>

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.
"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?