>

>On the purely political end of things you have Cuban Americans concentrated in Florida who are overwhelmingly against ties to Cuba while it’s still… what it is. They’re also the reason that “wet foot dry foot” policy exists, it’s very complicated. Democrats can’t afford to ignore this bloc, and Republicans actively court them.
To be honest, "We're causing civilians of another country to suffer because it is  politically expedient" is about as evil as something can possibly be.
>Terrorism Designations. Since May 2020, pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, the Secretary of State has included Cuba on an annual list of countries certified as not cooperating fully with U.S. anti-terrorism efforts. In early January 2021, pursuant to several laws, the Secretary of State designated Cuba as a state sponsor of international terrorism, citing its harboring of several U.S. fugitives and members of Colombia’s National Liberation Army.
The terrorism designation is obviously bullshit, and it evokes the war on terror, which was every bit as murderous as Russia's war on Ukraine. Quick, defend the Iraq War for me, while you're at it.
I think your first reason, the one about politics, is a pretty good understanding of why the United States *actually* disengaged Cuba again (E: I think this is hard to swallow, but it's also self-evidently true. The Trump administration's policy was fundamentally driven merely by a change in governence, not a change in Cuba's actual stance.), and I think "We've got cold war brain worms and are more interested in voters than in not worsening the lives of innocent people in a foreign country" is pretty hard to justify.
I'll also admit that I think it's asinine, imperialist bullshit.
E: Neat pressing the block button after you ran out of arguments. For what it's worth, I think blocking me actually removes the entire thread, given that I can't see the vote count anymore.
E2: I also think it's deeply unsurprising that Cuba is aligned to states fundamentally hostile to the United States when the United States has made it very clear that, no matter what they do, they will never be in good standing with the United States. Cuba is a fairly small island nation - if it doesn't have ties to somebody, it winds up like Haiti. The "special period" was a *fucking disaster* in Cuba.  
I don't think that's a good thing, but I think it's very silly to be like 'Oh, how dare they support the bad guys!', when the other option is to fall into a failed state gang war.
"Accidentally".   How TF do you notify a foreign government of anything "accidentally"? >

Through complete ineptitude which is so typical of ICE. >

Somebody help me: how can it be so bad in a country that you'd actively make it worse with an embargo, but not sufficiently bad that you'd let in anyone claiming asylum? How does the US policy come across as even vaguely justifiable? >

You think the embargo is a reaction to conditions in Cuba? Lol >

...
Do you think I think that? >


how can it be so bad in a country that you'd actively make it worse with an embargo

It’s the straightforward interpretation of what you wrote. >

Let me make clear what I meant to leave implied: I think the US's actions are self evidently unjustifiable. I am commenting on that in the form of a question because I think it's a more usable form of communication because readers are likely to be extremely willing to write criticisms of US policy off, and therefore my approach is to gently imply a criticism that the reader can process without tripping over their own biases. >

What about the US’ actions are unjustifiable? Are you aware of the present justification for the sanctions on Cuba? >

Well, the public reason is certainly about authoritarianism in Cuba, but that can't be the case, given that the United States turns away asylum seekers, so US policymakers can't actually think the situation is that much worse than other states.
I actually think both prongs of the policy are unjustifiable. If someone is fleeing from a state for political reasons, we should admit them (indeed, I'm not super big on borders as a barrier to the movement of people in general), but I also don't think the situation in Cuba politically is comparable with even the situation in, say, Saudi Arabia, so I think that ending the embargo is obviously a thing the United States should do.
That said, I don't think it's even arguable that at least one prong of the policy is unjustifiable, which was the point I was making at the top of the thread.