Carnival isn't very shy about loopholes.

https://www.carnival.com/awaywego/cruising-fun/how-to-plan/everything-you-need-to-know-before-cruising-to-cuba

"One of the easiest ways to become eligible is to simply purchase a Cuba shore excursion from Carnival. We offer a variety of shore excursion that fulfill requirement #5, the educational/people-to-people requirement."

"After your scheduled people-to-people activities are done for the day, feel free to explore on your own!"

A makeshift "educational" or "people-to-people" excursion is the legal reason to enter Cuba. Obviously this is not what the lawmakers intended. I'm amazed that a multi-billion company is explaining not only how to visit Cuba, but also cheerfully explains which loophole they found. More or less "After a short inconvenience, meeting people we hired for the purpose, Cuba is like any other port".

I can't remember a big company being that open about circumventing the law.

(I'm not saying ships shouldn't visit Cuba. More trade, more interaction with those who live in this huge prison is always better IMHO)

https://www.carnival.com/awaywego/cruising-fun/how-to-plan/everything-you-need-to-know-before-cruising-to-cuba

 

"One of the easiest ways to become eligible is to simply purchase a Cuba shore excursion from Carnival. We offer a variety of shore excursion that fulfill requirement #5, the educational/people-to-people requirement."

 

"After your scheduled people-to-people activities are done for the day, feel free to explore on your own!"

 

A makeshift "educational" or "people-to-people" excursion is the legal reason to enter Cuba. Obviously this is not what the lawmakers intended. I'm amazed that a multi-billion company is explaining not only how to visit Cuba, but also cheerfully explains which loophole they found. More or less "After a short inconvenience, meeting people we hired for the purpose, Cuba is like any other port".

 

I can't remember a big company being that open about circumventing the law.

 

(I'm not saying ships shouldn't visit Cuba. More trade, more interaction with those who live in this huge prison is always better IMHO)

I don't read it as circumventing the rules. There's no time limit set on the people-to-people exchanges. We did several private citizen meet ups on our recent China trip and learned a lot from them, but we certainly didn't spend our whole trip with them.

As long as they meet the people, learn about them, and how they live it seems like that qualifies. The fact that afterwards, you go out and about (possibly learning more about the country) on your own makes no difference. Or, who knows, maybe one of your new friends will come along and give you some input on what you're seeing.

Seems to me they’re just explain how they comply with the rule.

https://www.carnival.com/awaywego/cruising-fun/how-to-plan/everything-you-need-to-know-before-cruising-to-cuba

 

"One of the easiest ways to become eligible is to simply purchase a Cuba shore excursion from Carnival. We offer a variety of shore excursion that fulfill requirement #5, the educational/people-to-people requirement."

 

"After your scheduled people-to-people activities are done for the day, feel free to explore on your own!"

 

A makeshift "educational" or "people-to-people" excursion is the legal reason to enter Cuba. Obviously this is not what the lawmakers intended. I'm amazed that a multi-billion company is explaining not only how to visit Cuba, but also cheerfully explains which loophole they found. More or less "After a short inconvenience, meeting people we hired for the purpose, Cuba is like any other port".

 

I can't remember a big company being that open about circumventing the law.

 

(I'm not saying ships shouldn't visit Cuba. More trade, more interaction with those who live in this huge prison is always better IMHO)

I think your amazement comes from a lack of understanding OFAC's rules, but then who really does understand and can interpret them? "Makeshift"? I'm sure all the cruise lines' banks of lawyers raked up a few hours mulling them over. And time spent finding and vetting tours and providers that comply and are suitable for a group as large as in one of their ships. CL's have liability I understand so would not simply suggest a method to be a scoff law.

While I can't speak to Carnival's tours or guidelines, and have never sailed on them, their objective is for them to offer tours that meet OFAC's rules so by taking them one would be in compliance. After one complies for that day how they spend their time is up to them, assuming nothing illegal or that would put them out if compliance such as taking a tour from a 'forbidden' provider, i.e. as per their rules.

You single out Carnival in your statements. What have you found different from their statements from the other US cruise lines that sail to Cuba?

I'm not defending Carnival here; I just don't understand your accusations. Maybe if you explain further it will help.

In actual fact, the regulations do require a certain amount of time be spent in "people to people" cultural exchange, though there is no real definition as to what those exchanges require. The time is set as "the time you would spend if you were working in Cuba, or in other words a 40 hour work week". So, the regulations do not disallow free time bar hopping, or dining, or anything else in Cuba once you've put in the requisite hours.

NCL also has sailings to Cuba and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the language on their website is very similar to Carnival's (nor would it surprise me if their language is completely different, either).

NCL also has sailings to Cuba and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the language on their website is very similar to Carnival's (nor would it surprise me if their language is completely different, either).

Exactly. NCL does have similar language, meant to mollify any apphrehensions of a boring no fun visit. Notice, they say the OFAC requirement gets fulfilled first. One can even research small cruise ships that leave from non USA ports like Montego Bay and go to 5 or 6 different Cuban ports that offer what can pass for non cultural or regular cruise excursions that Canadians and other nationalities can enjoy.

If you're an American and leave from a US port, you cannot lay on a beach all day, but may visit one after the "cultural" requirement is met.

You single out Carnival in your statements. What have you found different from their statements from the other US cruise lines that sail to Cuba?

 

I'm not defending Carnival here; I just don't understand your accusations. Maybe if you explain further it will help.

It just happened that I saw what Carnival says about Cuba, no doubt other companies may have a similar text.

What I'm trying to say is that "requirement #5" was probably meant for cultural exchanges. Like when a few Americans share a hobby or profession with some Cubans and they want to meet and spend a week talking about it, which must take place in Cuba as the inmates cannot visit the US.

That's totally different from booking a cruise that includes exciting Havana, for which you need to do some "scheduled people-to-people activities", after which you can enjoy the real fun. Maybe one percent of the cruisers are excited to book a shorex called "scheduled people-to-people activities", 99% just want to visit Cuba and this is the easiest way to do so. There are no other ports in the world where a similar shorex is offered.

IMHO, IANAL, the intent of the rule was certainly not to create an easy way to get a ticket to visit Cuba. The amazement comes from the fact that a multi-billion company openly explains how they can make it easy for you to abuse that rule.

It just happened that I saw what Carnival says about Cuba, no doubt other companies may have a similar text.

 

What I'm trying to say is that "requirement #5" was probably meant for cultural exchanges. Like when a few Americans share a hobby or profession with some Cubans and they want to meet and spend a week talking about it, which must take place in Cuba as the inmates cannot visit the US.

 

That's totally different from booking a cruise that includes exciting Havana, for which you need to do some "scheduled people-to-people activities", after which you can enjoy the real fun. Maybe one percent of the cruisers are excited to book a shorex called "scheduled people-to-people activities", 99% just want to visit Cuba and this is the easiest way to do so. There are no other ports in the world where a similar shorex is offered.

 

IMHO, IANAL, the intent of the rule was certainly not to create an easy way to get a ticket to visit Cuba. The amazement comes from the fact that a multi-billion company openly explains how they can make it easy for you to abuse that rule.

There is no "abuse of the rule". From the Dept of Treasury's Cuba Sanctions Resource site, the March, 2016 amendment to the Cuba Sanctions says:

"People-to-people educational travel. Individuals will be authorized to travel to Cuba forindividual people-to-people educational travel, provided that the traveler engages in afull-time schedule of educational exchange activities intended to enhance contact with theCuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people’sindependence from Cuban authorities and that will result in a meaningful interactionbetween the traveler and individuals in Cuba. Previously, the general license authorizingeducational travel required such trips to take place under the auspices of an organizationthat was subject to U.S. jurisdiction and required all travelers to be accompanied by arepresentative of the sponsoring organization. This change is intended to makeauthorized educational travel to Cuba more accessible and less expensive for U.S.citizens, and will increase opportunities for direct engagement between Cubans andAmericans. Persons relying upon this authorization must retain records related to theauthorized travel transactions, including records demonstrating a full-time schedule ofauthorized activities. In the case of an individual traveling under the auspices of anorganization that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction and that sponsors such exchangesto promote people-to-people contact, the individual may rely on the entity sponsoring thetravel to satisfy those recordkeeping requirements. The statutory prohibition on travel fortourist activities remains in place."

The cruise ship excursions use the "individual people-to-people" travel that "enhances contact with the Cuban people". Note that this change removed the US based requirement for the group (since reinstated by Trump), but also removes the need for accompaniment by a representative, hence the "self-directed" cultural excursions.

If there is any "abuse of the rule" it is by Presidential decree, not the cruise lines.

There is no "abuse of the rule".

 

..

 

authorized educational travel to Cuba more accessible and less expensive for U.S.citizens, and will increase opportunities for direct engagement between Cubans andAmericans.

Well, IMHO this shows exactly what I was saying. This rule is meant for people who like to get educated or have engagements with Cubans.

Very few people on a cruise would be interested in one of those reasons, almost everone just want to visit Cuba which is obviously a lot more exciting than the next jeweler in St Martin. Carnival is telling cruisers to act as if they feel a sudden need to be educated by Cubans.

Sorry, I don't understand your concern.

Obviously this is not what the lawmakers intended.

Thank you for your statutory analysis. Were you applying textual canon (also known as plain meaning), substantive canon, or perhaps deference to administrative interpretations?

Well, IMHO this shows exactly what I was saying. This rule is meant for people who like to get educated or have engagements with Cubans.

 

Very few people on a cruise would be interested in one of those reasons, almost everone just want to visit Cuba which is obviously a lot more exciting than the next jeweler in St Martin. Carnival is telling cruisers to act as if they feel a sudden need to be educated by Cubans.

However, what the Obama administration allowed with the loosening of the definitions of the 12 categories, was to allow this, not Carnival, and if you look at a quick Google search of "US travel to Cuba" you will see that every travel site says essentially the same thing as Carnival. You can go on a tour to "engage with Cubans" (no definition of "engaging") and then spend the rest of the time as you please. I'm still not sure what your complaint is, is it the "spend your time off as you please", or "take a tour to meet the government's requirement" that is too loose? As I've said, even in the "bad old days" when the 12 categories were very restrictive, you only needed to meet the requirement of a "full time" (40 hour week) engagement in your activity (regardless of whether it was sports, entertainment (see the Beyonce/JayZ trip), religious or whatever) and the rest of your time was free to do what you wanted. The tours that Carnival and other cruise lines offer in Cuba meet the government's requirements, so the time off is fine with the government spent as "relaxation".

Thank you for your statutory analysis. Were you applying textual canon (also known as plain meaning), substantive canon, or perhaps deference to administrative interpretations?

Are you using difficult words to attack me for not being a lawyer? Which I said I wasn't?

Even without being a lawyer, everone over a certain age is supposed to fully understand the rules applied to them. With that supposed knowledge, I think I can say that lawmakers probably didn't want cruiselines to invent a shorex so their guests could visit Cuba.

Are you using difficult words to attack me for not being a lawyer? Which I said I wasn't?

 

Even without being a lawyer, everone over a certain age is supposed to fully understand the rules applied to them. With that supposed knowledge, I think I can say that lawmakers probably didn't want cruiselines to invent a shorex so their guests could visit Cuba.

Look at these sites, for non-cruise travel to Cuba and tell me these are not simply "tourist" trips:

https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwitvsqn7q3ZAhXUwMgKHY5YCGwYABAGGgJxdQ&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAASE-RojCQYFl3PAQw5AVmGGB-LLkY&sig=AOD64_2xkFL5RXSILfAZNRdozzjOiCouCg&q=&ved=0ahUKEwjvtcWn7q3ZAhVSON8KHdQYAuoQ0QwILg&adurl=

https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwitvsqn7q3ZAhXUwMgKHY5YCGwYABAAGgJxdQ&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAASE-RojCQYFl3PAQw5AVmGGB-LLkY&sig=AOD64_3LFEF9Vgighy6LdsNRgOl31LdIaQ&q=&ved=0ahUKEwjvtcWn7q3ZAhVSON8KHdQYAuoQ0QwIJQ&adurl=

https://www.insightcuba.com/

It's not Carnival that is "inventing" excursions to allow people to visit Cuba, it is what the government allows. I don't see any more "education" in any of these tours than you would get in another country learning about that country on your own. Heck, the last one even includes the Che Guevara museum. Many feature night clubs as part of the "cultural experience".

I'm still not sure what your complaint is, is it the "spend your time off as you please", or "take a tour to meet the government's requirement" that is too loose?

Googling Beyonce, I found "Washington's 51-year embargo makes it illegal for U.S. citizens to visit Cuba for mere tourism... the couple visited an art school and a local theater group, helping make their trip a legal educational exchange."

Carnival says "One of the easiest ways to become eligible is to simply purchase a Cuba shore excursion from Carnival". "Mere tourism" is still the reason to visit Cuba, but Carnival adds a tour for the sole purpose to make it legal.

I think anyone should be able to visit Cuba for whatever reason. My complaint, which is actually more amazement, is that a multi-billion company is very open about finding a trick.

What about a none U.S citizen cruising on a ship from the U.S ?

Googling Beyonce, I found "Washington's 51-year embargo makes it illegal for U.S. citizens to visit Cuba for mere tourism... the couple visited an art school and a local theater group, helping make their trip a legal educational exchange."

 

Carnival says "One of the easiest ways to become eligible is to simply purchase a Cuba shore excursion from Carnival". "Mere tourism" is still the reason to visit Cuba, but Carnival adds a tour for the sole purpose to make it legal.

 

I think anyone should be able to visit Cuba for whatever reason. My complaint, which is actually more amazement, is that a multi-billion company is very open about finding a trick.

Yes, Beyonce had to meet the time requirements to qualify and not get fined, even though they traveled under the "entertainment" classification. Carnival is merely saying that by purchasing their tours, it guarantees that you meet the requirements, as opposed to trying to do it on your own. Again, Carnival is not "finding a trick", they are offering qualified, government approved ways to meet the restrictions. As I said, there is no difference between what Carnival is offering, and any what every other tour group is offering to travel to Cuba.

What about a none U.S citizen cruising on a ship from the U.S ?

I believe that they need to apply for an exemption based on one of the 12 categories, but are not required to document that they actually fulfilled the requirements.

which is actually more amazement, is that a multi-billion company is very open about finding a trick.

That's where you are losing everyone, you are singling out a single company and as has been mentioned this is something that all companies are doing. Yes, when you first posted you were not aware of that, but you certainly were by the time you made the quote above.

Again, Carnival is not "finding a trick", they are offering qualified, government approved ways to meet the restrictions. As I said, there is no difference between what Carnival is offering, and any what every other tour group is offering to travel to Cuba.

OK, I understand Carnival is offering the same trick as others, and it's legal. Still, people need to buy an excursion they couldn't care less about when they just want to see Cuba. A lot of time and money is lost for no other reason than to get around a basic rule which says you cannot visit Cuba. I still think the right word is a "trick".

My only point is that I didn't expect a huge company like Carnival to tell their customers that they actually can visit Cuba for no other reason than being a tourist by using a trick, even going into details about how it works.

OK, I understand Carnival is offering the same trick as others, and it's legal. Still, people need to buy an excursion they couldn't care less about when they just want to see Cuba. A lot of time and money is lost for no other reason than to get around a basic rule which says you cannot visit Cuba. I still think the right word is a "trick".

 

My only point is that I didn't expect a huge company like Carnival to tell their customers that they actually can visit Cuba for no other reason than being a tourist by using a trick, even going into details about how it works.

On the other hand, possibly those people are booking excursions that do interest them. I'm all for meeting the real people while traveling. You learn a lot more than just sticking with the "let's stop for a shopping experience" excursions.

It looks like Carnival and all other lines that offer the same "trick" are complying with the legal requirements that the US/Cuba have set up for us to learn more about each other.

And, IMO, that's the point of travel.

There is no "abuse of the rule". From the Dept of Treasury's Cuba Sanctions Resource site, the March, 2016 amendment to the Cuba Sanctions says:

 

"People-to-people educational travel. Individuals will be authorized to travel to Cuba forindividual people-to-people educational travel, provided that the traveler engages in afull-time schedule of educational exchange activities intended to enhance contact with theCuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people’sindependence from Cuban authorities and that will result in a meaningful interactionbetween the traveler and individuals in Cuba. Previously, the general license authorizingeducational travel required such trips to take place under the auspices of an organizationthat was subject to U.S. jurisdiction and required all travelers to be accompanied by arepresentative of the sponsoring organization. This change is intended to makeauthorized educational travel to Cuba more accessible and less expensive for U.S.citizens, and will increase opportunities for direct engagement between Cubans andAmericans. Persons relying upon this authorization must retain records related to theauthorized travel transactions, including records demonstrating a full-time schedule ofauthorized activities. In the case of an individual traveling under the auspices of anorganization that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction and that sponsors such exchangesto promote people-to-people contact, the individual may rely on the entity sponsoring thetravel to satisfy those recordkeeping requirements. The statutory prohibition on travel fortourist activities remains in place."

 

The cruise ship excursions use the "individual people-to-people" travel that "enhances contact with the Cuban people". Note that this change removed the US based requirement for the group (since reinstated by Trump), but also removes the need for accompaniment by a representative, hence the "self-directed" cultural excursions.

 

If there is any "abuse of the rule" it is by Presidential decree, not the cruise lines.

Seems like the ship's excursions are possibly in conflict with the full-time schedule requirement - however, I seriously doubt that anyone would ever be prosecuted.

Seems like the ship's excursions are possibly in conflict with the full-time schedule requirement - however, I seriously doubt that anyone would ever be prosecuted.

Unless the "full time schedule" includes some free time.

That's where you are losing everyone, you are singling out a single company and as has been mentioned this is something that all companies are doing. Yes, when you first posted you were not aware of that, but you certainly were by the time you made the quote above.

That was certainly not my intention! Carnival is just the one where I read an explanation about cruises to Cuba, and I happen to know that Carnival isn't a mom and pop sized business. I would have started the exact same thread when I stumbled apon a text from Viking saying the same things.