The Obama Administration is rolling back some of the restrictions on travel to Cuba, making it easier for schools, churches and cultural groups to visit the island. While those wanting to travel to Cuba will still have to obtain permission from the Treasury Department in order to legally spend money in Cuba, this is a step in the right direction. I trust this will set the stage for a further loosening of the travel ban, allowing any American to visit Cuba for whatever reason they choose.
Not surprisingly, some members of Congress are up in arms. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Miami) stated, "These changes will not aid in ushering in respect for human rights and they certainly will not help the Cuban people free themselves from the tyranny that engulfs them. These changes undermine U.S. foreign policy and security objectives and will bring economic benefits to the Cuban regime."
When I worked on Capitol Hill I had the chance to interact with Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen on Cuban issues. She’s actually one of my favorite members of Congress, but in this case I think she’s just pandering to the Cuban community in Miami. Fundamentally, I think it constitutionally suspect for the federal government to restrict where a citizen can spend money outside U.S. borders, but I also find it curious why the Embargo policy continues to be vociferously defended.
The Castro brothers are still in power, Cubans remain impoverished and without the political rights U.S. citizens take for granted, and yet 40 years later the Embargo just need a little more time to work? Sorry, I don’t think so. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The travel ban and Embargo itself has failed. It’s time to repeal it.
At least we’re one step closer now to being able to visit Havana without worrying about a $10,000 fine from the Treasury Department…
I’m curious as to what the average American’s perception of Cuba is, beyond the political rhetoric. It seems odd to group it with so few other countries (and more extreme ones at that, e.g. North Korea) in maintaining travel bans. If there is such a concern about human rights, what about China? Around here (eastern Canada), it’s about as common to go to Cuba as to Mexico or the DR, without even a fleeting consideration of politics. This is of course to all-inclusive resorts, not the “real” Cuba, but still it’s a total non-issue. (I’m not a beach person, though. The closest I get is mileage running to TPA 😉
Would have expected a 2L to not throw around the word unconstitutional so blithely. The executive’s and legislative’s discretion to set foreign policy is near plenary.
Your past postings suggested a distate for an activist court overturning the decisions of elected branches of government. Now, you want J Kennedy to have the final say on US-Cuba policy? Really?
You came to your senses in the penult. Repeal it.
@listen: I did no so such thing, though I am pleased you quicky picked up on the key sentence of the post.
Let’s set aside Kent v. Dulles and Zemel v. Rusk and examine the Constitution directly. Have you studied the Equal Protection Clause? I find it highly problematic that Congress has decided that some U.S. citizens are able to travel to Cuba and others are not. The policy is not narrowly tailored and violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
While the right to set foreign policy under current constitutional jurisprudence may be plenary, Congress also violates my First Amendment right of free speech by prohibiting me from exploring Cuba on my terms.
Bottom line, though, is that thousands of Americans visit Cuba each month illegally and are not prosecuted. I could do it easily if I wanted to through CUN or MEX, but I am not willing to break the law.
Court precedence is to defer to the rational intent of Congress on equal protection claims not involving a suspect class. Surely we want the people (through their elected representatives) to set foreign policy, applying various levers of persuasion against other countries to effecuate desired outcomes, without the second guessing of the judiciary at every juncture.
Your first amendment claim deserves limit sympathy.
Stick with your travels. A coherent judicial philosophy will be a task for another day.