Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Keep CounterPunch ad free. Support our annual fund drive today!

Shaking Down American Travelers to Cuba


Why does our government want to prevent us from seeing and learning about what is happening in Cuba? It says its purpose is to deny hard currency to Cubans so that they will change the way they have organized their society. If so, it’s the first time in history we’ve been forced to sacrifice one of our fundamental freedoms in order to implement a foreign policy objective.

From the beginning American courts have recognized and protected our right to travel to and in countries at peace with us, and our Supreme Court has repeatedly held this is part of the liberty we can’t be deprived of without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Moreover, because travel often involves learning and exchange of ideas, our First Amendment rights of speech and association are also implicated. As former justice William O. Douglas once observed, “Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart…it often makes all other rights meaningful.”

In spite of this, in 1982 the Reagan Administration promulgated administrative regulations regarding Cuba travel which require a license issued by the State Department (permitting only certain limited types of travel, excluding business and tourist) and penalties for violation of concurrent Treasury Department currency restrictions forbidding the unlicensed spending of money. In a 5-4 decision in 1984, Regan v. Wald, our Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these restrictions on the basis of the State Department’s assertion that Cuba had the economic, political and military backing of the Soviet Union, therefore the rights of citizens were overcome by national security needs. In other words due process was not violated because we were not “at peace” with Cuba.

In the 1990s when the Soviet Union no longer existed and our Defense Department had certified that Cuba posed no security risk, the restrictions were not being enforced, it being clear that no judge would uphold them. Nevertheless, they remained on the books because our presidents lacked the political will to terminate them and our State Department was using them to try to frighten Americans out of going to Cuba. In 2000 they were codified by a legally questionable maneuver in House-Senate Conference Committee on an unrelated bill. Each year the number of unlicensed American visitors increased, and the US-Cuba Trade and Economic Council has estimated that last year there were over 100,000.

Whether codified or not, the restrictions are unconstitutional and therefore invalid because the Cold War is over. Most Cuba travelers who are aware of the legalities know they can avoid problems by refusing to pay and filing a hearing request within the required 30 days of receiving a penalty notice, which will send the matter into perpetual legal abeyance because our government doesn’t want a court decision. The restrictions have been used to harass (but not prosecute) those our government deems politically incorrect. Union leaders and students attending conferences in Cuba have on return been held for hours in airports for interrogation by customs agents. Los Angeles guitarist Ry Cooder, who made a movie in Havana tending to promote friendship between the two countries (“Buena Vista Social Club”), was issued a $25,000 penalty notice.

The worst aspect of the present situation is the shaking down of unwary Cuba travelers by a government which knows that if a fine is contested there will be no prosecution. The theoretical fine for unlicensed spending is $250,000, the fine on paper but not practice is $55,000, the typical fine is $7,500, however Treasury accepts down to $700 in “voluntary settlement.” Treasury has been refusing to make public its records but a 2001 NY Transfer report by Jon Hillson indicates that Treasury told him that while they had then taken in almost $2,000,000 in settlements from the 379 Cuba travelers who were frightened enough to pay voluntarily, it had never taken anyone to court.

There have been bills pending in Congress for at least five years to repeal various aspects of the Cuba embargo, including the travel restrictions (see proposed “Bridges to Cuban People Act”). However under the rules a few powerful men called “party leaders” get to decide what and when matters are voted on, and no votes have been allowed on the merits, just on the yearly Bush Administration budget requests for enforcement money.

Our Congress responds primarily to campaign contributions and powerful lobbies. The Cuban people have neither. Nevertheless two weeks ago the House voted for the third successive year to deny enforcement money for the travel restrictions, and this will come up in the Senate soon. If Americans can travel freely to Cuba, they will learn for themselves what is really going on there, rather than having to rely on the inaccurate official propaganda. If this happens, hopefully the entire embargo will be relegated to the place where it belongs — the dustbin of history.

TOM CRUMPACKER is with the Miami Coalition to End the US Embargo of Cuba. He can be reached at:


More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine


October 24, 2016
John Steppling
The Unwoke: Sleepwalking into the Nightmare
Oscar Ortega
Clinton’s Troubling Silence on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Patrick Cockburn
Aleppo vs. Mosul: Media Biases
John Grant
Humanizing Our Militarized Border
Franklin Lamb
US-led Sanctions Targeting Syria Risk Adjudication as War Crimes
Paul Bentley
There Must Be Some Way Out of Here: the Silence of Dylan
Norman Pollack
Militarism: The Elephant in the Room
Patrick Bosold
Dakota Access Oil Pipeline: Invite CEO to Lunch, Go to Jail
Paul Craig Roberts
Was Russia’s Hesitation in Syria a Strategic Mistake?
Lara Gardner
Why I’m Not Voting
David Swanson
Of All the Opinions I’ve Heard on Syria
Weekend Edition
October 21, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Wight
Hillary Clinton and the Brutal Murder of Gaddafi
Diana Johnstone
Hillary Clinton’s Strategic Ambition in a Nutshell
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Trump’s Naked and Hillary’s Dead
John W. Whitehead
American Psycho: Sex, Lies and Politics Add Up to a Terrifying Election Season
Stephen Cooper
Hell on Earth in Alabama: Inside Holman Prison
Patrick Cockburn
13 Years of War: Mosul’s Frightening and Uncertain Future
Rob Urie
Name the Dangerous Candidate
Pepe Escobar
The Aleppo / Mosul Riddle
David Rosen
The War on Drugs is a Racket
Sami Siegelbaum
Once More, the Value of the Humanities
Cathy Breen
“Today Is One of the Heaviest Days of My Life”
Neve Gordon
Israel’s Boycott Hypocrisy
Mark Hand
Of Pipelines and Protest Pens: When the Press Loses Its Shield
Victor Wallis
On the Stealing of U.S. Elections
Michael Hudson
The Return of the Repressed Critique of Rentiers: Veblen in the 21st century Rentier Capitalism
Brian Cloughley
Drumbeats of Anti-Russia Confrontation From Washington to London
Howard Lisnoff
Still Licking Our Wounds and Hoping for Change
Brian Gruber
Iraq: There Is No State
Peter Lee
Trump: We Wish the Problem Was Fascism
Stanley L. Cohen
Equality and Justice for All, It Seems, But Palestinians
Steve Early
In Bay Area Refinery Town: Berniecrats & Clintonites Clash Over Rent Control
Kristine Mattis
All Solutions are Inadequate: Why It Doesn’t Matter If Politicians Mention Climate Change
Peter Linebaugh
Ron Suny and the Marxist Commune: a Note
Andre Vltchek
Sudan, Africa and the Mosaic of Horrors
Keith Binkly
The Russians Have Been Hacking Us For Years, Why Is It a Crisis Now?
Jonathan Cook
Adam Curtis: Another Manager of Perceptions
Ted Dace
The Fall
Sheldon Richman
Come and See the Anarchy Inherent in the System
Susana Hurlich
Hurricane Matthew: an Overview of the Damages in Cuba
Dave Lindorff
Screwing With and Screwing the Elderly and Disabled
Chandra Muzaffar
Cuba: Rejecting Sanctions, Sending a Message
Dennis Kucinich
War or Peace?
Joseph Natoli
Seething Anger in the Post-2016 Election Season
Jack Rasmus
Behind The 3rd US Presidential Debate—What’s Coming in 2017