Comments on: New Cuba Rules Out Today, er, Tomorrow, er, Really Soon (Maybe) http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/554 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:06:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Hillbilly http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/554/comment-page-1#comment-90080 Hillbilly Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:53:20 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=554#comment-90080 I suggest that the portions of this rule granting special privileges to Cuban colonists in Cuban-Occupied Florida, whoops, I mean Cuban-Americans[sic], is unconstitutional because it extends special privileges to one class of Americans solely on account of their national origin. The purpose of this rule is simply to pander to a swing voting block in a swing state and help fill the coffers of the incumbent. I suggest that the portions of this rule granting special privileges to Cuban colonists in Cuban-Occupied Florida, whoops, I mean Cuban-Americans[sic], is unconstitutional because it extends special privileges to one class of Americans solely on account of their national origin. The purpose of this rule is simply to pander to a swing voting block in a swing state and help fill the coffers of the incumbent.

]]> By: Ex-OFAC http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/554/comment-page-1#comment-89730 Ex-OFAC Mon, 07 Sep 2009 00:05:40 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=554#comment-89730 Another aspect of policy that didn't get "unmade" is the continued treatment of Cuban expatriates as though they were still in Cuba -- even if they have become citizens of another country since their departure from Cuba. OFAC still insists on licensing their unblocking one by one -- something that is not done with any other set of territorial sanctions (Iran, Sudan, Burma...). Someday human rights will catch up with our Cuba foreign policy. Another aspect of policy that didn’t get “unmade” is the continued treatment of Cuban expatriates as though they were still in Cuba — even if they have become citizens of another country since their departure from Cuba. OFAC still insists on licensing their unblocking one by one — something that is not done with any other set of territorial sanctions (Iran, Sudan, Burma…). Someday human rights will catch up with our Cuba foreign policy.

]]> By: John McAuliff http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/554/comment-page-1#comment-89062 John McAuliff Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:55:48 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=554#comment-89062 The big anomaly in the OFAC announcement was that, despite rumors to the contrary, nothing was done to provide similar general licenses for the rest of non-tourist travel, i.e. for educational, cultural, religious, humanitarian and other people-to-people purposes. We are left with a double standard. Americans with close friends and professional colleagues in Cuba are still not able to visit them or send them assistance. John McAuliff Fund for Reconciliation and Development The big anomaly in the OFAC announcement was that, despite rumors to the contrary, nothing was done to provide similar general licenses for the rest of non-tourist travel, i.e. for educational, cultural, religious, humanitarian and other people-to-people purposes.

We are left with a double standard. Americans with close friends and professional colleagues in Cuba are still not able to visit them or send them assistance.

John McAuliff
Fund for Reconciliation and Development

]]> By: efroh http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/554/comment-page-1#comment-88643 efroh Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:13:55 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=554#comment-88643 I thought I had missed them, but if you didn't see them either, it seems more like they just slipped them in this morning. BIS's website still has nothing. The only thing that Commerce put out that I could find was the press release: http://www.commerce.gov/NewsRoom/PressReleases_FactSheets/PROD01_008383 Have a good weekend and thanks for the great blogging! I thought I had missed them, but if you didn’t see them either, it seems more like they just slipped them in this morning. BIS’s website still has nothing. The only thing that Commerce put out that I could find was the press release:

http://www.commerce.gov/NewsRoom/PressReleases_FactSheets/PROD01_008383

Have a good weekend and thanks for the great blogging!

]]> By: Clif Burns http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/554/comment-page-1#comment-88640 Clif Burns Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:08:06 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=554#comment-88640 Indeed they are, efroh. It looks they were posted while I was writing this post, because I didn't see them an hour or so ago. I'll give my take on them in more detail next week. Thanks for the catch. Indeed they are, efroh. It looks they were posted while I was writing this post, because I didn’t see them an hour or so ago. I’ll give my take on them in more detail next week. Thanks for the catch.

]]> By: efroh http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/554/comment-page-1#comment-88635 efroh Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:59:43 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=554#comment-88635 The BIS regulations are up at the Pub. Inspection site, but they weren't last night (at least I don't think so - I checked multiple times). http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2009-21402_PI.pdf effective 9/3/2009, to be published 9/8/2009 The BIS regulations are up at the Pub. Inspection site, but they weren’t last night (at least I don’t think so – I checked multiple times).

http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2009-21402_PI.pdf

effective 9/3/2009, to be published 9/8/2009

]]>