Almost all Americans travel worldwide with the permission of the American government, through its passport program. That document enables them to receive what services are available in countries that we have embassies in.
Those services may be limited in some countries – China, for example, has imprisoned Americans in the past, and still does, should they decide to try it. Other countries with limited recourse are Singapore, where an American citizen literally got his butt whipped with a cane, and many of the majority Islamic countries. Offend local customs, and you may, despite your passport, not survive intact.
And, that’s just the countries that we have somewhat FRIENDLY relationships with. Others, Americans are explicitly warned not to enter.
Not that such warnings stop them. At which point, they expect to be rescued by the same government whose warnings were ignored.
I propose a two-tiered system for future travelers:
- Those who travel to countries unlikely to pose a hazard, who will receive America’s best efforts to get them out, should they find themselves in peril. They would be protected against random events and dangers, that could not be intelligently anticipated.
- And, the others, who want to “experience the Real World”, grit, dysentery, and terrorist activity. For those, they would have to find a sponsor who will guarantee their safety, and will be responsible for any evacuation, should the trip prove hazardous/their own actions land them in trouble with the authorities. Such a group would include:
- Danger-seekers – those deliberately contacting terrorists (including journalists), those engaged in drug-smuggling or other illegal activities, and those who refuse to abide by border restrictions on travel or warnings from the local authorities. Would also include women who will not abide by local custom, and cover themselves as the local women do.
- NGOs that operate in dangerous regions.
- Missionaries that insist on proselytizing in hostile territory – Islamic, other native religions, atheistic.
All of those in the second group would NOT be permitted to use their American passport, but use an alternative type, under the auspices of that sponsoring authority. ALL expenses of any rescue/recovery/negotiation efforts must be born by the sponsoring agency. The agency has to put up money (perhaps some sort of insurance?), and will be unable to discharge that obligation by bankruptcy. If the agency goes under, their corporate shareholders or the agencies/foundations that funded them would inherit the debt.
For the duration of their travels on that alternative passport, they may not be referred to as Americans, but as ‘citizens’ of that sponsor.
That might go a long way towards curbing the feckless activities by Progressive/Leftist organizations internationally.