Is this crazy? No travel to countries where….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, have you Googled to find out the implications of this? You couldn't go to Belize or Brazil, for example.

It was really more a thought experiment and I was curious what others would think. I remember getting some crap on this board prior to 2020 because I said I would never travel to russia while Putin was in charge (and I have spent a lot of time in Russia prior to 2000!), and I also would not travel to China due to their treatment of dissidents and ethnic minorities.

Curious who is getting asylum from Belize and Brazil and for what reasons. I used to practice asylum law a zillion years ago so I’m not totally ignorant on it, but it’s been a while and I think the bases have expanded a lot since then. My understanding of the basic principal is that asylum is only applicable where the country refuses to provide protection to the individual based on one of the criteria under law (eg, ethnicity, religion, sex, political expression) — I am vaguely uncomfortable supporting countries that fall into that category. But I don’t follow this area of the law or politics closely enough anymore to really know if this is a sensible position. Just curious what others thought.

I don't think it is. For me, traveling is an opportunity to see things a different way. I know it is in vogue to refuse to consider other perspectives, with the belief that some perspectives don't warrant consideration. For example, the Middle East's gender mores. However I think we lose something when we refuse to even try to understand a perspective in a charitable way (even if we ultimately disagree).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel the US is a third world country if all our roads are falling apart while so many other countries have the fastest train and we are still riding on the slowest trains in the world.

Trains don't work here. Country is too huge and things too spread out for it to make sense.

Nah, they could work, especially high-speed trains, but there is no political will to do it and it would be staggeringly expensive. They don't work because no one really wants them to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, have you Googled to find out the implications of this? You couldn't go to Belize or Brazil, for example.

It was really more a thought experiment and I was curious what others would think. I remember getting some crap on this board prior to 2020 because I said I would never travel to russia while Putin was in charge (and I have spent a lot of time in Russia prior to 2000!), and I also would not travel to China due to their treatment of dissidents and ethnic minorities.

Curious who is getting asylum from Belize and Brazil and for what reasons. I used to practice asylum law a zillion years ago so I’m not totally ignorant on it, but it’s been a while and I think the bases have expanded a lot since then. My understanding of the basic principal is that asylum is only applicable where the country refuses to provide protection to the individual based on one of the criteria under law (eg, ethnicity, religion, sex, political expression) — I am vaguely uncomfortable supporting countries that fall into that category. But I don’t follow this area of the law or politics closely enough anymore to really know if this is a sensible position. Just curious what others thought.

I don't think it is. For me, traveling is an opportunity to see things a different way. I know it is in vogue to refuse to consider other perspectives, with the belief that some perspectives don't warrant consideration. For example, the Middle East's gender mores. However I think we lose something when we refuse to even try to understand a perspective in a charitable way (even if we ultimately disagree).

+1. I personally would not want to go to a country where I was worried about my own safety, but if I ruled out countries based on their perspectives, that would close a ton of countries that could be fascinating and wonderful on their own terms. I don't require that everyone think like me. I do require that they not actively want to hurt me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, have you Googled to find out the implications of this? You couldn't go to Belize or Brazil, for example.

It was really more a thought experiment and I was curious what others would think. I remember getting some crap on this board prior to 2020 because I said I would never travel to russia while Putin was in charge (and I have spent a lot of time in Russia prior to 2000!), and I also would not travel to China due to their treatment of dissidents and ethnic minorities.

Curious who is getting asylum from Belize and Brazil and for what reasons. I used to practice asylum law a zillion years ago so I’m not totally ignorant on it, but it’s been a while and I think the bases have expanded a lot since then. My understanding of the basic principal is that asylum is only applicable where the country refuses to provide protection to the individual based on one of the criteria under law (eg, ethnicity, religion, sex, political expression) — I am vaguely uncomfortable supporting countries that fall into that category. But I don’t follow this area of the law or politics closely enough anymore to really know if this is a sensible position. Just curious what others thought.

I don't think it is. For me, traveling is an opportunity to see things a different way. I know it is in vogue to refuse to consider other perspectives, with the belief that some perspectives don't warrant consideration. For example, the Middle East's gender mores. However I think we lose something when we refuse to even try to understand a perspective in a charitable way (even if we ultimately disagree).

+1. I personally would not want to go to a country where I was worried about my own safety, but if I ruled out countries based on their perspectives, that would close a ton of countries that could be fascinating and wonderful on their own terms. I don't require that everyone think like me. I do require that they not actively want to hurt me.

I agree too. But this is DC Urban, which means people are afraid of their own shadows and trips are minimum $10k per person anywhere. The people here seem to like only Canada, Scandinavia and Scotland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are people really traveling to Venezuela these days?

Yes, Haiti is booked solid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are people really traveling to Venezuela these days?

I remember when trump falsely claimed some countries are allegedly “sh!+ hole” countries.

That’s obviously a lie; every country has value and can be vibrant and rich.

I see not reason someone would not want to visit the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, or anywhere else.

[Anonymous]

In the current climate, ANYONE can claim asylum and remain here for years until final appeal finished and done with proving there is no threat of persecution… so that eliminates any country.
How about use “refugee” status instead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are people really traveling to Venezuela these days?

Yes, Haiti is booked solid.

Trump lied about Haiti when he called it a sh*t hole country. I’m sure it is a wonderful place to visit.

[Anonymous]

I get where OP is coming from but I don’t know you can set up a rule.

For example, right now I don’t think I’d visit Russia, China, Turkey or maybe India because of their governments. On the other hand I would visit Cuba (not staying in govt hotels) and maybe Israel.

I can’t say it’s entirely rational but it’s just a comfort level with where I am spending my time/money.

[Anonymous]

I've posted before but I lived in 3rd world countries as a kid/teen (expats) and travel to some challenging places for work as well. I have no interest in spending my vacation time in places like that.