New rules on visiting Cuba

[dwgreenlee]

There are a few things that need clarification here:

 

First, whether or not the cruise line allows you off the ship has no bearing on your responsibility as a US Citizen/Person to comply with the US sanctions on Cuba. This is your personal responsibility. It is worthy to note that your ship is not registered in the US, does not fly the US flag and most of the crew, including the Master, are not US Citizens/Persons.

 

Second, the fact that you get on and off the ship w/o problems and you clear US Customs w/o problem does not mean you are in the clear. You travel will have been reported to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, US Treasury, who may take enforcement action up to five years from your travel.

 

Third, the "support for the Cuban people" exception has been on the books since the inception of the sanctions. If you could easily use this exception, there would have never been any real restrictions on visiting Cuba. Prior to using this exception you, or your lawyer, may want to research some of the cases where this exception has been allowed or not allowed and travelers have been sanctioned.

 

Fourth, a lot of people are relying on recent precedent of non-enforcement by the past administration. I am not sure you can really predict the actions of the current administration regarding enforcement.

 

My core point, if you are going off on your own you might want to ask yourself - "do you feel lucky."

[Milwaukee Eight]

That's another thing, are they going to research several thousand bookings per sailing to find out when each guest booked - pre or post Marco Rubio inspired changes?

 

I don't see it happening.

 

 

So that makes it right? You feel it’s now ok to violate us laws and requirements?

 

The comment regarding Senator Rubio is uncalled for.

 

Even your Cruise Critic handle has one wondering who you really represent? I see all your posts across many Cuba threads are out there supporting private Cuba tours.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Cubaexpert]

I´m not saying it is ok to violate US laws and regulations, it´s just common sense.

By the way, I was just quoting another post but it is a fact that Marco Rubio promoted and lobbied for this changes.

To answer your question, I represent the Cuban people and to some extend the American people. I represent the people your government is trying to help unsuccessfully. I represent the people that really wants to help and support Cubans but get confused and misled. You have no idea of how many people are employed and well paid by the private companies, if you knew you would probalbly also encourage people to do private tours.

If they (government) really wanted to restrict traveling to Cuba why are cruises still coming? Why are the 12 categories still in place? Shouldn´t you be able to use one of them?

Strictily speaking the tours offered by the cruise don´t really comply with the requirements to travel to Cuba. They don´t educate anyone nor support the Cuban people.

The bottom line is these restricitons are undermining the reason why they were inducted in the first place.

[alfaeric]

So that makes it right? You feel it’s now ok to violate us laws and requirements?

 

The comment regarding Senator Rubio is uncalled for.

 

Even your Cruise Critic handle has one wondering who you really represent? I see all your posts across many Cuba threads are out there supporting private Cuba tours.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

If you go and support a private person (Tour, restaurant, airbnb, etc), how is that breaking the law? I don't understand that idea. It is, by definition, supporting a peaceful transition away from communism.

 

Very much in contrast when you take a large group tour on a bus that is owned by the Cuban government.

 

How is one perfectly legal and the other is not?

[alfaeric]

Third, the "support for the Cuban people" exception has been on the books since the inception of the sanctions. If you could easily use this exception, there would have never been any real restrictions on visiting Cuba. Prior to using this exception you, or your lawyer, may want to research some of the cases where this exception has been allowed or not allowed and travelers have been sanctioned.

 

It's also not been legal for any US carrier to take you to Cuba from a US origin up until recently. So there was no way to travel to Cuba and even USE the support Cuban people licence.

[dwgreenlee]

It's also not been legal for any US carrier to take you to Cuba from a US origin up until recently. So there was no way to travel to Cuba and even USE the support Cuban people licence.

It was used by US Citizens/Persons traveling by private boats, charter flights from the US, and flights from third countries - always plenty of ways to get to Cuba - legally and illegally. There is still no US Flagged passenger ship calling on Cuba - all the major Cruise ships - save the Pride of America - are foreign flagged.

[alfaeric]

It was used by US Citizens/Persons traveling by private boats, charter flights from the US, and flights from third countries - always plenty of ways to get to Cuba - legally and illegally. There is still no US Flagged passenger ship calling on Cuba - all the major Cruise ships - save the Pride of America - are foreign flagged.

 

Cruises and flights are both now a legal way for US citizens to travel to Cuba. So now more people can use the "support cuban people" licence. The fact that it was very hard to get there didn't make it more or less legal, just hard to get there. Once there, the licence was always available.

 

If you flew via Mexico or Canada, there was no need to get a licence. Just like it turns out that citizens who have been always ok to travel to Cuba have to use a US licence when they come from here (which I didn't know about until recently).

 

None the less, I still don't understand how it can be interpreted as not supporting them when you spend money on an entrepreneur but it's ok when you go on a state sponsored tour (aka a bus). That makes no sense at all. It DOES make sense that supporting the small businesses that are individuals is supporting a peaceful transition.

[islandwoman]

The confusion comes from reading only the titles of the licenses, and not the details. The details explain what is meant by such terms as "people to people" and "support for the Cuban people".

[dwgreenlee]

Cruises and flights are both now a legal way for US citizens to travel to Cuba. So now more people can use the "support cuban people" licence. The fact that it was very hard to get there didn't make it more or less legal, just hard to get there. Once there, the licence was always available.

 

If you flew via Mexico or Canada, there was no need to get a licence. Just like it turns out that citizens who have been always ok to travel to Cuba have to use a US licence when they come from here (which I didn't know about until recently).

 

None the less, I still don't understand how it can be interpreted as not supporting them when you spend money on an entrepreneur but it's ok when you go on a state sponsored tour (aka a bus). That makes no sense at all. It DOES make sense that supporting the small businesses that are individuals is supporting a peaceful transition.

 

To be clear, a US Citizen/Person, by law, requires a licence to visit and spend money in Cuba even it transported by the Starship Enterprise. That said, traveling thru a third country made the risk of detection by US authorities pretty low.

 

You can parse the language in the "support for the Cuban people" exception (licences) to satisfy a common sense determination that certain travel is legal, however, such logic ignores three major facts:

(1) the exception has not been well used in the past,

(2) the current administration is seeking to make travel to Cuba more restrictive, and

(3) liberal interperation of ths exception basicly invalidates all Cuba travel restrictions.

 

This exception is being well touted by travel companies which can no longer meet the P2P exception. Somehow I do not think the current administration is going to allow the new restrictions to be circumvented so easily.

[nicedream]

This exception is being well touted by travel companies which can no longer meet the P2P exception. Somehow I do not think the current administration is going to allow the new restrictions to be circumvented so easily.

 

I'm not so sure. The current administration could have rolled back the rules allowing cruise ships and commercial flights to travel to the island, but chose not to. I don't think they realistically anticipate all these ships and planes traveling with hundreds of journalists and volunteers on humanitarian missions.

 

Sent from my aosp_harpia using Tapatalk

[dwgreenlee]

I'm not so sure. The current administration could have rolled back the rules allowing cruise ships and commercial flights to travel to the island, but chose not to. I don't think they realistically anticipate all these ships and planes traveling with hundreds of journalists and volunteers on humanitarian missions.

 

Sent from my aosp_harpia using Tapatalk

 

I agree with your points, but the administration could expect - and expressly intended - people to travel in escorted groups to prevent US Citizens/Persons spending money on entities on the "Cuban restricted list" - a goal that is impossible if you allow travelers to wander on their own.

 

Taking action against a few of the new Journalists, Humanitarians, Priests, etc. would put the original objective back on track. Just not sure it is worth the risk to get to do a private tour vs a ship's tour,

Edited November 30, 2017 by dwgreenlee

[SuzCruise]

I agree with your points, but the administration could expect - and expressly intended - people to travel in escorted groups to prevent US Citizens/Persons spending money on entities on the "Cuban restricted list" - a goal that is impossible if you allow travelers to wander on their own.

 

Taking action against a few of the new Journalists, Humanitarians, Priests, etc. would put the original objective back on track. Just not sure it is worth the risk to get to do a private tour vs a ship's tour,

 

 

 

Last week, people aboard our cruise reported their ship's tour was guided by an employee of the Cuban government, aboard a bus owned by the Cuban government and took them to sites specifically listed on the list of banned sites. Some of them were worried about having broken the law by participating in that tour. I am 100 % comfortable that my private tour, meals in privately owned restaurants, visits to private galleries and non banned historic sites and meetings with artists, musicians, shop owners and students met the spirit and letter of the law. I'll happily defend my trip if asked by the Treasury Department.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[dwgreenlee]

Last week, people aboard our cruise reported their ship's tour was guided by an employee of the Cuban government, aboard a bus owned by the Cuban government and took them to sites specifically listed on the list of banned sites. Some of them were worried about having broken the law by participating in that tour. I am 100 % comfortable that my private tour, meals in privately owned restaurants, visits to private galleries and non banned historic sites and meetings with artists, musicians, shop owners and students met the spirit and letter of the law. I'll happily defend my trip if asked by the Treasury Department.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

I would suspect, as you noted, that many if not most of the ships tours were not compliant with the new regulations. While the US Government provided several months notice of the Nov 9 regulations, the actual Cuba Restricted List was only published a few days earlier, making compliance for existing planned tours almost impossible. I am sure the ships tours will improve but I also expect the Cuban government will resist allowing the necessary changes. Still, in this case, the cruise line would be the more likely target for enforcement since they advertised their tours as compliant. Even if passengers were targeted the cruise line, from a business, if not legal, perspective would be forced to defend them.

 

It also sounds like your tour was compliant with the P2P requirements. The new regulations do not ban the use of private tours - in fact, properly done, they just as likely (perhaps more) to be compliant as ships tours. Enforcement against individuals is extremely rare but, should it occur, the cruise line would be much less likely to assist the defense of passengers who arranged their own tours.

 

My discussion here did not take a position on the debate between private and ships tours - both may be compliant or flawed. I only urged caution in the use of exceptions (licences) to the sanctions that were not well proven for use by casual vistors. The P2P exception is the only one that is generally accepted (hundereds of thousand visitors) for what might, the sanctions not withstanding, be called tourism.

 

I also noted that I, personally, would not be willing to take the time or risk to plan a private tour. I would let the cruise line and their lawyers sort that out for me - but I do respect the postion of passengers that chose to spend the effort to improve their experence.

 

I am glad you enjoyed your trip and I appreciate your sharing your experience.

[alfaeric]

To be clear, a US Citizen/Person, by law, requires a licence to visit and spend money in Cuba even it transported by the Starship Enterprise. That said, traveling thru a third country made the risk of detection by US authorities pretty low.

 

You can parse the language in the "support for the Cuban people" exception (licences) to satisfy a common sense determination that certain travel is legal, however, such logic ignores three major facts:

(1) the exception has not been well used in the past,

(2) the current administration is seeking to make travel to Cuba more restrictive, and

(3) liberal interperation of ths exception basicly invalidates all Cuba travel restrictions.

 

This exception is being well touted by travel companies which can no longer meet the P2P exception. Somehow I do not think the current administration is going to allow the new restrictions to be circumvented so easily.

 

RE:

1- how do you come to that conclusion? If you are basing that on previous trips before cruises, it was used as often as the people to people licences, which was almost never. If you based that on the post cruise and flight opening up- first, I don't think that many people get past the first two licences and conclude that one of them satisfies their trip. I certainly know I didn't. But once you read the "support cuban people" - then you can see that it's much more applicable to many people's trips. Especially those who would like to do what they can to change their status.

 

2- that I agree with. But I also think the horses are out of the barn. At this point, it would be impossible to stop it.

 

3- why do you consider it "liberal" that people actually want to change the Cuban system go down and use the support Cuban people to do that? Especially when they go out of their way to spend as little as possible on direct government things. That seems quite American to me. Especially in contrast to the group tours, which are still allowed, and clearly are run by a branch of the Cuban government we so much want to change. We talk to people, and it's pretty clear to me that most of our pre-conceptions (which may have been true many years ago) are not- many do talk openly about their government, and it's lack of ability to really take care of them. Many talk of a major desire to move to any other country. Many support their kids for moving off the island. This isn't someone escorting you around 24/7. This is real change going on. Change that most of us should support.

[SuzCruise]

I would suspect, as you noted, that many if not most of the ships tours were not compliant with the new regulations. While the US Government provided several months notice of the Nov 9 regulations, the actual Cuba Restricted List was only published a few days earlier, making compliance for existing planned tours almost impossible. I am sure the ships tours will improve but I also expect the Cuban government will resist allowing the necessary changes. Still, in this case, the cruise line would be the more likely target for enforcement since they advertised their tours as compliant. Even if passengers were targeted the cruise line, from a business, if not legal, perspective would be forced to defend them.

 

It also sounds like your tour was compliant with the P2P requirements. The new regulations do not ban the use of private tours - in fact, properly done, they just as likely (perhaps more) to be compliant as ships tours. Enforcement against individuals is extremely rare but, should it occur, the cruise line would be much less likely to assist the defense of passengers who arranged their own tours.

 

My discussion here did not take a position on the debate between private and ships tours - both may be compliant or flawed. I only urged caution in the use of exceptions (licences) to the sanctions that were not well proven for use by casual vistors. The P2P exception is the only one that is generally accepted (hundereds of thousand visitors) for what might, the sanctions not withstanding, be called tourism.

 

I also noted that I, personally, would not be willing to take the time or risk to plan a private tour. I would let the cruise line and their lawyers sort that out for me - but I do respect the postion of passengers that chose to spend the effort to improve their experence.

 

I am glad you enjoyed your trip and I appreciate your sharing your experience.

 

 

 

I traveled under the general license of Support the Cuban People. People to people was not an option for me and I find Support the Cuban People to be more appropriate. If you read the examples under Support the Cuban People laid out on the Treasury Department's website, it seems very in line to what most travelers to Cuba have in mind for their trip in my experience. And that was this thread is about, experience, not debate. Cruise Critic is a forum for those about to travel on a cruise to ask questions of those who have experience with that same cruise or itinerary. If you've traveled to Cuba, or plan to do so, share your experience so other's might benefit from it. When did you go to Cuba, or when is your trip to Cuba?

 

As to the cruise line's lawyers protecting anyone in the event the Treasury Department decides to fine them, good luck with that. I'd suspect you'd spend exponentially more on legal fees trying to get them to defend and indemnify you then you would on the fine.

[nicedream]

3- why do you consider it "liberal" that people actually want to change the Cuban system go down and use the support Cuban people to do that?

 

I don't think that poster meant liberal in the political sense. They meant it in the sense of the most permissive (least restrictive) interpretation of the law.

 

 

Sent from my aosp_harpia using Tapatalk

[islandwoman]

I traveled under the general license of Support the Cuban People. People to people was not an option for me and I find Support the Cuban People to be more appropriate. If you read the examples under Support the Cuban People laid out on the Treasury Department's website, it seems very in line to what most travelers to Cuba have in mind for their trip in my experience.

When did you travel to Cuba?

Please explain to me how you interpret that the "Support the Cuban People" examples are very in line with what most travelers to Cuba have in mind for their trips. I would very much like to believe that, but I am concerned by Treasury Department statements such as, "include activities of recognized human rights organizations; independent organizations designed to promote a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy; and individuals and nongovernmental organizations that promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba." and "The traveler's schedule of activities must not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full time schedule in Cuba."

[alfaeric]

I don't think that poster meant liberal in the political sense. They meant it in the sense of the most permissive (least restrictive) interpretation of the law.

 

 

Sent from my aosp_harpia using Tapatalk

Even with that interpretation, the way people are using it is exactly what our society wants to happen. You go, pay a person who makes money on the transaction to do something for you. This, in turn, means they can go to a store where other people are making money importing goods for them to consume- outside of the normal communism support.

 

I don't understand how it's a liberal interpretation when people go down supporting a system that is changing away from the communist system. It's exactly what we, as a country, want to happen. As I see it, it's the intention of the policy and rule.

 

Especially compared to even a US sourced tour guide that has to rely on Cuban owned buses. All that does is give money to some American company and the Cuban government. That changes nothing.

 

Real change is happening on the grassroots level. We should be supporting that.

[alfaeric]

When did you travel to Cuba?

Please explain to me how you interpret that the "Support the Cuban People" examples are very in line with what most travelers to Cuba have in mind for their trips. I would very much like to believe that, but I am concerned by Treasury Department statements such as, "include activities of recognized human rights organizations; independent organizations designed to promote a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy; and individuals and nongovernmental organizations that promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba." and "The traveler's schedule of activities must not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full time schedule in Cuba."

 

When you pay an individual entrepreneur to provide a service (tour, restaurant, room, etc), that is part of an individual that is promoting a rapid and peaceful transition to democracy.

 

When you pay an individual entrepreneur to provide a service (tour, restaurant, room, etc), that is part of an individual that is promoting a strengthening of civil society in Cuba.

 

We had scheduled tours/events/independent eating that was in excess of 12 hours in a 24 hour day. Although, given that a full time job is just 8 hours a day, and that term is written in law, it should be safe to say that "full time" is 8 hours in a 24 hour day.

 

I'm confused why people are so against that kind of interpretation. It does exactly what we want to happen in Cuba. It does not directly support the Cuban government, it does support an economic system other than communism, and it does support human rights of both speaking and being an entrepreneur. How is that not what we want to happen?

[SuzCruise]

When did you travel to Cuba?

 

Please explain to me how you interpret that the "Support the Cuban People" examples are very in line with what most travelers to Cuba have in mind for their trips. I would very much like to believe that, but I am concerned by Treasury Department statements such as, "include activities of recognized human rights organizations; independent organizations designed to promote a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy; and individuals and nongovernmental organizations that promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba." and "The traveler's schedule of activities must not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full time schedule in Cuba."

 

 

 

As I said in #187 above, I was in Cuba last week. When is your cruise to Cuba? If it's a while from now, I wouldn't worry too much about all this for now. Things will surely be clarified with time. I'm not trying to tell you how to fill out your affidavit, that is your sworn oath and you alone need to be confident in its content. I would recommend anyone traveling to Cuba read the applicable regulations directly from the Code of Federal Regulations, including the examples of permitted travel. Your comment refers to the regs as "statements" and rephrased them which completely changes the meaning. Have you read the examples? I thought they shed more light on the issue. I'm comfortable with my affidavit and my activities while I was in Cuba.

 

It seems like several people posting on this thread are afraid to travel to Cuba, in which case they shouldn't. I believe they are also wasting people's time posting on this thread. I had less than two weeks between the publication of the regs and my cruise. I appreciated the experience of those who were or had traveled to Cuba. It's a shame that those experiences are now being buried by rants by those with no experience to share.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[islandwoman]

When is your cruise to Cuba? If it's a while from now, I wouldn't worry too much about all this for now. Things will surely be clarified with time.

May. But cancellation penalties begin in early February.

Your comment refers to the regs as "statements" and rephrased them which completely changes the meaning.

What did I rephrase? I certainly didn't mean to. I tried to quote directly off the U.S. Treasury website https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cuba_faqs_new.pdf

Have you read the examples?

No. I haven't been able to find them. Can you post the URL?

[dwgreenlee]

I don't think that poster meant liberal in the political sense. They meant it in the sense of the most permissive (least restrictive) interpretation of the law.

 

 

Sent from my aosp_harpia using Tapatalk

 

Correct. I should have used a term like "least restrictive" - I forgot the political emotion tied to the term 'liberal" now. I will add it to my bad word list. I apologize to anyone offended.

[SuzCruise]

May. But cancellation penalties begin in early February. What did I rephrase? I certainly didn't mean to. I tried to quote directly off the U.S. Treasury website https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cuba_faqs_new.pdf No. I haven't been able to find them. Can you post the URL?

 

 

I can't seem to find a way to cite directly to the page of the CFR, but the text is:

"Example 1 to § 515.574: An individual plans to travel to Cuba, stay in a room at a rented accommodation in a private Cuban residence (casa particular), eat at privately-owned Cuban restaurants (paladares), and shop at privately-owned stores run by self-employed Cubans (cuentapropista) during his or her four-day trip. While at the casa particular, the individual will have breakfast each morning with the Cuban host and engage with the Cuban host to learn about Cuban culture. In addition, the traveler will complete his or her full-time schedule by supporting Cuban entrepreneurs launching their privately-owned businesses. The traveler’s activities promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba. Because the individual’s qualifying activities are not limited to staying in a room at a rented accommodation in a private Cuban residence (casa particular), eating at privately-owned Cuban restaurants (paladares), and shopping at privately owned stores run by self-employed Cubans (cuentapropista) and the traveler maintains a full-time schedule that enhances contact with the Cuban people, supports civil society in Cuba, and promotes the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities, and that results in meaningful interaction between the traveler and Cuban individuals, the individual’s travel qualifies for the general license."

 

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cacr_11082017.pdf

 

I found page 52002 and 52003 to be most helpful. There is an interesting note to an example of what does not qualify as People to people travel any longer, but specifically states it might qualify under Support the Cuban People on page 52002 I had missed in my research prior to my trip.

 

What cruise line are you traveling on? Hopefully they have cruises which will travel to Cuba before your cruise and you can hear of other's experience. Azamara was telling most people they had to take a ship's tour each day to be able to leave the ship. I'm not sure which exception or license those folks had chosen on their affidavit. We were not told that and not questioned about what our plans were, though I did have evidence of my plans and our license to present if the need arose.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[islandwoman]

Thank you, SuzCruise. That's very helpful.

[alfaeric]

Correct. I should have used a term like "least restrictive" - I forgot the political emotion tied to the term 'liberal" now. I will add it to my bad word list. I apologize to anyone offended.

 

I still don't understand why it would be considered the least restrictive when you are doing exactly what the law's intention is- supporting a peaceful transition and civil society.

 

One does not even have to question the use of liberal- you are doing exactly what it's saying. That not liberal or least restrictive- it's what is wanted to happen. You are supporting a free market in a communist country. And you are letting them speak more freely than they have (as we think) in the past. AND none of them are going to jail for it.

 

I just don't understand why people object to that.