freedom to travel means

The “Right to Travel”

By: Rob Natelson | Published on: May 14, 2020 | Categories: 14th Amendment , Constitution , Privileges and Immunities Clause

During the COVID-19 epidemic, state and local governments have restricted greatly the freedom of citizens to travel from one place to another. As I have pointed out , many of these restrictions violate modern constitutional law. The Supreme Court characterizes the right to travel as fundamental . That means that even infringements imposed for “compelling governmental purposes” must be “narrowly tailored.” Government COVID restrictions frequently are over-broad or otherwise not adequately targeted at the problem they purport to address.

The Supreme Court cases enunciating a right to travel involve movement from state to state. The cases arose when a person moved from State X to State Y and State Y discriminated against him or her in some way. The Court invalidates the discrimination by saying that State Y violated the person’s right to travel.

If there is a constitutionally-recognized right to travel among states, then a fortiori it includes a right to travel within one’s own state. After all, you can’t get to another state without moving first within your own. Moreover, moving locally seems to be an even more basic right than moving elsewhere. Not surprisingly, in 2002 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the right to travel includes in-state movement.

Most people would recognize “freedom of locomotion” as an inherent, natural right of free people. But, of course, not every natural right is given specific protection by the Constitution. There is no specifically constitutional right to eat Chinese food or wear the hat of one’s choice. Nor does the Constitution mention a right to travel. So is it a constitutional as well as a natural right? I think the honest answer is “no.”

The Constitution was never designed to be a document to cure every human problem. But many writers seem to think it has to be, and they have struggled to find the right to travel among its provisions.

For example, some claim the right derives from the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. That provision bans certain kinds of discrimination by states against outsiders. It does not apply to the federal government.

However, copious evidence —which commentators have largely ignored—tells us that when the Constitution was adopted, the terms “privileges” and “immunities” did not refer to natural rights such as freedom of locomotion. Rather, they were technical legal terms that represented alternative ways of referring to entitlements created by civil government. Notable privileges and immunities included formal procedures for transferring property, access to state courts, trial by jury, and the writ of habeas corpus (which the Constitution specifically calls a “privilege”). The Constitution’s Privileges or Immunities Clause focused on entitlements rather than natural rights.

Commentators frequently cite a statement by a single Supreme Court justice suggesting that the Privileges and Immunities Clause did include natural rights. But that statement was not relevant to the issues in the case under decision, and it was not issued by the full court. And the case in which it appeared, Corfield v. Coryell (1823), was decided more than three decades after the Constitution was ratified. Moreover, if you read the statement thoughtfully, you see that it is so obviously inaccurate you can’t rely on it without abandoning your critical faculties.

There is also this important fact: The Articles of Confederation included a right to travel immediately after its privileges and immunities clause. But the framers of the Constitution removed it! Here is the language of the Articles:

“The . . . the free inhabitants of each of these States . . . shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively . . .”

Here is the language in the Constitution:

“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

An obvious reason the Constitution’s framers dropped the right to travel was that the Constitution, unlike the Articles, granted Congress authority over interstate trade. The Federal Congress would be able to eliminate state barriers to free movement in ways the Confederation Congress could not.

Can a right to travel be found in other parts of the Constitution? Some commentators cite the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment (which applies to the federal government) and the Due Process Cause of the 14th amendment (which applies to the states).

The phrase “due process of law” was a 1354 re-formulation of the “law of the land” clause in Magna Carta (1215). Its sole purpose was to stop arbitrary government legal proceedings. Despite the Supreme Court’s lame efforts to read substantive rights into “due process,” historically the phrase means only this: When the government proceeds against you criminally or civilly it must follow established procedures and not make up the rules as it goes along. In other words, the due process clauses are really just protections against unfair government retroactivity.

Another possible source of the right to travel is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. This is better grounded: The “State X/StateY” hypothetical case above really is an Equal Protection Clause case. It makes sense to apply the Equal Protection Clause to prevent states from discriminating senselessly against their newer citizens. But granting such protection is not the same as creating a self-contained “right to travel.” It also does nothing to protect the right against the federal government.

Finally, there are those who argue that travel is a “privilege or immunity” of “citizens of the United States,” thereby protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment .

Constitutional commentators of all political stripes love the idea of using the Privileges or Immunities Clause to prevent the states from treading on favorite constitutional rights. (Many libertarians support the concept, oblivious to the fact that the more broadly you read the Privileges or Immunities Clause the more powerful Congress becomes, because of the enforcement rule in Section 5 of the 14th amendment.)

Those commentators have struggled mightily to show that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects natural rights. They loathe the 1873 Supreme Court opinion , subscribed to by justices with personal knowledge of the framing and ratification of the 14th amendment, that interpreted the Clause more narrowly.

The flood of words purporting to prove that “privileges or immunities” includes “natural rights” masks the weaknesses of the case. You don’t have to navigate far into that flood to spy some of those weaknesses: One commentator says “privileges or immunities” comprise only the content of the Bill of Rights. Another says they include unenumerated rights. For one commentator “the privileges or immunities of citizens” include property rights. For another, they include abortion. For yet another, they encompass both—or neither. Additionally, the commentators produce little evidence about the views of the ultimate authorities: the ratifying state legislatures. Instead they discuss what one or two members of Congress said, or a remark made years after the amendment was ratified, or the gibberish from Corfield v. Coryell .

Now, as we have seen, in the original Constitution the terms “privileges” and “immunities” mean entitlements. Without strong evidence to the contrary, it makes sense to apply the same meaning in the 14th amendment because:

When the same word (and here, almost the same phrase) appears several times in a document, it is presumed to mean the same thing,
the state legislatures that ratified the 14th amendment were familiar with that presumption, and
that interpretation serves what everyone admits was the core purpose of the 14th amendment: to protect entitlements created by federal law—such as equal access to public institutions and accommodations—against state interference.

Now, let me be clear: I would love for there to be a constitutional right to travel. But honesty compels me to admit that the one the courts apply is probably a judicial fiction.

The Constitution does not always agree with me. Nor are my personal preferences always constitutional law.

Tags: 14th Amendment , Corfield v Coryell , Privileges and Immunities , Right to Travel

Recent Posts

The Truth about the Much-Abused Commerce Clause - February 28, 2024
The Meaning of “Regulate Commerce” to the Constitution’s Ratifiers: An Update - February 7, 2024
Why It May be Impossible to Disqualify Trump from the Presidency - January 8, 2024

The 10th Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Featured Articles

On the Constitution, history, the founders, and analysis of current events.

Tenther Blog and News

Nullification news, quick takes, history, interviews, podcasts and much more.

tenther blog

State of the Nullification Movement

232 pages. History, constitutionality, and application today.

get the report

Path to Liberty

Our flagship podcast. Michael Boldin on the constitution, history, and strategy for liberty today

path to liberty

maharrey minute

thoughts from maharrey head

other voices

Tenther Essentials

2-4 minute videos on key Constitutional issues - history, and application today

TENTHER ESSENTIALS

Join TAC, Support Liberty!

Nothing helps us get the job done more than the financial support of our members, from just $2/month!

History, meaning, and purpose - the "Foundation of the Constitution."

10th Amendment

Major Clauses

supremacy clause

commerce clause

general welfare clause

necessary and proper clause

Nullification

Get an overview of the principles, background, and application in history - and today.

nullification

The Right Of Freedom Of Movement Explained With Examples

The freedom of movement around within a country (Article 13(1), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948); the right to leave any country

.dcxuyg-y51p0m{color:inherit;font-size:inherit;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;text-decoration-thickness:1px;}.dcxuyg-y51p0m:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.dcxuyg-y51p0m:hover::after{content:" #";opacity:0.6;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;} Freedom Of Movement

EU's freedom of movement in one minute

Some Of The Following Could Be Among The Rules

National and regional official minimum wage tariff barriers to labor-market entry (free movement or migration of workers).
Official identity cards that must be carried and shown on demand.
Obligations for people to report changes in address or partner to the state authorities.
Protectionist local and regional barriers to housebuilding and, therefore, settlement in certain districts; trespassing on someone else's property.
Standard roads and highways are made for cars, and people on foot or on bikes have very limited or no access.Freedom of movement between private properties
In some places, there have been questions about how much a private landowner can keep certain people off land that is used for public things, like a shopping mall or a park.
A rule of law also says that a landowner whose land is not open to the public can get permission to cross private land to get to his land if he needs to.
On the other hand, public nuisance laws prevent people from having block parties and playing basketball on public streets that are meant for public transportation.

The Right To Leave Any Country, No Matter Where You Were Born.

The right to enter the country you were born in, limitations, example of a free-movement organizations, european union.

Why the Freedom to Travel Matters

Last Updated on December 17, 2019 by Audrey Scott

Earlier this year, we collaborated with the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) on a three-part series entitled Travel as a Force for Good . In connection with this campaign we have been invited to explore what “Freedom to Travel” means to us. As we did, we reaffirmed that the right to travel is not only important to us as individuals, but also to the communities we visit, and to the world and our shared humanity. Here’s why.

After having traveled together to over 90 countries during the last fifteen years, we are often asked, “What’s the greatest lesson you’ve learned?”

Deep breath.

I feel as though my attempt to answer each time is never really up to the task of honoring the experience. The evidence stacks up almost too high, even for a single outing. My travels leave such deep imprints in and on me that I must on occasion deliberately take time to unpack those lessons, much as I might my luggage upon concluding a trip.

Nowadays, we have the opportunity to embark on journeys that were not too long ago unthinkable. The opportunities to explore the world — to feel and experience and comprehend it — are so vastly different and more broadly accessible than even just a generation or two ago. As modern transportation has placed us within a day or two of most of the world’s destinations, we stand at a moment in the history of travel that speaks to a remarkable privilege – one that is almost too easy to take for granted.

Still, our attention is captured, our sense of mystery engaged. Travel is thrilling.

If we look at it right, travel can be viewed as the ultimate act of appreciation.

Like running one’s hands through the soil of a robust garden at the harvest, travel is a vein of appreciation that seeks to know what’s at the root of our existence, of our being human — together.

24 Reasons Why the Freedom to Travel Matters

1. enables us to better understand ourselves, our world, and our place in it..

Note: You can stop here if you like. The rest is “the how.”

2. Helps transform our fears into curiosity.

Travel is the ideal laboratory to question and test all the assumptions that underlie your fears, so that you may emerge with new conclusions and evolve not only your thinking, but also who you believe you are.

3. Expands the boundaries of what you thought was possible – not only for you, but also for others.

Travel helps us press the edges of our perceived limitations, so that we may re-imagine them and continue to reach beyond.

4. Spurs us all to be storytellers.

Travel provides a platform to tell your story and to hear the stories of others, then return home and tell a new story, a shared story.

5. Cultivates a sense of awe, curiosity, and respect.

It does this in light of all the grandness and beauty, natural and man-made — around us, on the road…and at home .

Cheetah on Hunt with Hot Air Balloon Behind - Serengeti, Tanzania

6. Reaffirms that in all of life’s struggles, we are never alone.

Travel and you will realize that whatever physical, emotional, and financial challenges you face, there’s someone halfway around the world that struggles similarly.

7. Evolves our perspective, helps us see things in a new way.

Travel not only shifts our thinking about the places we visit, but it can also help us carry back a spirit of innovation into our daily lives, personally and professionally.

8. Reveals the unexpected, if we open ourselves up for it.

For as much as we all construct our itineraries, our innermost secret hope is that we will find something new, something we never could have planned. Travel often delivers.

9. Enables us to accumulate experiential wisdom .

It’s one thing to read about a place, it’s another to walk its streets, eat its food, and engage with its people. Travel is among the most effective forms of experiential learning there is.

10. Develops humility. That is, humble-ness.

The larger the world, the smaller your place in it. Fortunately, this re-sizing of self is also simultaneously paired with a sense of how great our individual impact on the lives of others can be.

"Get amongst it!" - Audrey grabs a bit of junglelicious New Zealand rainforest

11. Allows us to let go , open up, and embrace uncertainty.

When everything around you is changing at pace, as it often the case on the road, sometimes the best choice – the only choice — is to accept it, to surrender to uncertainty, and simply be present amidst all that swirls around you.

12. Bends stereotypes to the point of breaking.

Travel helps unpack prevailing narratives about others and ourselves. In TED parlance, travel can aid a departure from the “ single story ”, to many stories and multiple threads.

Dancing Couple at Market - Konye-Urgench, Turkmenistan

13. Builds empathy .

Travel continually exposes you to people and contexts much different than your own. Listening to, understanding and connecting with the feelings, thoughts, and stories of others helps to strengthen your empathy muscle.

14. Helps bind us to our history, our arc.

The experience of travel reinforces that although we may appear very different from one another, we often are working towards a common goal of making a life for ourselves and seeking a better life for those who will follow us long after we are gone. This relationship ties us to our past, binds us to our present, and links us to our future.

15. Re-shapes “other” into “us”.

Fear of another is easy, and frankly it’s often understandable. Travel helps to swap that fear with memories of people you’ve met in the flesh. When this happens countries are no longer shapes on a map or hotspots on the breaking news, but instead are places filled with stories of someone who invited you in for tea, wrote you a poem , guided you when you were lost, or helped you see life in a different light.

Laughing Women - Paraw Bibi, Turkmenistan

16. Serves as a platform to explore adventure in all its dimensions.

Whether this is physical (e.g., climbing a mountain), emotional (doing something new that frightens you) or even psychological (re-imaging borders and barriers).

17. Cultivates your independence while revealing our greater interdependence.

Whether you travel solo, with your family or in a group, travel flexes the “get out there” independence muscle. At the same time, the experience of travel tells us that we need one another to get there and to enable those personal victories.

18. Connects us directly and firsthand to the environment and our impact on it.

Ride water currents to glaciers halfway around the world that are retreating, and you begin to understand that your actions at home do have an impact worldwide.

Gentoo Penguin Becoming an Adult - Antarctica

19. Empowers you to determine how and where you spend your tourism money.

Mindful purchases and spending choices in line with your values really can make a genuine positive impact on the local communities you visit .

Beautiful Nama Girls - Northern Cape, South Africa

20. Contributes significantly to economic growth and local job development.

In 2014, the tourism industry was estimated at $7.6 trillion (yes, you read that correctly) in annual revenue; it employed over 277 million people worldwide (Source: WTTC ). That represents almost 10% of total worldwide revenue, and 1 in 11 workers around the globe. Behind these staggering statistics, which are only expected to grow, are people : mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, all trying to make their way to better support their families.

21. Demonstrates that everyone has something valuable to share, something to give.

Sometimes, it takes a visitor from the outside – wide eyes and all – to show us that what we sometimes take for granted in our daily lives is special, too. Next time: watch someone making the local bread or tortillas. Travel can serve as a remarkable platform of cultural pride and self-esteem.

Audrey Attempts Making Shrak (flat bread)...Not Going Too Well - Zikra Initiative Jordan

22. Exposes our similarities, highlights our differences and reinforces our shared humanity.

Travel exposes us to others, others to us, and each of us to one another – and uncovers the diversity of being and experience that defines what it means to be human.

23. Catalyzes a feeling of inter-connectedness and greater community.

When we go outside our front door, we find that we are part of a local community. Similarly, when we travel, we find that we are members of a worldwide community. This awareness binds us to care and to take responsibility for our own — that is, the world’s — well being.

24. Reinforces that the more we seek to understand each other, the less likely we are to turn on one another.

Travel may not ultimately deliver world peace, but it certainly can help.

The Significance of Travel “Freedom”

So yes, it strikes us that travel is powerful, impactful, remarkable. But what’s so important about the “freedom” part?

Not everyone has the same freedom to travel. Audrey and I carry American passports , providing us with arguably some of the greatest flexibility of movement of any passport in the world. Without our privilege, we would not be able to do a lot of what we do, in the way that we do it.

Yet the freedom and right to travel can be restricted in various directions.

So what can we do?

We can act on whatever right we do have, and we can do so mindfully , pairing our freedom to travel with the responsibility to do so in a way that benefits everyone . We can help lay a foundation for others and make the case for a greater freedom to travel.

Travel is the act of movement. As you take your next step, your journey moves forward, and so it will for others, and ultimately for our planet.

Now it's your turn. What does “Freedom to Travel” mean to you?

About Daniel Noll

29 thoughts on “why the freedom to travel matters”.

Amazing Experiences you have shared.

Do not listen to the others, it is your life so go traveling if that is what you want. The same with me, everyone says I’m crazy but at the same time everyone gets jealous I do what I want.

Great Post Daniel

Thanks, Surabhi. We were fortunate for our experiences.

I listen to others. But it depends on what they say, whether or not I choose to act on their words.

As for being crazy — they way I see it, if you are doing something that brings you satisfaction and you are being decent to others while doing it, have at it!

100% yes to all 24 reasons to travel.

As you so beautifully stated when we travel with an open mind and heart, we see the other in ourselves and ourselves in the other. We appreciate more deeply the world around us, our place in it, impact upon it and how we are all interdependent. Fears fall away as we realize our similarities, loneliness dissipates because we are never truly alone and perspective shifts or is put into focus about our own challenges in this thing called life.

And as a Cause-Focused Storyteller, it provides so much heart and humanity and understanding; every person, every encounter is an opportunity to listen and learn and love just a little more.

Thank you Dan and Audrey for continued encouragement to put one foot in front of the other on this journey. You inspire me and so many others with your hearts, kindness and eloquence. Big hugs from my heart to yours and happy travels! HUG!

Thanks, Kristin. Beautiful thoughts as well. I really love this: every encounter is an opportunity to listen and learn and love just a little more. Sometimes that’s difficult to see and to feel that sometimes. However, I find that when we do, it’s usually worth it.

What an inspiring read! Exactly how I feel, although I have yet to wander…working on it : ) Thank you, Daniel!

Thank you for stopping by, Liza and taking the time to comment. Although you say you’ve yet to wander, it sounds like you have the spirit!

I completely agree. I’m an American too, and I’ve noticed that many of us have an “Ameri-centric” view of the world. A lot of Americans just can’t fathom that laws, norms, cultural systems can be different in other parts of the world. I believe that traveling helps you see the world outside of this closed perspective.

Also, as someone who lives for half of the year in the Middle of Nowhere, USA, traveling and seeing how people live in different parts of the world helps me cope better here.

Thanks for sharing your experience and perspective, Michelle. Perhaps, coming from a country that has historically held such influence in the world culturally, geopolitically, etc. — it’s easy for some Americans to see the world through a bit of a constricted lens. Good for you, though, for seizing on the opportunity to witness the variety of laws, norms and systems out there. As the world becomes more globalized, I suspect we’re going to have to better understand it in order to better operate in it, for our own survival individually and as a country.

Interesting, too, that your taste of the outside helps you manage better when you are back home. That’s a great lesson to take away!

Excellent list of reasons. Ultimately, freedom to travel matters because it gives the traveler the opportunity to become a more accomplished and compassionate human being.

The subject has come up often in my travels, when talking to people in poorer countries who have told me “I’d love to visit your country, and other countries, like you do”. And it is impossible not to feel privileged to have such an opportunity that is denied to billions of people around the world.

Agreed, Fernando, Travel is a unique platform for personal development and for evolving our compassion towards one another.

Your observation interacting with people across the world resonates as well. I suppose the first step on the road of privilege is to be aware that one is on it.

Hi Daniel, Thanks for such a great post. I love the humanistic and down to earth approach. What an education we receive when we move through this world.

Reflecting on a lot of our past travels reveals a lot. It’s so easy to get bogged down on what’s next especially in travel. We’re unwinding a long honeymoon and are still finding lots of revelations as we slowly “get off the road.” I personally realized that travels been a great way to unlearn my “education.”

Compassion, humility, awareness, courage, interconnectedness with others, animals, and our environment. I love that these came out in this post as our privilege and freedom in travel. I love the idea of endless possibilities not just in travel but in our daily walk. Each time we step out of our door we muster up courage to discover ourselves and this world.

I wholeheartedly agree with all 24 points. #2 hit me and you could write an entire blog post on how fear is deconstructed and curiosity sets in. We have this paranoia and fear of the unknown and instead of being child-like and poke things we run away. Travel helps us overcome that.

Thanks Daniel, for the love on this post and the insight. Will be sharing this on Twitter and Facebook.

Love from the Philippines, Mark

Thank you, Mark. So many thought-provoking ideas in what you’ve written here. It’s so true that although we find that the act of traveling itself is rewarding, allowing ourselves time for the lessons to sink in is crucial to deepening the value. Thank you so much for reminding us of that.

Unlearning one’s education — I like that concept, too. Sometimes we have to unspool what we’ve accumulated in our heads so we can reorder it and also make room for something new. This connects nicely with fear deconstruction. A lot of unlearning for many of us to be done there.

Thanks again for such a thoughtful comment — it has me thinking about quite a few topics that could use some expansion, and a few new twists to pursue too.

Thanks for the response. We just watched your Ted Talk tonight over dinner and absolutely loved it! Bet that was exciting for yall! The Kilimanjaro and the Georgia market story really hit us. We’ve snooped on your blog for sometime but now really wanna be part of the conversation so adding in our thoughts when we get the chance. Keep it up guys, you and Audrey are both really encouraging!

This is one of the most well written articles on travel I’ve read, thank you for sharing your thoughts!! I just got back from a solo trip to Turkey and before leaving I got alot of comments about traveling alone there. “Aren’t you scared?” or “Isn’t that dangerous?” are common questions I heard, even from seasoned travellers. But I had a most wonderful trip filled with delicious food, fun adventures and amazing history and am left wanting more. I have a huge advantage since I am American and speak English, although, anywhere I go, I learn enough of the local language to get by. At times travelling solo is challenging , but I wouldn’t change any of my experiences as it has made me see the world in a new way. Thank you again for the article, you have a new fan in me. 🙂

Thanks for sharing your experience, Laurie! Great to see you here. I really enjoy personal stories like yours that expose the apprehensions of veterans as well as beginners. Glad to hear that the “travel payoff” consists not only of great experiences, but also a shift in perspective.

Great article! I think we take it for granted also having American passports and having the freedom to travel. Often we’ve had to pay for many visa’s but it’s helped us to respect the countries we’ve visited because of it! Freedom to travel is meeting new friends oftentimes for us. It’s the freedom to interact and create memories!

Thank you for joining the discussion, Alyssa. We understand having to pay for visas, as we’ve had to purchase our share. But to your point, it does reinforce the appreciation of our privilege. Having said that, we’re hoping one day that visa fees ought to be reduced or eliminated so that everyone — travelers and citizens alike — can share in the benefit of travel…and enjoy the freedom to interact that you speak of.

Beautiful words by wonderful people, as always. I hope you two never stop traveling, and never stop sharing these lessons with the world around you.

Thanks for your continued kind words and support, Stephen! We really appreciate it.

Love the article! As for me, the freedom to travel is the ultimate goal. Traveling is a very humbling experience as you mentioned, which I think is true for a reason. When you’re humbled, your approach to a new destination allows you to respect the local culture, and allows you to be present – putting you in a position to soak up and enjoy the place that you’re visiting.

Thanks for stopping by and sharing your experiences, Marina!

You make a lot of great points. I think one of the most important is turning fear into understanding. Our news media portrays most of the world as dangerous and hostile, but I’ve experienced great kindness, generosity and safety in the Middle East, China, India and parts of Africa and South America. When you get out and explore, you see that people are just people and that the politicians and the power players are the ones who often turn us against each other.

Aside from that, travel is just fun. Having the freedom to visit other countries is something we should all have.

True all that, Jeff. Travel reinforces that we’re all human. Your comment reminds me specifically of a previous discussion regarding the Danger Map of traveling the world. Thanks again for sharing your experience.

Beautiful and thoughtful post, as usual. This has been on my mind lately as I recently returned from Iran (thanks for inspiring that trip with G Adventures!) As you well know, the visa process for Americans to get to Iran is a huge pain – I got mine with 1 hour to spare before the embassy closed for a long weekend, 36 hours before my flight to Tehran. But as stressful as that experience was, it reminded me how lucky I am that this was the FIRST TIME in 18 years of travel that I’d had to go through something like that to get a visa – and it was still relatively easy and painless. No proof of income, no one trying to ensure I wasn’t going to stay in Iran illegally. Just an application, some money and a 10-minute interview. My G Adventures CEO, on the other hand, has to apply for an expensive visa to go almost anywhere in the world. We are similar in age, education, income and desire to experience as much of the world as we can – but his freedom is greatly curtailed by his passport. His hope is that one day the world will be “borderless” so that we are all free to go where we choose. (Of course, then there are those that do not have the economic freedom to travel but that’s a whole other issue…)

Mary, so glad to hear of your trip to Iran and that you had a good experience there. And yes, travel to places like that do provide so much perspective in terms of travel privilege. As you said, even though the visa to Iran was a bureaucratic process it wasn’t the same process that most people in the world need to go through to just go on a simple vacation. Thanks for your thoughtful comment!

Wow! I’m so glad going through the article. My friends always tease me saying I’m mad since my aim is to explore as many new destinations as I can in the given lifetime. Now I know it’s a treat to my soul.

This is such wonderful post and I was nodding all the time while reading it. I totally agree with you and your points. Travel makes us better persons and broadens our horizons but it is not so easy for me because my country is still not EU member so it can be difficult to get visa for many countries. So far I visited most of European countries, for most of them I needed visa. I would like to see Asia or South Africa but for the time being it would be too complicated. You can really consider yourself lucky to have American passport

Thank you, Maja. We do. Good luck as you continue to make your way.

The most painful thing is no one pays attention to travel freedom. Most 3rd world countries don’t have this privilege. And even for a basic tourism, they have to go through an intense process and basically an interrogation to get a visa, which can be denied at the whim of the visa officer who is interrogating the applicant. This is not right.

When can the right to travel be restricted?

As with all the other rights, said liberty of abode and travel are with certain limitations. Pursuant to said Section 6 of the Bill of Rights, the liberty of abode can be limited upon lawful order of the court and said right to travel to protect the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

One of the common exemptions in the liberty of abode and the right to travel is a person in custody of the law or a person that is facing charges that may be restrained by authority or a court.

A lessee who has not been paying his monthly dues may be ejected from his residence by not fulfilling his contractual obligations.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the liberty of abode and travel was affected. People who were infected cannot go to their own residence and must be admitted to quarantine facilities to not contaminate the other people in the household. Also, domestic and international travels had been regulated given the circumstances.

Those that have comorbidities and of young age are not permitted to travel due to the travel restrictions imposed by the government. The government has the power to limit the exercise of these rights if it is for the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

In Yap vs. Court of Appeals,(( G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001 )) the Supreme Court said that “the right to change abode and travel within the Philippines, being invoked by petitioner, are not absolute rights. Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states: (( Ibid. ))

The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.” (( Ibid. ))

In Genuino vs. De Lima,(( G.R. No. 197930, April 17, 2018 )) the Supreme Court said that the right to travel is part of the “liberty” of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law. It is part and parcel of the guarantee of freedom of movement that the Constitution affords its citizens. Liberty under the foregoing clause includes the right to choose one’s residence, to leave it whenever he pleases and to travel wherever he wills. (( Ibid. ))

Thus, Zacarias Villavicencio vs. Justo Lucban,(( G.R. No. L-14639, March 25, 1919 )) the Court held illegal the action of the Mayor of Manila in expelling women who were known prostitutes and sending them to Davao in order to eradicate vices and immoral activities proliferated by the said subjects. It was held that regardless of the mayor’s laudable intentions, no person may compel another to change his residence without being expressly authorized by law or regulation. (( Ibid. ))

It is apparent that the right to travel is not absolute. There are constitutional, statutory and inherent limitations regulating the right to travel.

In Silverio vs. Court of Appeals,(( G.R. No. 94284, April 8, 1991 )) the Court elucidated, thus:

Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order, the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only on the basis of “national security, public safety, or public health” and “as may be provided by law,” a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin G.,S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263). Apparently, the phraseology in the 1987 Constitution was a reaction to the ban on international travel imposed under the previous regime when there was a Travel Processing Center, which issued certificates of eligibility to travel upon application of an interested party. (( Ibid. ))

In addition to the pronouncements in Genuino vs. De Lima,(( Supra. )) the Court also said that:

Clearly, under the provision, there are only three considerations that may permit a restriction on the right to travel: national security, public safety or public health. As a further requirement, there must be an explicit provision of statutory law or the Rules of Court providing for the impairment. The requirement for a legislative enactment was purposely added to prevent inordinate restraints on the person’s right to travel by administrative officials who may be tempted to wield authority under the guise of national security, public safety or public health. This is in keeping with the principle that ours is a government of laws and not of men and also with the canon that provisions of law limiting the enjoyment of liberty should be construed against the government and in favor of the individual. (( Ibid. ))

Statutory Limitations on the Right to Travel

In Leave Division, OCA vs. Heusdens ,(( A.M. No. P-11-2927, December 13, 2011 )) a case stemmed from the leave application for foreign travel sent through mail by Heusdens (respondent). Records disclose that the Employees Leave Division of OCA received respondent’s leave application for foreign travel but Huesdens left for abroad without waiting for the result of her application.(( Ibid. ))

It turned out that no travel authority was issued in her favor because she was not cleared of all her accountabilities as evidenced by the Supreme Court Certificate of Clearance. The OCA recommended the disapproval of respondent’s leave application.(( Ibid. ))

It further advised that respondent be directed to make a written explanation of her failure to secure authority to travel abroad in violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003. Chief Justice Puno approved the OCA recommendation. Eventually, OCA filed an administrative complaint against Heusdens. Subsequently, it arrived at the Supreme Court.(( Ibid. ))

The Court said that the exercise of one’s right to travel or the freedom to move from one place to another, as assured by the Constitution, is not absolute. (( Ibid. ))

There are constitutional, statutory and inherent limitations regulating the right to travel. Section 6 itself provides that “neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law.” Some of these statutory limitations are the following: (( Ibid. ))

1] The Human Security Act of 2010 or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9372. The law restricts the right to travel of an individual charged with the crime of terrorism even though such person is out on bail. (( Ibid. ))

2] The Philippine Passport Act of 1996 or R.A. No. 8239. Pursuant to said law, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs or his authorized consular officer may refuse the issuance of, restrict the use of, or withdraw, a passport of a Filipino citizen. (( Ibid. ))

3] The “Anti- Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003” or R.A. No. 9208 . Pursuant to the provisions thereof, the Bureau of Immigration, in order to manage migration and curb trafficking in persons, issued Memorandum Order Radjr No. 2011-011,12 allowing its Travel Control and Enforcement Unit to “offload passengers with fraudulent travel documents, doubtful purpose of travel, including possible victims of human trafficking” from our ports. (( Ibid. ))

4] The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 or R. A. No. 8042, as amended by R.A. No. 10022. In enforcement of said law, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) may refuse to issue deployment permit to a specific country that effectively prevents our migrant workers to enter such country. (( Ibid. ))

5] The Act on Violence against Women and Children or R.A. No. 9262 . The law restricts movement of an individual against whom the protection order is intended. (( Ibid. ))

6] Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995 or R.A. No. 8043. Pursuant thereto, the Inter-Country Adoption Board may issue rules restrictive of an adoptee’s right to travel “to protect the Filipino child from abuse, exploitation, trafficking and/or sale or any other practice in connection with adoption which is harmful, detrimental, or prejudicial to the child.” (( Ibid. ))

The Supreme Court took the liberty to enumerate some of the statutory limitations on the right to travel contemplated in Section 6 of the Bill of Rights.

In SPARKS vs. Quezon City,(( August 8, 2017, G.R. No. 225442 )) after the pronouncement of President Duterte to implement a nationwide curfew for minors, several local governments in Metro Manila started to strictly implement their curfew ordinances on minors through police operations.

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the said Curfew Ordinances based on the minors’ right to travel. They claim that the liberty to travel is a fundamental right, which, therefore, necessitates the application of the strict scrutiny test.

The Supreme Court ruled that:

“Jurisprudence provides that this right refers to the right to move freely from the Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. It is a right embraced within the general concept of liberty. Liberty – a birthright of every person – includes the power of locomotion and the right of citizens to be free to use their faculties in lawful ways and to live and work where they desire or where they can best pursue the ends of life. The right to travel is essential as it enables individuals to access and exercise their other rights, such as the rights to education, free expression, assembly, association, and religion.” (( Ibid .))

Final Thoughts

The freedom guaranteed by the Constitution should be available to the populace in a democratic nation. They ought to have unrestricted access to these rights, save in those instances which the law validly limits the exercise thereof.

One of them is the freedom to live and go anywhere. A basic right guaranteed by the Constitution is the freedom to select one’s own abode and to leave it at any time, as well as the freedom to move about the Philippines at will.

Nevertheless, it is important to remember that these rights are not absolute and sometimes do not apply. These privileges are not unqualified. They may have restrictions based on what the law may require.

RALB Law | RABR & Associates Law Firm

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

Article title.

The Right To Travel And Privacy: Intersecting Fundamental Freedoms, 30 J. Marshall J. Info. Tech. & Privacy L. 639 (2014)

Richard Sobel

As a fundamental right inherent in American citizenship and the nature of the federal union, the right to travel in the United States is basic to American liberty. The right precedes the creation of the United States and appears in the Articles of Confederation. The U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court recognize and protect the right to interstate travel. The travel right entails privacy and free domestic movement without governmental abridgement.

In the era of surveillance, the imposition of official photo identification for travel, watchlist prescreening programs, and invasive airport scans and searches unreasonably burden the right to travel. They undermine citizen rights to travel and to privacy. These regulations impermissibly require citizens to relinquish one fundamental right of privacy in order to exercise another fundamental right of travel. The government must preserve these rights in addressing policy goals. The original conception of the right to travel embodies it as a broadly-based freedom that encompasses all modes of transport. Its explicit articulation in the Articles of Confederation became implicit in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution. Contrary to the appellate “single mode doctrine,” abridgement of any mode of transportation undermines the constitutionally enshrined travel right. The U.S. Supreme Court needs to rearticulate an originally consistent and politically robust multi-modal right to travel.

Recommended Citation

Richard Sobel, The Right To Travel And Privacy: Intersecting Fundamental Freedoms, 30 J. Marshall J. Info. Tech. & Privacy L. 639 (2014)

Since June 30, 2014

Included in

Computer Law Commons , Internet Law Commons , Privacy Law Commons , Science and Technology Law Commons

Most Popular Papers

Advanced Search

ISSN: 1078-4128

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

The Right to Travel

The doctrine of the "right to travel" actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis. 1858 The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one State who is temporarily visiting another state the "Privileges and Immunities" of a citizen of the latter state. 1859 The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which require that persons reside in a state for a specified period of time before taking advantage of the benefits of that state's citizenship.

1858 Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). "For the purposes of this case, we need not identify the source of [the right to travel] in the text of the Constitution. The right of free ingress and regress to and from' neighboring states which was expressly mentioned in the text of the Article of Confederation, may simply have been conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created."' Id. at 501 (citations omitted).

1859 Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168, 180 (1868) ("without some provision . . . removing from citizens of each State the disabilities of alienage in other States, and giving them equality of privilege with citizens of those States, the Republic would have constituted little more than a league of States; it would not have constituted the Union which now exists.").

Durational Residency Requirements .—Challenges to durational residency requirements have traditionally been made under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1999, however, a majority of the Supreme Court approved a doctrinal shift, so that state laws which distinguished between their own citizens based on how long they had been in the state would be evaluated instead under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1860 The Court did not, however, question the continuing efficacy of the earlier cases.

A durational residency requirement creates two classes of persons: those who have been within the State for the prescribed period and those who have not been. 1861 But persons who have moved recently, at least from State to State, 1862 have exercised a right protected by the Constitution of the United States, and the durational residency classification either deters the exercise of the right or penalizes those who have exercised the right. 1863 Any such classification is invalid "unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest ." 1864 The constitutional right to travel has long been recognized, 1865 but it is only relatively recently that the strict standard of equal protection review has been applied to nullify those durational residency provisions which have been brought before the Court.

1860 Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 502-03 (1999).

1861 Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 334 (1972). Inasmuch as the right to travel is implicated by state distinctions between residents and nonresidents, the relevant constitutional provision is the privileges and immunities clause, Article IV, § 2, cl. 1.

1862 Intrastate travel is protected to the extent that the classification fails to meet equal protection standards in some respect. Compare Hadnott v. Amos, 320 F. Supp. 107 (M.D. Ala. 1970) (three-judge court), aff'd. per curiam , 405 U.S. 1035 (1972), with Arlington County Bd. v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5 (1977). The same principle applies in the commerce clause cases, in which discrimination may run against in-state as well as out-of-state concerns. Cf. Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951).

1863 Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629-31, 638 (1969); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 338-42 (1972); Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974); Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 420-21 (1981). See also Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 236-39 (1970) (Justices Brennan, White, and Marshall), and id. at 285-92 (Justices Stewart and Blackmun and Chief Justice Burger).

1864 Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969) (emphasis by Court); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 375-76 (1971).

1865 Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1868); Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) (both cases in context of direct restrictions on travel). The source of the right to travel and the reasons for reliance on the equal protection clause are questions puzzled over and unresolved by the Court. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 758, 759 (1966), and id. at 763-64 (Justice Harlan concurring and dissenting), id. at 777 n.3 (Justice Brennan concurring and dissenting); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629-31 (1969), and id. at 671 (Justice Harlan dissenting); San Antonio School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 31-32 (1973); Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 417-19 (1981); Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 60 & n.6 (1982), and id. at 66-68 (Justice Brennan concurring), 78-81 (Justice O'Connor concurring).

Thus, in Shapiro v. Thompson , 1866 durational residency requirements conditioning eligibility for welfare assistance on one year's residence in the State 1867 were voided. If the purpose of the requirements was to inhibit migration by needy persons into the State or to bar the entry of those who came from low-paying States to higher-paying ones in order to collect greater benefits, the Court said, the purpose was impermissible. 1868 If on the other hand the purpose was to serve certain administrative and related governmental objectives—the facilitation of the planning of budgets, the provision of an objective test of residency, minimization of opportunity for fraud, and encouragement of early entry of new residents into the labor force—the requirements were rationally related to the purpose but they were not compelling enough to justify a classification which infringed on a fundamental interest. 1869 Similarly, in Dunn v. Blumstein , 1870 where the durational residency requirements denied the franchise to newcomers, the assertion of such administrative justifications was constitutionally insufficient to justify the classification. The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was the basis for striking down a California law which limited welfare benefits for California citizens who had resided in the state for less than a year to the level ifof benefits which they would have received in the State of their prior residence. 1871

1866 394 U.S. 618 (1969).

1867 The durational residency provision established by Congress for the District of Columbia was also voided. 394 U.S. at 641-42.

1868 394 U.S. at 627-33. Gaddis v. Wyman, 304 F. Supp. 717 (N.D.N.Y. 1969), aff'd sub nom. Wyman v. Bowens, 397 U.S. 49 (1970), struck down a provision construed so as to bar only persons who came into the State solely to obtain welfare assistance.

1869 394 U.S. at 633-38. Shapiro was reaffirmed in Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (striking down durational residency requirements for aliens applying for welfare assistance), and in Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974) (voiding requirement of one year's residency in county as condition to indigent's receiving nonemergency hospitalization or medical care at county's expense). When Connecticut and New York reinstituted the requirements, pleading a financial emergency as the compelling state interest, they were summarily rebuffed. Rivera v. Dunn, 329 F. Supp. 554 (D. Conn. 1971), aff'd per curiam , 404 U.S. 1054 (1972); Lopez v. Wyman, Civ. No. 1971-308 (W.D.N.Y. 1971), aff'd per curiam , 404 U.S. 1055 (1972). The source of the funds, state or federal, is irrelevant to application of the principle. Pease v. Hansen, 404 U.S. 70 (1971).

1870 405 U.S. 330 (1972). But see Marston v. Lewis, 410 U.S. 679 (1973), and Burns v. Fortson, 410 U.S. 686 (1973). Durational residency requirements of five and seven years respectively for candidates for elective office were sustained in Kanapaux v. Ellisor, 419 U.S. 891 (1974), and Sununu v. Stark, 420 U.S. 958 (1975).

1871 Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 505 (1999).

However, a state one-year durational residency requirement for the initiation of a divorce proceeding was sustained in Sosna v. Iowa . 1872 While it is not clear what the precise basis of the ruling is, it appears that the Court found that the State's interest in requiring that those who seek a divorce from its courts be genuinely attached to the State and its desire to insulate divorce decrees from the likelihood of collateral attack justified the requirement. 1873 Similarly, durational residency requirements for lower in-state tuition at public colleges have been held constitutionally justifiable, again, however, without a clear statement of reason. 1874 More recently, the Court has attempted to clarify these cases by distinguishing situations where a state citizen is likely to "consume" benefits within a state's borders (such as the provision of welfare) from those where citizens of other states are likely to establish residency just long enough to acquire some portable benefit, and then return to their original domicile to enjoy them (such as obtaining a divorce decree or paying the in-state tuition rate for a college education). 1875

1872 419 U.S. 393 (1975). Justices Marshall and Brennan dissented on the merits. Id. at 418.

1873 419 U.S. at 409. But the Court also indicated that the plaintiff was not absolutely barred from the state courts, but merely required to wait for access (which was true in the prior cases as well and there held immaterial), and that possibly the state interests in marriage and divorce were more exclusive and thus more immune from federal constitutional attack than were the matters at issue in the previous cases. The Court also did not indicate whether it was using strict or traditional scrutiny.

1874 Starns v. Malkerson, 326 F. Supp. 234 (D.Minn. 1970), aff'd per curiam , 401 U.S. 985 (1971). Cf. Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 452 & n.9 (1973), and id. at 456, 464, 467 (dicta). In Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 256 (1974), the Court, noting the results, stated that "some waiting periods . . . may not be penalties" and thus would be valid.

1875 Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. at 505 (1999).

1876 Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55 (1982). Somewhat similar was the Court's invalidation on equal protection grounds of a veterans preference for state employment limited to persons who were state residents when they entered military service; four Justices also thought the preference penalized the right to travel. Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986).

Unresolved still are issues such as durational residency requirements for occupational licenses and other purposes. 1877 Too, it should be noted that this line of cases does not apply to state residency requirements themselves, as distinguished from durational provisions, 1878 and the cases do not inhibit the States when, having reasons for doing so, they bar travel by certain persons. 1879

1877 La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U.S. 465 (1919), upholding a two-year residence requirement to become an insurance broker, must be considered of questionable validity. Durational periods for admission to the practice of law or medicine or other professions have evoked differing responses by lower courts.

1878 E.g. , McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Comm'n, 424 U.S. 645 (1976) (ordinance requiring city employees to be and to remain city residents upheld). See Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 255 (1974). See also Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 (1983) (bona fide residency requirement for free tuition to public schools).

1879 Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412 (1981) (statute made it a misdemeanor to abandon a dependent child but a felony to commit the offense and then leave the State).

Last modified: June 9, 2014

Freedom to Travel – Never Take it for Granted

Written By: The Planet D

Inspiration

Updated On: November 16, 2022

We have never taken for granted how lucky we are to have the freedom to travel and how lucky we were to have our first opportunity to visit a faraway land in 2000.

Dave and I often talk about how strange life can be. Who decides who has access to opportunity and how were we so lucky to be born where we were born? As a couple of middle class Canadians, we have always had a comfortable and privileged standard of living. Even if we weren’t considered rich in our own country, we could enjoy the luxuries of life.

There was always food, clean water, air conditioning and heat, and of course opportunities and freedom to travel. It was those opportunities to travel that helped shaped who we are today.

Table of Contents

Freedom to Travel

Mark Twain said “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one’s lifetime.”

We agree with this quote whole-heartedly.

We’ve been lucky to have the freedom to travel to places like the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, we were exposed to cultures that we could never understand or comprehend had we stayed in our own little corner of the world in Otterville and Burlington, Ontario. When we come home we have a new perspective on the beliefs and ideals from other walks of life.

Travel has helped us appreciate and understand other views on the world and it has helped open our minds. We have often said that travel is the best education.

We both studied foreign lands in school, but we never truly understood anything we learned until we visited those foreign lands. Through the past 15 years of travel, we have become more open minded, compassionate, tolerant, and patient. Read more about the impact of Visa facilitation at the World Travel and Tourism Council

Appreciate and Understand Culture Through Travel Freedom

As Canadians, we’ve always been taught to accept other cultures, but how can one truly understand how another person lives, unless they experience that way of life firsthand?

We are the lucky ones. Canadians have the privilege and freedom to travel to 173 countries and territories without having to obtain a visa. That is a lot of travel freedom that many other citizens around the world don’t have.

More and more people from developing countries are starting to have more freedom to travel and that is exciting.

People are beginning to have opportunities to see our way of living here in North America and they are starting to enjoy the beauty of the world. We have always believed that if more people travelled, there would be less conflict in the world.

We have seen first hand through our travels that most people want the same thing out of life. No matter what religion, race, or culture, humans simply want to be happy, safe, and surrounded by friends and family. We are all far more similar than we realize.

A couple of years ago, we attended the Adventure Travel World Summit and saw just how much the world is changing as more people experience the freedom to travel.

According to Taleb Rifai, Secretary-General of the UNWTO, “1 billion people are now crossing borders, and instead of fighting it, countries should look at this as an opportunity rather than a crisis.” This statement always stuck with me. That’s a lot of people traveling .

Freedom to Travel by Fixing Visa Restrictions

I understand countries are worried about security issues, but there has to be better ways to screen threats than to just charge a lot of money.

A couple of months later we travelled to Turkey. Like many countries that we travel to, Canadians don’t need a Visa before entering, they simply need to obtain a Visa on arrival.

But we noticed that Canadians were charged more than US and EU Citizens. When I asked the officer why at the desk, he replied, “You should see what Canada charges us to enter your country.”

That really hit home. While we only had to pay $60 to enter, he said Turks must pay $600 to enter Canada. Upon further investigation, we learned that Canada actually charges $500 for a family to enter the country, $100 for an individual and an extra $85 for a biometrics fee. When you consider the average income for a Canadian compared to that of a Turk, the fee is extremely high.

So why does Canada shut its doors to so many potential tourists and take away their freedom to travel to our country?

The WTTC says “ Freedom to Travel means ensuring that people have the right to cross international borders safely and efficiently for tourism purposes. It means smarter visa processes, more visa waiver agreements and trusted traveller programmes. “

We value our freedom to travel and explore the world and when we learn about what other countries must go through, we realize how lucky we are. Whenever we have to buy a visa in advance, we complain about the complexity and expense.

Visas and Travel Freedom

When we took part in the Mongol Rally driving a car from England to Mongolia, we actually rerouted our course based on the cost of visas. It’s a big world out there, why should we visit countries that charge us an arm and a leg to enter?

We understand that Visas have been, and are an important part of immigration policy. They help regulate tourist numbers, they are a source of revenue for countries, and to a certain extent, they help with security. But, with the technology we have access to today, I know there must be a better way.

Travel Freedom Makes the World Better

We have said it before the world is a better place with the freedom to travel. As the earth shrinks due to expanding technology, everyone now has access and freedom to do business across oceans. New jobs are being created each day and prosperity is crossing borders into new lands. Even we have become mobile in our business.

I never thought I’d be working regularly with companies on 5 different continents . If we had these restrictions, we couldn’t do our job.

It’s an exciting time for travel, let’s open our minds to allow everyone the freedom to travel that we have enjoyed for so many years.

Have you run into Visa restrictions that have made you change your travel plans? We’d love to hear about your experiences in the comments below.

61 Best Travel Quotes to Inspire Your Life
How to be a Travel Blogger – From Dream to Reality and How We Make Money
Scuba Diving in Maldives – A Beginner’s Journey from Trepidation to a Life’s Lesson
44 Best Gifts for Travelers in 2022

For more information regarding Freedom to Travel, visit the World Travel and Tourism Council

Travel Planning Resources

Looking to book your next trip? Why not use these resources that are tried and tested by yours truly.

Flights: Start planning your trip by finding the best flight deals on Skyscanner

Book your Hotel: Find the best prices on hotels with these two providers. If you are located in Europe use Booking.com and if you are anywhere else use TripAdvisor

Find Apartment Rentals: You will find the cheapest prices on apartment rentals with VRBO .

Travel Insurance: Don't leave home without it. Here is what we recommend:

Allianz - Occasional Travelers.
Medjet - Global air medical transport and travel security.

Need more help planning your trip? Make sure to check out our Resources Page where we highlight all the great companies that we trust when we are traveling.

About The Planet D

Dave Bouskill and Debra Corbeil are the owners and founders of The Planet D. After traveling to 115 countries, on all 7 continents over the past 13 years they have become one of the foremost experts in travel. Being recognized as top travel bloggers and influencers by the likes of Forbes Magazine , the Society of American Travel Writers and USA Today has allowed them to become leaders in their field.

Join thousands of others who get our monthly updates!

20 thoughts on “Freedom to Travel – Never Take it for Granted”

What an awesome article coming from you guys! This is truly inspirational. I do hope more people will be moved to travel more in the different side of the world.

What a beautifully written piece.. thank you! Since 2012 I now travel with 2 passports Russian/American, so where visas are too high for US I use Russian. But this ability I had to work for for almost a decade. Arriving solo at 19 in US without any help from family, made me realize, that I am stronger, than I thought and can survive anywhere, regardless of passport…

Your site is inspiring and your photography is incredible!

Let There Always Be A Road…

Great article, I started following you guys while you were doing the Mongol Rally and totally agree with “It’s a big world out there, why should we visit countries that charge us an arm and a leg to enter?” We have been fortunate to visit quite a few countries in the last 550 days of travel and we are looking forward to visiting many more. We have been in Europe for the last 8 months and have just scratched to surface of seeing it. The Schengen Zone has made it all that much more difficult, and we certainly don’t understand why they have the restrictions that they do. How can you possibly visit more than few countries in the zone when you have to leave it every 3 months? Another Mark Twain quote that we like is “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn’t do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.”

Very Good Blog Post about Travel and Freedom. This is gona be good life…Thank you for sharing this amazing post…

Camel Safari 🙂 Photogenic!!! Down to the earth Also the beautiful Istambul.

Beautiful post. I love the quote by Mark Twain and the inspiring video. It’s true, travel really helps us open our hearts and our minds and become more sensitive and aware of the world around us.

Hey Dave and Deb,

I amazed when I came to know the fact that as a Canadian you can travel through 173 countries and territories visa free. “Having the Freedom to Travel is a Privilege” Yes it is.. Most of the people change their plan just because of Visa issue. I love your post very much. Now I know different facts about Visa & travelling. Although I haven’t followed the links in the post which I will do the next.

I am thankful for your one of the amazing post.

Living in the USA, I too am lucky to have the freedom to visit so many countries easily. The first time that I crossed a border from one country to another in Europe, I had a surprise. I always expected a border stop with a gated stop before crossing with military guards checking your passport or visa like I have always seen in movies. I was driving by car from France and going into Germany. I was looking for the border crossing to know when I entered Germany. I was surprised when I suddenly reached the Autobahn. There was no border check. I realized that I was already in Germany. What a surprise. How things have changed. I am used to crossing from the USA to Canada or Mexico where there are still border checks. Maybe someday that will change too.

Hi Dave and Deb, Thanks for this reminder to all of us traveling and crossing borders. It’s been a huge privilege for me being an American citizen to be able to go in and out of many countries visa free and not have to apply for visas ahead of time. Looking at where we are as long-term travelers there’s so much we can forget about while on the road. There are tons of hardships other people face when trying to visit a places as a tourist.

My wife is from the Philippines and we’ve had some hiccups on our life journey because of it. We didn’t apply for an American tourist visa because we didn’t believe she would get a US visa so easily. We ended up doing so while living in China but only after 3 years of being married. Long story short she got a 10 year multi entry visa.

Now we’re in a situation where we are trying to live/work in Austria. For some reason it’s a big pain in the butt. I got offered a job while we were in Ecuador, thought we could apply in Peru, the Austrian authorities told us we need to go to our countries of residence (USA and the Philippines). We got her tourist visa but she still needs to change her tourist visa to a dependent visa. Timeframe 2-6 months, oh and she can’t do it in Austria and needs to go back to the Philippines.

The price of visas for some westerners seems absurd as you noted. The one that hits me is the Bolivian one for Americans I think it’s $160 bucks. China also requires a pretty hefty fee. But then again like you mentioned, if we look at our own immigration and tourism policies we might be a bit surprised.

Anyways I love the way you opened up the article- knowing, understanding, and reminding us that for most of us we already have luxuries in life- clean water, a nice bed, opportunities to travel, etc. I’m glad you wrote this article, we need to reminder ourselves of this more 🙂 <3

Thanks again Dave and Deb.

Love from the Philippines, Mark

Congratulations on the 10 Year multi entry visa. Sorry to hear about the struggles you are facing in Austria. That is a huge expense to have to go back to the Philippines. I agree, there are times when I am blown away by Visa prices. But it really hits home when I hear what others have to pay to come to our country. Thank you for taking the time to comment and good luck with your future travels! We can’t wait to come to the Philippines very soon.

Great article! As a Mexican traveler, I agree that visas are a big headache for planning future travels. I’m currently planning my South East Asia Journey in 2016 and I was saddened by the fact that Thailand doesn’t grant visa waivers/visa on arrivals for Mexicans. I understand that at some point it’s a reciprocity issue plus the fear of illegal migrant workers but I really don’t understand how ridiculous some requirements are for some specific nationalities (in comparison, we Mexicans have it relatively easy when compared to nationals of Sub-Saharan African countries and nationals from the Middle East for example).

Maybe one day we’ll live in a world in peace and sustainability where visas are no longer required. Maybe 🙂

I didn’t realize that Thailand didn’t grant Visas on entry for Mexicans. Hopefully that changes soon. You are so right when you mention Sub-Saharan African nations. I have talked with people about that and they have struggles indeed. I know that friends in Nepal have a tough time as well. Even though they own their own businesses they still struggle to get a Visa. I’ll keep holding onto that dream that the world will live in peace and sustainability one day too. Thanks for the comment!

Great post, and so true!

I could not imagine my life without international travel, and I now start going crazy if I spend more than 3-4 months at home, but the truth is that, until 2007 when I was 24 years old, I had only ever been to three countries (Mexico, Canada and the USA). The more I started traveling, the more I wanted to see places and learn about other cultures and meet other people! I will have now visited 32 countries by the end of the year, so it’s fair to say the last eight years have been a big step!

On that note, I am SO LUCKY to have a Canadian passport, as my mom is Canadian and we moved here from Mexico in 1997. The Mexican passport requires a visa to pretty much every single country, so without it it would have cost me much more to go to the places I’ve travelled to, and I would have never been able to move to Australia for one year, and to England for two years.

Sometimes we forget how privileged we are to have certain nationalities!

Thanks for sharing your story Claus and congratulations on 32 countries in 8 years. That is amazing! We started traveling late ourselves. Dave and I didn’t take our first International trip together until we were 27 and 28 years old. It’s that first trip that certainly started our wanderlust. It was to Europe and we are lucky we didn’t have to get Visas. I wouldn’t even have known to look into that back then and could have been in a pickle. But that is the luck of being Canadian. We can travel to so many countries without a Visa and most likely people’s first travels (like ours) would be to a place that doesn’t require one. I look forward to more countries receiving the benefits that we have as Canadians. The world is becoming a smaller place every day and travel should be easier for everyone.

Great Blog Post about Travel and Freedom.

I was exactly thinking. The possibilities, life in your own hands.. This is gotta be the good life.

Thank you for sharing this amazing post…

Thanks for your positivity and optimism Komal.

Hey D&D, great post – a heartwarming and important message. It’s so refreshing to find others grateful for our middle-class Canadian privilege, and recognising the unjustness some countries’ tourist policies.

Visas are a relic that need a huge overhaul. They’re from a time when few travelled – except spies, diplomats and merchants. The rise of tourism has seen visas evolve into a revenue-raiser – which is fine if that’s what a country choose – but the painful bureaucracy (just to get a rubber-stamp, in the end) needs to go! My latest experience is from the Stans, where my trip was shaped by visa issues (I had to begin in Kyrgyzstan as it’s the only visa-free entry for Canadians). Fortunately for me, once there the woman at the Uzbek embassy (dubbed ‘the beast of Bishkek’ for her unwavering hostility) granted my onward visa. Others I met weren’t so fortunate, and had their trips torpedoed by the region’s bureaucracy.

Thanks Michael. We have often talked of how lucky we are. Even when we were just barely scraping by paying our bills, we could still manage to take a vacation and go out to dinner. Our definition of struggle in Canada is far different from other countries. Travel has reiterated that thought. The more we have seen around the world. Thanks for sharing your story. The Stans are definitely a different travel experience. We’ve only been to Kazakhstan. The plan was for Kyrgystan as well, but we ran out of time. We had to get to Mongolia and our re-entry Visa for Russia (the only way we could get through to Mongolia) was about to expire and we couldn’t extend the time. Once again, a Visa issue kept us from spending important tourism dollars in a country. If we didn’t have to get back into Russia because of our Visa, we most definitely would have gone on to Kyrgystan. I’m glad you made it through! It is a beautiful part of the world.

When we cycled through Europe, we were amazed by the border crossings, since there really are no border crossing anymore. Empty buildings, which used to house border guards, are the only things marking the shift from one country into the next. Though we missed the satisfying thud of our passports being stamped, we sure didn’t miss the hassle and expense of dealing with border crossings. Europe opened its borders and it’s still standing – I can’t wait until more countries do the same.

It’s amazing to see the difference in Europe. It used to be such a hassle crossing borders and carrying different currencies. We are lucky that we were able to witness the difference and change. A lot of younger travellers wouldn’t even know of the days (just a short while ago) when you had to go through so many border crossings. Europe is definitely leading the way and you are right, I hope more people follow suit.

Nomadic Matt's Travel Site

Travel Better, Cheaper, Longer

What Does Travel Mean to You?

A solo hiker in a yellow jacket sitting in the mountains looking at the scenery around him

A few years ago, I went around the world and asked people what travel meant to them. As I travel the country on my current book tour and hear everyone’s reasons for travel, I’m reminded of that experience.

Travel means something different to every single person in the world.

There are a million and one reasons to travel. Many people travel the world to get the bug out of their system, or to check things off a list to say they’ve been there and done that. Some run to escape their problems. Some people travel simply to get drunk around the world.

For me, travel means many things. Travel is freedom . It’s about being able to do what I want and fill my day with excitement. Travel was an escape. Travel was “elsewhere”. That place where exciting things and people resided. It was escaping the Matrix to learn about the world, why people do what they do, and how they act. It’s about pushing myself to the limit and getting more comfortable in my own skin.

But I wondered what motivates other people to do the same.

I have my theories of course.

But I wanted to hear it from people directly.

So, during an extended trip, I asked people I met on the road one question:

“What does travel mean to you?”

And here is what they said:

I loved hearing everyone’s answers because it so accurately describes all the various reasons that push us to travel the world, learn about the people in it, and ourselves.

Now, tell me in the comments below:

What does travel mean to you?

Share what drives you.

Book Your Trip: Logistical Tips and Tricks

Book Your Flight Find a cheap flight by using Skyscanner . It’s my favorite search engine because it searches websites and airlines around the globe so you always know no stone is being left unturned.

Book Your Accommodation You can book your hostel with Hostelworld . If you want to stay somewhere other than a hostel, use Booking.com as it consistently returns the cheapest rates for guesthouses and hotels.

Don’t Forget Travel Insurance Travel insurance will protect you against illness, injury, theft, and cancellations. It’s comprehensive protection in case anything goes wrong. I never go on a trip without it as I’ve had to use it many times in the past. My favorite companies that offer the best service and value are:

SafetyWing (best for everyone)
Insure My Trip (for those 70 and over)
Medjet (for additional evacuation coverage)

Want to Travel for Free? Travel credit cards allow you to earn points that can be redeemed for free flights and accommodation — all without any extra spending. Check out my guide to picking the right card and my current favorites to get started and see the latest best deals.

Need Help Finding Activities for Your Trip? Get Your Guide is a huge online marketplace where you can find cool walking tours, fun excursions, skip-the-line tickets, private guides, and more.

Ready to Book Your Trip? Check out my resource page for the best companies to use when you travel. I list all the ones I use when I travel. They are the best in class and you can’t go wrong using them on your trip.

Got a comment on this article? Join the conversation on Facebook , Instagram , or Twitter and share your thoughts!

Disclosure: Please note that some of the links above may be affiliate links, and at no additional cost to you, I earn a commission if you make a purchase. I recommend only products and companies I use and the income goes to keeping the site community supported and ad free.

a map with trip planning tools laid out on it

Get my best stuff sent straight to you!

Pin it on pinterest.

Fourteenth Amendment , Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The doctrine of the “right to travel” actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis. 1 Footnote Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) . “For the purposes of this case, we need not identify the source of [the right to travel] in the text of the Constitution. The right of ‘free ingress and regress to and from’ neighboring states which was expressly mentioned in the text of the Article of Confederation, may simply have been ‘conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created.’” Id. at 501 (citations omitted). The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one state who is temporarily visiting another state the “Privileges and Immunities” of a citizen of the latter state. 2 Footnote Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869) ( “without some provision . . . removing from citizens of each State the disabilities of alienage in other States, and giving them equality of privilege with citizens of those States, the Republic would have constituted little more than a league of States; it would not have constituted the Union which now exists.” ). The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which require that persons reside in a state for a specified period of time before taking advantage of the benefits of that state’s citizenship.

Durational Residency Requirements

Challenges to durational residency requirements have traditionally been made under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . In 1999, however, the Court approved a doctrinal shift, so that state laws that distinguished between their own citizens, based on how long they had been in the state, would be evaluated instead under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . 3 Footnote Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 502–03 (1999) . The Court did not, however, question the continuing efficacy of the earlier cases.

A durational residency requirement creates two classes of persons: those who have been within the state for the prescribed period and those who have not. 4 Footnote Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 334 (1972) . Because the right to travel is implicated by state distinctions between residents and nonresidents, the relevant constitutional provision is the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article IV, § 2, cl. 1. But persons who have moved recently, at least from state to state, 5 Footnote Intrastate travel is protected to the extent that the classification fails to meet equal protection standards in some respect. Compare Hadnott v. Amos , 320 F. Supp. 107 (M.D. Ala. 1970) (three-judge court), aff’d. per curiam , 405 U.S. 1035 (1972) , with Arlington County Bd. v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5 (1977) . The same principle applies in the commerce clause cases, in which discrimination may run against in-state as well as out-of-state concerns. Cf. Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349 (1951) . have exercised a right protected by the Constitution, and the durational residency classification either deters the exercise of that right or penalizes those who have exercised it. 6 Footnote Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629–31, 638 (1969) ; Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 338–42 (1972) ; Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974) ; Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 420–21 (1981) . See also Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 236–39 (1970) (Justices Brennan, White, and Marshall), and id. at 285–92 (Justices Stewart and Blackmun and Chief Justice Burger). Any such classification is invalid “unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest.” 7 Footnote Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969) (emphasis by Court); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 375–76 (1971) . The constitutional right to travel has long been recognized, 8 Footnote Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1868) ; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) (both cases in context of direct restrictions on travel). The source of the right to travel and the reasons for reliance on the Equal Protection Clause are questions puzzled over and unresolved by the Court. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 758, 759 (1966) , and id. at 763–64 (Justice Harlan concurring and dissenting), id. at 777 n.3 (Justice Brennan concurring and dissenting); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629–31 (1969) , and id. at 671 (Justice Harlan dissenting); San Antonio School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 31–32 (1973) ; Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 417–19 (1981) ; Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 60 & n.6 (1982) , and id. at 66–68 (Justice Brennan concurring), 78-81 (Justice O’Connor concurring). but it is only relatively recently that the strict standard of equal protection review has been applied to nullify durational residency requirements.

Thus, in Shapiro v. Thompson , 9 Footnote 394 U.S. 618 (1969) . durational residency requirements conditioning eligibility for welfare assistance on one year’s residence in the state 10 Footnote The durational residency provision established by Congress for the District of Columbia was also voided. 394 U.S. at 641–42 . were voided. If the purpose of the requirements was to inhibit migration by needy persons into the state or to bar the entry of those who came from low-paying states to higher-paying ones in order to collect greater benefits, the Court said, the purpose was impermissible. 11 Footnote 394 U.S. at 627–33 . Gaddis v. Wyman , 304 F. Supp. 717 (N.D.N.Y. 1969) , aff’d sub nom. Wyman v. Bowens, 397 U.S. 49 (1970) , struck down a provision construed so as to bar only persons who came into the state solely to obtain welfare assistance. If, on the other hand, the purpose was to serve certain administrative and related governmental objectives—the facilitation of the planning of budgets, the provision of an objective test of residency, minimization of opportunity for fraud, and encouragement of early entry of new residents into the labor force—then the requirements were rationally related to the purpose but they were not compelling enough to justify a classification that infringed a fundamental interest. 12 Footnote 394 U.S. at 633–38 . Shapiro was reaffirmed in Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (striking down durational residency requirements for aliens applying for welfare assistance), and in Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974) (voiding requirement of one year’s residency in county as condition to indigent’s receiving nonemergency hospitalization or medical care at county’s expense). When Connecticut and New York reinstituted the requirements, pleading a financial emergency as the compelling state interest, they were summarily rebuffed. Rivera v. Dunn , 329 F. Supp. 554 (D. Conn. 1971) , aff’d per curiam , 404 U.S. 1054 (1972) ; Lopez v. Wyman , Civ. No. 1971-308 (W.D.N.Y. 1971) , aff’d per curiam , 404 U.S. 1055 (1972) . The source of the funds, state or federal, is irrelevant to application of the principle. Pease v. Hansen, 404 U.S. 70 (1971) . In Dunn v. Blumstein , 13 Footnote 405 U.S. 330 (1972) . But see Marston v. Lewis, 410 U.S. 679 (1973) , and Burns v. Fortson, 410 U.S. 686 (1973) . Durational residency requirements of five and seven years respectively for candidates for elective office were sustained in Kanapaux v. Ellisor , 419 U.S. 891 (1974) , and Sununu v. Stark , 420 U.S. 958 (1975) . where the durational residency requirements denied the franchise to newcomers, such administrative justifications were found constitutionally insufficient to justify the classification. 14 Footnote For additional discussion of durational residence as a qualification to vote, see Voter Qualifications, supra . The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was the basis for striking down a California law that limited welfare benefits for California citizens who had resided in the state for less than a year to the level of benefits that they would have received in the state of their prior residence. 15 Footnote Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 505 (1999) .

However, a state one-year durational residency requirement for the initiation of a divorce proceeding was sustained in Sosna v. Iowa . 16 Footnote 419 U.S. 393 (1975) . Justices Marshall and Brennan dissented on the merits. Id. at 418 . Although it is not clear what the precise basis of the ruling is, it appears that the Court found that the state’s interest in requiring that those who seek a divorce from its courts be genuinely attached to the state and its desire to insulate divorce decrees from the likelihood of collateral attack justified the requirement. 17 Footnote 419 U.S. at 409 . But the Court also indicated that the plaintiff was not absolutely barred from the state courts, but merely required to wait for access (which was true in the prior cases as well and there held immaterial), and that possibly the state interests in marriage and divorce were more exclusive and thus more immune from federal constitutional attack than were the matters at issue in the previous cases. The Court also did not indicate whether it was using strict or traditional scrutiny. Similarly, durational residency requirements for lower in-state tuition at public colleges have been held constitutionally justifiable, again, however, without a clear statement of reason. 18 Footnote Starns v. Malkerson , 326 F. Supp. 234 (D. Minn. 1970) , aff’d per curiam , 401 U.S. 985 (1971) . Cf. Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 452 & n.9 (1973) , and id. at 456, 464, 467 (dicta). In Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 256 (1974) , the Court, noting the results, stated that “some waiting periods . . . may not be penalties” and thus would be valid. More recently, the Court has attempted to clarify these cases by distinguishing situations where a state citizen is likely to “consume” benefits within a state’s borders (such as the provision of welfare) from those where citizens of other states are likely to establish residency just long enough to acquire some portable benefit, and then return to their original domicile to enjoy them (such as obtaining a divorce decree or paying the in-state tuition rate for a college education). 19 Footnote Saenz v. Roe , 526 U.S. at 505 .

A state scheme for returning to its residents a portion of the income earned from the vast oil deposits discovered within Alaska foundered upon the formula for allocating the dividends; that is, each adult resident received one unit of return for each year of residency subsequent to 1959, the first year of Alaska’s statehood. The law thus created fixed, permanent distinctions between an ever-increasing number of classes of bona fide residents based on how long they had been in the state. The differences between the durational residency cases previously decided did not alter the bearing of the right to travel principle upon the distribution scheme, but the Court’s decision went off on the absence of any permissible purpose underlying the apportionment classification and it thus failed even the rational basis test. 20 Footnote Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55 (1982) . Somewhat similar was the Court’s invalidation on equal protection grounds of a veterans preference for state employment limited to persons who were state residents when they entered military service; four Justices also thought the preference penalized the right to travel. Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986) .

Still unresolved are issues such as durational residency requirements for occupational licenses and other purposes. 21 Footnote La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U.S. 465 (1919) , upholding a two-year residence requirement to become an insurance broker, must be considered of questionable validity. Durational periods for admission to the practice of law or medicine or other professions have evoked differing responses by lower courts. But this line of cases does not apply to state residency requirements themselves, as distinguished from durational provisions, 22 Footnote E.g. , McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Comm’n, 424 U.S. 645 (1976) (ordinance requiring city employees to be and to remain city residents upheld). See Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 255 (1974) . See also Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 (1983) (bona fide residency requirement for free tuition to public schools). and the cases do not inhibit the states when, having reasons for doing so, they bar travel by certain persons. 23 Footnote Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412 (1981) (statute made it a misdemeanor to abandon a dependent child but a felony to commit the offense and then leave the state).

Global airlines are governed by strict 'freedoms of the air' dating back 80 years. They've created some funky routes.

Global airlines are governed by nine "freedoms of the air," drafted 80 years ago in 1944.
These dictate how airlines can operate in foreign nations, with some more complicated than others.
The fifth freedom can give airlines a competitive edge and help capitalize on demand.

Over the past 100 years of shuttling people around the globe in metal flying machines, the world's aviation network has grown into a vast web of intersecting routes that connect nearly every corner of the globe.

Because of the complexities of crossing international borders, commercial carriers follow what is known as the "freedoms of the air" — or the right for an airline to operate within a nation other than its own.

These building blocks of aviation make international connectivity possible.

According to the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO , there are five official freedoms and four other "so-called" rights, that have been outlined in agreements between countries. ICAO is an agency of the United Nations that sets standards for the global aviation industry.

Drafted in 1944 during what is known as the Chicago Convention, the laws were written as world governments relaxed their grip on airline networks and pricing. This liberalization, however, meant countries with bigger airlines would likely dominate the skies — prompting them to implement strict route regulations.

The governing freedoms not only promote more competition and choice but also allow airlines to optimize routes and increase efficiency, according to FlightRadar24 .

Most international carriers except for a very small few follow the basic freedoms of allowing airlines of one state to fly over or land in another, and vice versa.

Open Skies agreements simplify these international routes, like the one between the European Union and the US that allows any airline registered in either market to fly between the two.

Some freedoms are more complicated, but provide interesting and diverse route options to travelers.

The fifth and eighth freedoms of the air

Beyond the first four freedoms, there is one more officially recognized right, as well as the four "so-called" rights. The latter four were not officially drafted during the 1944 Chicago Convention but are regularly accepted and practiced worldwide.

According to ICAO, the fifth freedom gives an airline of one nation the right to fly between two other countries, so long as the one-stop routes start or end in its home country and all parties agree.

Among the most well-known fifth freedom routes are Emirates' flights from New York-JFK to Milan and Newark to Athens, both flying onward to the carrier's base in Dubai.

Similarly, Singapore Airlines flies between New York and Singapore via a stop in Frankfurt , and Australian flag carrier Qantas flies between Sydney and New York via Auckland, New Zealand, according to Google Flights.

United Airlines' delayed fifth freedom route will fly between the US mainland and Cebu, Philippines, via Tokyo starting in October, the carrier told Business Insider on Monday. It was supposed to start in July — before the FAA launched an investigation after a string of safety incidents at United.

These unique routes can be efficient for airlines trying to serve destinations that a plane can't reach nonstop, like Emirates' fifth freedom between Mexico City and Dubai via Barcelona or Latam Airlines' route between Sydney and Santiago, Chile, via Auckland.

Still, carriers will make stops on otherwise attainable direct flights because they can capitalize on the high-demand market on both legs — filling more seats and making more money.

Customers may also view carriers like Emirates and Singapore as a more luxe offering than the competing US and EU carriers across the Atlantic.

On the other hand, an airline that wants to serve a low-demand market can better fill the plane by adding a fifth-freedom leg to a nearby city, like Dutch flag carrier KLM's flight between Amsterdam and Santiago via Buenos Aires.

Among ICAO's most interesting "so-called" rights is the eighth freedom, which gives an airline the right to fly between two cities in a country that isn't its own— but the domestic leg seats cannot be sold as the entire journey must start or end in the foreign airline's home nation.

"Five Freedom Agreements"

First Freedom

This allows an airline of one nation to fly over another without landing.

Second Freedom

This allows an airline of one nation the right to land in another territory for a technical stop. Think refueling or an inflight mechanical issue that prompted an unplanned emergency landing.

Third Freedom

This allows an airline of one nation to carry passengers to a foreign state, and vice versa.

Fourth Freedom

This allows the airline of one nation to take on passengers originating in another. The fourth freedom is simply the reverse of the third freedom.

Fifth Freedom

This allows an airline of one nation to carry passengers between two countries other than its own so long as the route starts or ends in the carrier's home state.

"So-called" rights

Six Freedom

This allows an airline to carry passengers from one nation to another via its home state. This represents the typical hub-and-spoke network used by global airlines.

Seventh Freedom

The seventh freedom is similar to the fifth freedom but takes out the limitation of where the route must start or end. Instead, an airline has the right to fly between two nations other than its own without flying onward to its home base.

The EU's single-aviation market, for example, grants airlines the right to fly to and from any EU country, like Ireland-based Ryanair that flies between Rome and Vilnius, Lithuania.

Eighth Freedom

This allows an airline to fly between two cities in a foreign country so long as all passengers originate or are destined for the airline's home state.

Ninth Freedom

This cabotage freedom allows an airline of one nation to fly between two points in a separate single country. This does not exist in the US, but it does in the EU — like easyJet's back-and-forth nonstop between Paris and Nice, for example.

Watch: Why Singapore Changi Airport was just named best in the world

Main content

Opinion | Understanding the meaning of freedom (and…

Opinion | Understanding the meaning of freedom (and liberty) | READER COMMENTARY

Natasha Dartigue, Public Defender for Maryland, addresses the audience during the Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom Brunch earlier this year.

Thanks to Armstrong Williams for an excellent column on the need to understand what freedom is and how we should cherish it and work to preserve it ( “Armstrong Williams: What is freedom?” April 7). Well said.

I have just one suggestion. Perhaps a discussion of the meaning of “freedom” versus “liberty” would be useful. Americans have come to use the two words interchangeably, but they do not have identical meanings. And the differences are important.

— Larry Williams, Towson

Add your voice: Respond to this piece or other Sun content by submitting your own letter .

More in Opinion

At a special dinner at Pierpoint Restaurant in Baltimore, Chef Nancy Longo prepared a filet of Chesapeake blue catfish with chive beurre blanc sauce, served with potatoes au gratin and spring vegetables.

SUBSCRIBER ONLY

Opinion columnists | dan rodricks: dining on an invasive species and other matters you never asked for | staff commentary.

Opinion | Elections are secure; doubters should take a closer look | READER COMMENTARY

Opinion | The latest edition of Arizona highways | EDITORIAL CARTOON

Opinion | Welcome to Chatbot Therapy | EDITORIAL CARTOON

IMAGES

24 Reasons Why the Freedom to Travel Matters
Freedom in America and Travel
30 Inspiring Quotes About Freedom And Liberty
Freedom to Travel
How renting can give you the freedom to travel
"I love to travel because... It gives you the freedom to be yourself

VIDEO

Freedom Pass: Does Everyone Have The Same Freedom To Travel?

COMMENTS

Right to Travel and Privileges and Immunities Clause
Footnotes Jump to essay-1 See, e.g., Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418, 430 (1870) ([The Privileges and Immunities] clause plainly and unmistakably secures and protects the right of a citizen of one State to pass into any other State of the Union . . . .); Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168, 180 (1868) (stating that the Privileges and Immunities Clause includes the right of free ingress into other ...
Freedom of movement under United States law
Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. § 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." A strong right to freedom of movement may yet have even farther-reaching implications.
The "Right to Travel"
Another possible source of the right to travel is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. This is better grounded: The "State X/StateY" hypothetical case above really is an Equal Protection Clause case. It makes sense to apply the Equal Protection Clause to prevent states from discriminating senselessly against their newer citizens.
Freedom of movement
Freedom of movement, mobility rights, or the right to travel is a human rights concept encompassing the right of individuals to travel from place to place within the territory of a country, and to leave the country and return to it. The right includes not only visiting places, but changing the place where the individual resides or works. Such a right is provided in the constitutions of ...
The Right to Interstate Travel Under the Fourteenth Amendment
Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 334 (1972). Because the right to travel is implicated by state distinctions between residents and nonresidents, the relevant constitutional provision is the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article IV, § 2, cl. 1. Intrastate travel is protected to the extent that the classification fails to meet equal protection ...
Interstate Travel as a Fundamental Right
The doctrine of the "right to travel" actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis.1 Footnote Saenz v.
Right to Travel and Privileges and Immunities Clause
It protects [1] the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State, [2] the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State, and, [3] for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State.4 Footnote 526 U.S. 489, 500 (1999) (numbering added).
Interstate Travel as a Fundamental Right
Footnotes Jump to essay-1 Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). For the purposes of this case, we need not identify the source of [the right to travel] in the text of the Constitution. The right of 'free ingress and regress to and from' neighboring states which was expressly mentioned in the text of the Articles of Confederation, may simply have been 'conceived from the beginning to be a ...
The Right Of Freedom Of Movement Explained With Examples
K. N. Dec 12, 2022 135 Shares 2103 Views. The freedom of movementaround within a country (Article 13 (1), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948); the right to leave any country; and the right to return to his or her own country (Article 13 (2), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948) are all human rights.
the-right-to-travel
Promote. Join Lawyer Directory. the-right-to-travel. U.S. Constitution Annotated. The following state regulations pages link to this page. U.S. Constitution Annotated Toolbox. Explanation of the Constitution- from the Congressional Research Service. Accessibility.
24 Reasons Why the Freedom to Travel Matters
11. Allows us to let go, open up, and embrace uncertainty. When everything around you is changing at pace, as it often the case on the road, sometimes the best choice - the only choice — is to accept it, to surrender to uncertainty, and simply be present amidst all that swirls around you. 12.
Liberty Of Abode And The Right To Travel
In Genuino vs. De Lima, 5 the Supreme Court said that the right to travel is part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law. It is part and parcel of the guarantee of freedom of movement that the Constitution affords its citizens. Liberty under the foregoing clause includes the right to choose one's residence, to leave it whenever he pleases and to ...
What Is the Right to Travel?
Yet, the legal interpretation of your right to travel is different. This legal right generally means you can move around areas of the U.S. without the government impeding you. A state can't keep you stuck within its borders or prohibit entry. States must uphold the rights of the people, except as part of due process for specific case types.
"The Right To Travel And Privacy: Intersecting Fundamental Freedoms, 30
As a fundamental right inherent in American citizenship and the nature of the federal union, the right to travel in the United States is basic to American liberty. The right precedes the creation of the United States and appears in the Articles of Confederation. The U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court recognize and protect the right to interstate travel. The travel right entails privacy and ...
The Right to Travel: In Search of a Constitutional Source
The notions embodied in the right to travel, the freedom of movement and freedom to settle in a place of one's own choosing without governmental interference, have long been recognized and ... ment.13 Relying on this, however, would mean that aliens would not be protected in this right. Since Edwards there has not been a significant attempt to use
The Right to Travel
The doctrine of the "right to travel" actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis. 1858 The second, expressly addressed by ...
Freedom of Travel Law and Legal Definition
Freedom of travel and a citizen's freedom to travel from state to state is a fundamental right that can legally restricted only in the narrowest of circumstances. Interstate travel is a basic right under the Constitution, which can be held to be a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment requires a judicial ...
The Right to Travel and Freedom of Movement
jcuellar 5 years ago. The right to travel and freedom of movement are fundamental human rights, these are not privileges that require licensing. These fundamental rights are necessary in order to exercise other rights such as the right to economic freedom and the right to work. In 2019, within the United States, the primary mode of travel for ...
Freedom to Travel
It means smarter visa processes, more visa waiver agreements and trusted traveller programmes. " We value our freedom to travel and explore the world and when we learn about what other countries must go through, we realize how lucky we are. Whenever we have to buy a visa in advance, we complain about the complexity and expense. Visas and ...
The Constitutional Right to Travel: Are Some Forms of Transportation
a constitutional right to drive an automobile, the Supreme Court seems protective of a "freedom. of movement" doctrine that protects an individual's right to travel as a pedestrian.26 Part IV. addresses the legal implications of the current transportation situation in the U.S. The Comment.
What Does Travel Mean to You?
Some people travel simply to get drunk around the world. For me, travel means many things. Travel is freedom. It's about being able to do what I want and fill my day with excitement. Travel was an escape. Travel was "elsewhere". That place where exciting things and people resided.
Interstate Travel
The doctrine of the "right to travel" actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis. 1.
International Travel Is Made Possible by the 'Freedoms of the Air'
The seventh freedom is similar to the fifth freedom but takes out the limitation of where the route must start or end. Instead, an airline has the right to fly between two nations other than its ...
Common Law Right to Travel
Dear Sir or Madam, Can you please confirm the following: 1) That the common law right to travel still exists; 2) When travelling in your personal conveyance of the day there is no requirement for a license, insurance, road tax or MOT as it is not covered by any statute such as the road traffic act. Yours faithfully, Norman: Hinks
Understanding the meaning of freedom (and liberty).
Perhaps a discussion of the meaning of "freedom" versus "liberty" would be useful. Americans have come to use the two words interchangeably, but they do not have identical meanings. And ...