FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Shaking Down American Travelers to Cuba

by TOM CRUMPACKER

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: Crump8@aol.com

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
Pete Dolack
Killing Ourselves With Technology
David Krieger
The 10 Worst Acts of the Nuclear Age
Lamont Lilly
Movement for Black Lives Yields New Targets of the State
Martha Rosenberg
A Hated Industry Fights Back
Robert Fantina
Hillary, Gloria and Jill: a Brief Look at Alternatives
Chris Doyle
No Fireworks: Bicentennial Summer and the Decline of American Ideals
Michael Doliner
Beyond Dangerous: the Politics of Climate
Colin Todhunter
Modi, Monsanto, Bayer and Cargill: Doing Business or Corporate Imperialism?
Steve Church
Brexit: a Rush for the Exits!
Matthew Koehler
Mega Corporation Gobbles Up Slightly Less-Mega Corporation; Chops Jobs to Increase Profits; Blames Enviros. Film at 11.
David Green
Rape Culture, The Hunting Ground, and Amy Goodman: a Critical Perspective
Ed Kemmick
Truckin’: Pro Driver Dispenses Wisdom, Rules of the Road
Alessandro Bianchi
“China Will React if Provoked Again: You Risk the War”: Interview with Andre Vltchek
Christy Rodgers
Biophilia as Extreme Sport
Missy Comley Beattie
At Liberty
Ron Jacobs
Is Everything Permitted?
Cesar Chelala
The Sad Truth About Messi
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail