Okay, so it's not earth-shattering news. It's about nothing more than two American pop stars visiting another country's capital, but what makes it an
important issue is the fact that Americans have to seek permission from their government in order to be able to visit certain countries! I wasn't
aware of that myself.
Disregard the fact that it is two famous American pop stars, it could just as easily be two ordinary Americans. The issue of this thread is actually
about America truly being the 'Land of the Free', because you either 'are' or you are 'not'? You cannot be sometimes 'free'. Do you, as an American,
consider that you are living in the land of the Free?
Cuba's tourism industry is wholly state-controlled; therefore, US dollars spent on Cuban tourism directly fund the machinery of oppression that
brutally represses the Cuban people...
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart Republican members of Congress.
So, what about the American government oppressing its own citizens by taking a similar stance on them as the Soviet Union and North Korean
governments? Since when do governments of supposedly 'free' countries determine for their citizens where they can and cannot go in the world? Surely,
the decision on being able to enter a country is determined by the country one wants to visit, and not by one's own?
It would seem to me that the American government's policy is being forced upon Americans in order to actually do the oppressing of the Cuban people by
potentially denying them American tourist dollars through the necessary requirement of having Americans seek permission from the state to visit
countries, like Cuba, with whom the American government do not have good relations due to a difference in politics? Truly hypocritical and double
What if you don't agree with the political stance of your government, or are you not allowed to disagree with the politics of your country? Is
everybody meant to patriotically toe-the-line of government policy, no matter how draconian or inhibiting of freedom it is? Bear in mind that forced
patriotism isn't patriotism at all, it is fascism.
It seems to me that if someone wants to visit a country that does not have good relations with your own, nor has embassorial administrative duties for
its citizens in that country, it should still be the sovereign right of both the country to be visited, and the person whom is going to visit, to make
the decision, and not the right of one's own country to seek to deny that visit on political grounds you don't agree with? It is up to the visitor to
determine their own safety, not for your government to decide for you, except on an advisory role.
Again, and this is the real point. One's government and policies should only be advisory, not rule. Of course, one would not like to see criminals
coming back and forth from a country bringing drugs and other contraband into one's country, so I can understand the need for a government to set a
policy of query as to why one wants to visit another country, and to determine one's suitability (criminal background checks, etc), but certainly not
to determine a wholescale denial of visitation based on diametric politics. That is not freedom, but oppression on its own people, and that of the
people of the country one would like to visit.
It is a constitutional right to have freedom of travel anywhere within the United States, including off-shore states, but I cannot find anything
constitutional regarding overseas travel to countries having their own sovereignty. That may be because I haven't searched deep enough, but I would
think that at the time of the framing of the constitution, America would want to have freedom of egress and trade to and with other countries, and
would secure such as a right, not to be determined by one's own government?
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 7/4/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)