|
Originally Posted by mkt
(Post 11214297)
Is he still a US citizen when setting foot on Cuban soil?
That's your answer. Of course, in John Smith's case, there's truly no way for Treasury or CBP to find out he's been in Cuba, because there's no US financial records (since he used his EU bank), no connecting flight they caught him taking via Montreal, and he was probably smart enough to enter Cuba on his EU passport, which he won't let CBP anywhere near when he enters the US. (and if he's really smart, he gets a duplicate EU passport like US citizens who travel to both Israel and nations that don't like Israel). It's like the proverbial tree falling in the forest when no one's around. |
SCOTUS case from the 70s or 80s said no right travel to cuba without permission period (under 1st amendment no right either.)
I say we CALL a CONSTIUTIONAL CONVENTION and have the 28th amendment be the right of freedom to travel. I mean for godsake if the 27th amendment is about pay for those greedy congress .......s who only look after themselves and not us then we need to call this convention to change America. |
That same SCOTUS thinks that a tomato is a vegetable, even though botanically, it's very much a fruit.
But let's ignore things like science and facts :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 11194013)
I do not have a cite but the post you are questioning is accurate. The rule is about spending money there, not visiting. And the fine is officially issued by the Treasury. The law has to do with currency control (they don't want US hard currency in Cuba) which is why it is a Treasury thing.
|
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 11195201)
There is a cash arrival tax that is paid on landing. It would be rather difficult to arrive via air and not spend money there.
|
Originally Posted by bdjohns1
(Post 11214020)
Here's an interesting "what-if": Suppose John Smith is a dual-citizen of an EU nation (jus sanguinis) and the US (jus soli) (and say his permanent residence is in the EU, but he does own a vacation home in Colorado - he likes to ski, but has an aversion to Switzerland :) ). Mr. Smith is a management consultant, and the majority of his income is earned in the EU. He's paid in euros, and his primary bank is EU-based. Mr. Smith, being a well-off globe-trotting sort of guy, has a US-based bank account as well (which he uses to pay the mortgage on his vacation home) - it's mostly funded by his EU work, but he does periodically consult with US-based folks who pay him in $, and he puts his US-earned income in this account.
Is he in violation of the policies if he flies from the EU to Havana, spends his euros, flies back to the EU, then comes to the US a few weeks later? That said, it is extremely unlikely the OFAC rules would ever stand up in court, which is why one administration after another has declined to prosecute anyone who challenges the OFAC fines in court, because they know they would almost certainly lose and that would be the end of their legal charade that they have the right to tell people where they can spend their money. |
Originally Posted by nas6034
(Post 11223748)
SCOTUS case from the 70s or 80s said no right travel to cuba without permission period (under 1st amendment no right either.)
I say we CALL a CONSTIUTIONAL CONVENTION and have the 28th amendment be the right of freedom to travel. I mean for godsake if the 27th amendment is about pay for those greedy congress .......s who only look after themselves and not us then we need to call this convention to change America. |
Originally Posted by polonius
(Post 11225244)
This is also unconstitutional, but by deliberately avoiding prosecuting anyone under this law, the US has avoided having the SCOTUS confirming this through a ruling.
|
It's also a way to circumvent violating the 13th article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says that anyone has the right to leave any country, instead of "leave any country except if going to Cuba, North Korea, etc.". Of course, it may only matter as long as the US are concerned with human rights. Which they were at one point since they bothered to sign the document.
|
Originally Posted by Deeg
(Post 11225828)
Really? What about Regan v. Wald 468 U.S. 222 (1984)?
|
To be honest, I didn't read the whole decision. But, from the synopsis of the case at http://supreme.justia.com/us/468/222/case.html:
Since the authority to regulate travel-related transactions was among the "authorities conferred upon the President" by § 5(b) that were "being exercised" with respect to Cuba on July 1, 1977, it follows from a natural reading of the grandfather clause that the authority to regulate such transactions "may continue to be exercised" with respect to Cuba after that date. And since the President's authority under § 5(b) to regulate by means of licenses includes the authority to "prevent or prohibit" as well as the authority to "direct and compel," it also follows that the grandfather clause constitutes adequate statutory authority for the 1982 amendment of Regulation 560, the practical effect of which was to prevent travel to Cuba. The restrictions on travel-related transactions with Cuba imposed by the 1982 amendment to Regulation 560 do not violate the freedom to travel protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Cf. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1. Given the traditional deference to executive judgment in the realm of foreign policy, there is an adequate basis under the Due Process Clause to sustain the President's decision to curtail, by restricting travel, the flow of hard currency to Cuba that could be used in support of Cuban adventurism. |
I've been wondering about the following question.
Is Cuba so interesting because of the US embargo? If the embargo is lifted, will Cuba be just like any other island nation in the Carribbean? When I was a kid, my family was vacationing in Germany. We took a side- trip to Berlin just so us kids can stare over the Berlin Wall. After the wall came down, the eastern part of Berlin became a rather boring place to visit.(but getting better these days) |
Originally Posted by Roy2CDG
(Post 11235844)
I've been wondering about the following question.
Is Cuba so interesting because of the US embargo? If the embargo is lifted, will Cuba be just like any other island nation in the Carribbean? When I was a kid, my family was vacationing in Germany. We took a side- trip to Berlin just so us kids can stare over the Berlin Wall. After the wall came down, the eastern part of Berlin became a rather boring place to visit.(but getting better these days) There seems to be a line item in the Stimulus Legislation that will lift travel restrictions to Cuba. Will it be in the final version? edit Sorry, the above is wrong, its a seperate House bill. Its future is uncertain. |
Originally Posted by Roy2CDG
(Post 11235844)
Is Cuba so interesting because of the US embargo? If the embargo is lifted,
will Cuba be just like any other island nation in the Carribbean? |
[QUOTE=polonius;11225233]It doesn't matter -- if you are a "U.S Person" (which in legal terms is anyone subject to U.S. law, such as U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, U.S. green card holders anywhere in the world, or any person within the U.S.A., legally or illegally) then the OFAC ban applies. It doesn't matter what other passport you might hold, where the money was earned, or what currency it was in.
QUOTE] are you certain of this? i always believed the rule applied only to citizen/nationals and LPRs, not "US persons" which really is a taxation concept. al |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:18 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.