdrawn. Iran has signed the treaty, but it was censured last week, shortly before Israel launched its operation, by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog — a day before Israel attacked — for violating its obligations . Israel's policy of ambiguity has helped it evade greater scrutiny, said Susie Snyder at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a group that works to promote adherence to the U.N. treaty. Its policy has also shined a light on the failure of Western countries to rein in nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, she said. They 'prefer not to be reminded of their own complicity,' she said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court prepares to release major opinions on birthright citizenship, LGBTQ books, porn sites
From digging into President Donald Trump's battle with the courts to deciding whether people can be required to identify themselves before viewing porn online, the Supreme Court in the coming days will deliver its most dramatic decisions of the year. With most of its pending rulings complete, the justices are now working toward issuing the final flurry of opinions that could have profound implications for the Trump administration, the First Amendment and millions of American people. Already, the conservative Supreme Court has allowed states to ban transgender care for minors — a blockbuster decision that could have far-reaching consequences — sided with the Food and Drug Administration's denial of vaping products and upheld Biden-era federal regulations that will make it easier to track 'ghost guns.' Here are some of the most important outstanding cases: The first argued appeal involving Trump's second term has quickly emerged as the most significant case the justices will decide in the coming days. The Justice Department claims that three lower courts vastly overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions that blocked the president from enforcing his order limiting birthright citizenship. Whatever the justices say about the power of courts to halt a president's executive order on a nationwide basis could have an impact beyond birthright citizenship. Trump has, for months, vociferously complained about courts pausing dozens of his policies with nationwide injunctions. While the question is important on its own — it could shift the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches — the case was supercharged by the policy at issue: Whether a president can sign an executive order that upends more than a century of understanding, the plain text of the 14th Amendment and multiple Supreme Court precedents pointing to the idea that people born in the US are US citizens. During the May 15 arguments, conservative and liberal justices seemed apprehensive to let the policy take effect. The high court is also set to decide whether a school district in suburban Washington, DC, burdened the religious rights of parents by declining to allow them to opt their elementary-school children out of reading LGBTQ books in the classroom. As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County Public Schools approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary. The parents said the reading of the books violated their religious beliefs. The case arrived at the Supreme Court at a moment when parents and public school districts have been engaged in a tense struggle over how much sway families should have over instruction. The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during arguments in late April that it would side with the parents in the case, continuing the court's yearslong push to expand religious rights. The court is juggling several major cases challenging the power of federal agencies. One of those deals with the creation of a task force that recommends which preventive health care services must be covered at no cost under Obamacare. Though the case deals with technical questions about who should appoint the members of a board that makes those recommendations, the decision could affect the ability of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as certain cancer screenings and PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections. During arguments in late April, the court signaled it may uphold the task force. The court also seemed skeptical of a conservative challenge to the Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to pay for programs that expand broadband and phone service in rural and low-income communities. Phone companies contribute billions to that fund, a cost that is passed on to consumers. A conservative group challenged the fund as an unconstitutional 'delegation' of the power of Congress to levy taxes. If the court upholds the structure of the programs' funding, that would represent a departure from its trend in recent years of limiting the power of agencies to act without explicit approval from Congress. For years, the Supreme Court has considered whether congressional districts redrawn every decade violate the rights of Black voters under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. This year, the justices are being asked by a group of White voters whether Louisiana went so far in adding a second Black-majority district that it violated the 14th Amendment. The years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's districts raises a fundamental question about how much state lawmakers may think about race when drawing congressional maps. The answer may have implications far beyond the Bayou State, particularly if a majority of the court believes it is time to move beyond policies intended to protect minority voters that were conceived during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Arguments in the case, which took place in March, were mixed. A ruling against Louisiana would likely jeopardize the state's second Black and Democratic-leaning congressional district, currently held by Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat. And any change to Fields' territory could affect the boundaries of districts held by House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. The justices will also decide a fight that erupted in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster yanked Medicaid funding for the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics. Technically, the legal dispute isn't about abortion — federal and state law already bar Medicaid from paying for that procedure — but a win for South Carolina could represent a financial blow to an entity that provides access to abortion in many parts of the country. McMaster, a Republican, argued the payments were a taxpayer subsidy for abortion. McMaster's order had the effect of also blocking patients from receiving other services at Planned Parenthood. A patient named Julie Edwards, who has diabetes, and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued the state, noting that federal law gives Medicaid patients a right to access care at any qualified doctor's office willing to see them. The legal dispute for the court deals with whether Medicaid patients have a right to sue to enforce requirements included in spending laws approved by Congress — in this case, the mandate that patients can use the benefit at any qualified doctor's office. Without a right to sue, Planned Parenthood argues, it would be impossible to enforce those requirements. The Supreme Court has tended to view such rights-to-sue with skepticism, though a 7-2 majority found such a right in a related case two years ago. The court is expected to release more opinions Thursday and will need at least one other day — and possibly several more — to finish its work.
