I like to smoke the occasional cigar so this is somewhere I planned on visiting… although my security people here were pretty skeptical that I could due to what I did while in the military and still do to some degree.
I would not be very eager to rush to Cuba to just say that I have been there. I know too many things can happen to tourists and then they are stuck in a place where it is hard to leave. I think if I am going to go someplace out of country again it will be a more stable place that has less chance of having restriction placed on it.
Ahh, but the wonderful cigars. I actually had a coworker go to Cuba not long ago, he was an Air Force weenie without the specialized experience I had so it was no issue for him. He loved it. He said the people were very friendly and it was like going back to the 50s, you know, when you middle aged, as far as cars and amenities were concerned.
Reports: State Department cuts U.S. Embassy staff in Cuba after sonic attacks on diplomats. The U.S. Will withdraw a large number of personnel from Havana and stop issuing visas in Cuba, the Associated Press and CNN reported.
To answer the OP's question. Countries shouldn't tell it's citizens that they can't go somewhere, unless there is a state of war/hostility between the two. As for that country telling foreign citizens that they can't come, I find that to be legitimate. If it's someone else's land, then I have no right to be there unless they welcome me.
Would I go to Cuba? Well I can't speak the language, but from what I've seen it's beautiful. I would go if I had a friend who could speak well enough to ensure we'd be safe!
I think countries should be able to restrict its citizens from places it knows are unsafe. I can see the US restricting US citizens from places like Syria and South Sudan for instance. One because it is a war zone and one because the chance of being kidnapped by radical Islamic extremists and held as a bargaining ship if incredibly high. That said, Cuba is not like that. I'd love to go for a trip.
That's basically where I am coming from. Obviously places under ISIS control would be considered hostile, I just mean that if there isn't an extremely high risk to your safety you should be free to go. Normally I err on the side of liberty on issues, but considering that the government may have to bail you out if you go to, say a war zone - it's a legitimate restriction.
I have got to agree that certain areas can be banned. Of course not all people are going to be risks, just because they come from a particular area, however if the chances are too high then I see no problem with putting a blanket ban on them. The most common counter argument I get is that we should just vet people individually, but I see that as a massive cost for negligible returns. If someone means to do harm, for instance, are they going to just tell airport security that? No!
The other hard part of individual vetting is it's incredibly difficult in areas like Sudan, Somalia, Syria, and Libya that have no real infrastructure left to query to find out about someone's past. And then there are countries like Venezuela, North Korea, and Iran that would actively try to hide the true identity of some people in order to infiltrate bad actors, although I admit Venezuela in this group is a stretch.