Live Q&As

Good question.  Here's what the experts say:

Some consider it important:

Here’s what Maria Cristina Garcia, who is a Cuban-American, and is an expert on Cuban issues at Cornell University, said in an interview with The Washington Post:

“There’s a sense that they’re the true migrants, the true exiles, the ones who really feel a sense of betrayal,” Garcia said. “They tend to look at the people who came before (the Castro victory) as economic migrants.” Sometimes, she said, “they are viewed with suspicion.”

The New York Times wrote: But some Cuban-Americans wonder how Senator Rubio could have gotten the year of his parents’ arrival here so wrong. The date, they said, is integral to every exile story.

“Every Cuban-American knows when their parents arrived and the circumstances under which they arrived,” said George Gonzalez, a Cuban-American political science professor at the University of Miami. “That’s part of the Cuban exile experience, the political and psychological trauma of it. So the idea that he was murky on those does not cut ice.”

And while some Cubans do not draw a distinction between those who fled Cuba after Castro took power and those who left before that date, others do. “To my father and grandparents, if you came before the revolution, it puts you in a different category,” Dr. Gonzalez said.
Some don’t:

Here’s what Andy S. Gomez, a Cuban-American Democrat and senior fellow at the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban & Cuban-American Studies, told The Miami Herald:

"I have spent my career studying the Cuban exile community and can say with authority that no distinction is made within the exile community between those who arrived in the years leading up to the revolution, and those who came after," Gomez said in a written statement. "They all share the painful heritage of not being able to return home. It’s no wonder The Washington Post made this claim without a single bit of proof to back it up. Because it doesn’t exist."

Legit question to ask. Sen. Rubio  says that his family wanted to return and couldn't because they didn't want to live under a communist regime. (I would urge you to read Sen. Rubio's op-ed published in Politico. I have pasted a link to it in the intoductory remarks of this chat.

It's worth noting that Castro was not in power and the island was not under a communist form of government when his parents came to the US in 1956.

I'd encourage you to consider both the senator's statement and the facts I have outlined in this answer and draw your own conclusion. 

It has been reported that Sen. Rubio's mother is in poor health and has had at least one stroke. I'm not sure about her condition at the present moment. But this would seem unlikely to me.

I would add that Sen. Rubio, both in his speeches and in his writings expresses what seems to be a very deep emotional bond with his parents.

A lot of people have compared Sen. Rubio's situation to the controversy over President Obama's birthplace and birth certificate.  They are different matters -- the argument about Rubio's eligibility to be president revolves around the contention, by some, that he is not a "natural born citizen" because his parents were not citizens when he was born in Florida in 1971. I communicated with two leading legal scholars on this issue: Laurence Tribe at Harvard and Gabriel Chin at US Davis. Tribe and Chin took opposite positions in the debate over Sen. McCain's eligibility (McCain was born in Panama Canal Zone. Tribe argued McCain was eligible; Chin that he wasn't. But they both said -- emphatically -- that they believe Sen. Rubio would be eligible to be president.  

Sen. Rubio says that his mother moved back to Cuba in 1961 for a short time. He says his father stayed back in Miami wrapping up family business. The senator says his mother realized Cuba was transforming into a government system that she could not abide, and the family decided not to move back.

I examined Mrs. Rubio's Cuban passport. It says she was in Cuba from 2/27/61 to 3/29/61. I have no way of knowing whether she was there to visit or to move back.  But the senator says it's the latter.

I have seen no such evidence

My editors and I determined that this was newsworthy. And that's why we published the story.

Sen. Rubio is one of the brightest stars in the Republican Party, a person invested with great hope among many in the party. He's also widely considered a possible vice presidential or presidential candidate in the future. We typically examine the statements of important public figures. And this story is an example of that approach.

I'll let you draw your own implications about the worthiness of the story and any implications that you believe exist. You're certainly entitled to your opinion and I'd like to share your opinion with our readers so that they can take it into consideration as they assess this story.

Hi Estela--

Unfortunately, it would be impossible to interview Sen. Rubio's father because he died in 2010.

As I said in a previous answer, it has been reported that Sen. Rubio's mother is in poor health. Of course, I would be more than happy to speak with her if that was something she wanted to do.

This, of course, is a judgment call.

It was our judgment that Sen. Rubio's family history is an important part of his political identity. He mentions his family frequently in speeches and when writing.

Here are some instances in which Mr. Rubio said his family came to the United States in 1959 or that they came after Castro took power. (Castro took power in 1959.)

Official US Senate Web site: In 1971, Marco was born in Miami to Cuban-born parents who came to America following Fidel Castro's takeover. (changed Friday evening – approximately 24 hours after he acknowledged to The Post that it was incorrect.)

US Senate campaign biography: In 1971, Marco was born in Miami to Cuban born parents who came to America following Fidel Castro’s takeover.

Rubio on Fox News, America’s Nightly Scoreboard, Nov. 2009: “And I think that the direction we’re going in Washington, D.C., would make us more like the rest of the world, and not like the exceptional nation that my parents found when they came here from Cuba in 1959, and the nation they worked in so hard so that I could inherit.”

In an interview with Fox 13 in Tampa. When the interviewer, Kathy Fountain, says his father came from Cuba, Rubio responded: “My parents both did. 1959.”

In a 2009 interview with NPR’s Robert Siegel, Rubio said this about his parents: “They came in the late 50s, 1959, I think.”

Miami Herald, Nov. 1, 2009: Rubio's standard stump speech packages his campaign as the next chapter of a classic American success story. ``I am the son of Cuban exiles,'' he began in Navarre, telling the story of his parents meeting in Havana and moving to the U.S. in 1959 search of a better life.

Here’s what Maria Cristina Garcia, who is a Cuban-American, and is an expert on Cuban issues at Cornell University, said in an interview with The Washington Post:

“There’s a sense that they’re the true migrants, the true exiles, the ones who really feel a sense of betrayal,” Garcia said. “They tend to look at the people who came before (the Castro victory) as economic migrants.” Sometimes, she said, “they are viewed with suspicion.”

The New York Times wrote: But some Cuban-Americans wonder how Senator Rubio could have gotten the year of his parents’ arrival here so wrong. The date, they said, is integral to every exile story.

“Every Cuban-American knows when their parents arrived and the circumstances under which they arrived,” said George Gonzalez, a Cuban-American political science professor at the University of Miami. “That’s part of the Cuban exile experience, the political and psychological trauma of it. So the idea that he was murky on those does not cut ice.”

And while some Cubans do not draw a distinction between those who fled Cuba after Castro took power and those who left before that date, others do. “To my father and grandparents, if you came before the revolution, it puts you in a different category,” Dr. Gonzalez said.
Some don’t:

Here’s what Andy S. Gomez, a Cuban-American Democrat and senior fellow at the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban & Cuban-American Studies, told The Miami Herald:

"I have spent my career studying the Cuban exile community and can say with authority that no distinction is made within the exile community between those who arrived in the years leading up to the revolution, and those who came after," Gomez said in a written statement. "They all share the painful heritage of not being able to return home. It’s no wonder The Washington Post made this claim without a single bit of proof to back it up. Because it doesn’t exist."

Thank you

There's no question that Sen. Rubio has made his family story a large part of his political narrative. He features it prominently when he's speaking and it was the second line of his Senate Web site bio and was also featured prominently in his campaign bio.

I can't say how the people of Florida will react. Sen. Rubio is certainly a popular figure. I'll leave the analysis of how this affects his political future to the analysts.

I'd rather not speculate. But I'll post this in case people want to look at the cartoon.

Senator Rubio says that his parents are exiles because they wanted to return to their country but could not because of the political changes that were taking place. He considers his family to be exiles. US Rep Ros-Lehtinen and former HUD Secretary Mel Martinez -- both of whom I mentioned earlier -- take the same view.

Others are making the argument you're making:

That's not the way I understand what he's saying. He certainly talks a lot about American exceptionalism. His parents' desire to move back to Cuba, if I understand him correctly, has more to do with the tug of wanting to live in the place of your birth and the place you consider your home.

No question here, but I will post so others can consider it.

Rubio says his family tried to move back in 1961, then realized the island was heading toward communism. He says they -- like many Cubans -- hoped that the Revolution would turn out differently than it did.

I'll throw this out in case anyone wants to think about the question raised here.

I'm not surprised that there is criticism and I'm not surprised that there is praise. Both are to be expected when you're writing about a political figure, especially one who is considered a rising star and potential vice presidential candidate.

The expected reaction did not influence the way we did this story. The story was the product of careful research. We examined a large number of documents. As I've said in an interview or two this week, I was not convinced when I first came across a document stating that Sen. Rubio's arrived in the US in 1956. I thought it might be a typo because I had heard him say that his parents came in 1959. Then I found his mother's petition for naturalization. It listed the same entry date and was filed the same day as her husband's. At that point I still wasn't convinced. I thought it could have been a sloppy clerk who had processed both their applications. Since I wasn't satisfied I decided to seek out his older brother's naturalization petition. He had applied for naturalization in a different year. But he gave the same entry date. That same date was also listed on an official domicile document in a Florida court. At that point, it was clear that the date I'd seen on the first form was not a typo.

To answer your question, Sen. Rubio has responded. He says he was relying on family oral history and he's accused The Post of treating him unfairly and suggesting that he embellished his family history for political gain.

I'd rather not speculate about the senator's motives. He says he learned the exact dates recently. Occassionally, he's given different dates for their arrival -- 1957 or 1958. But his Senate Web site says unequivocally that they came after Castro, and he's said in other interviews -- unequivocally -- that they came in 1959. At least 26 news outlets have published or broadcast stories saying they came in 1959 or after Castro, and I'm not aware of any corrections being run. One date that a Nexis search doesn’t show Rubio using is 1956 – which also happens to be the correct date, as was clearly shown in our story.

Yes

We'll see. So far, he has vigorously criticized the piece and he's gotten support from a lot of blogs and a lot of well-known Republicans.

Thank you for sharing this. Your observation is shared by some Cuban-Americans and not shared by others.

I'm posting this so others can take a look.

I think the paper pursues probing stories about politicians regardless of their party affiliation. But you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm posting it so others can consider when they make their own assessments of the paper.