Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Are people really traveling to Venezuela these days?
Yes, Haiti is booked solid.
Anonymous wrote:Are people really traveling to Venezuela these days?
Anonymous wrote:Are people really traveling to Venezuela these days?
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.
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).
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.
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.