4 ms·

It's much harder to enforce policy on those who leave, compared to enforcing policy on those who enter, is it not? If the reason for the policy was sincerely du

by usui 5y ago

It's much harder to enforce policy on those who leave, compared to enforcing policy on those who enter, is it not? If the reason for the policy was sincerely due to pandemic concerns, couldn't they have just stopped people from entering, regardless of nationality?

wahern 5y ago
Right of return is a relatively bedrock principle in international law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return In principle a pandemic would seem an obvious exception, easily analogous to exceptions like war, but too many are in denial about it. Moreover, even if you nominally had a law preventing return, what do you do when a foreign country puts your citizens on a plane bound for your country? As a practical matter, it seems much easier, IMO, to restrict persons leaving than returning. It's also more flexible. Some number of people will leave, either illegally or via legal exceptions. So the policy has a pressure relief value. Conversely, a useful entry restriction demands much stricter application, which is likely to quickly crumble when your own citizens are trying to re-enter, especially in larger numbers as compared to a regime where they were restricted from leaving in the first place.
- KirillPanov 5y ago
  > what do you do when a foreign country puts your citizens on a plane bound for your country? You simply deny the validity of their travel documents. China does this all the time: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-deportations-exclusive-idUSKCN0RB0D020150911 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-deportations-ex... Airlines really do not want an entire aircraft refused landing because of one person. All the pre-departure paperwork procedures exist to prevent this from happening. Airlines won't go along with "just board them anyways" schemes unless forced to do so under threat. If they do cooperate (or are forced to) it gives the destination country cause to void that airline's licenses without risk of reciprocal sanctions against its own airlines. Dragging commercial airlines into a political dispute like this won't work.
  - wahern 5y ago
    I realize nations do this, but do nations like Australia or the U.S., which fancy themselves more in harmony with the rule of law, want to be put in that position? Which reminds me, many nations, such as the U.S., have domestic laws which would prevent denying re-entry to citizens. The airplane example isn't the best because there are many technical ways to stop inbound air traffic[1]; ports of entry at land borders, not so much. [1] Stopping outbound air traffic is even easier as a technical matter.

by usui 5y ago

wahern 5y ago

Right of return is a relatively bedrock principle in international law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return In principle a pandemic would seem an obvious exception, easily analogous to exceptions like war, but too many are in denial about it. Moreover, even if you nominally had a law preventing return, what do you do when a foreign country puts your citizens on a plane bound for your country? As a practical matter, it seems much easier, IMO, to restrict persons leaving than returning. It's also more flexible. Some number of people will leave, either illegally or via legal exceptions. So the policy has a pressure relief value. Conversely, a useful entry restriction demands much stricter application, which is likely to quickly crumble when your own citizens are trying to re-enter, especially in larger numbers as compared to a regime where they were restricted from leaving in the first place.

KirillPanov 5y ago
> what do you do when a foreign country puts your citizens on a plane bound for your country? You simply deny the validity of their travel documents. China does this all the time: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-deportations-exclusive-idUSKCN0RB0D020150911 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-deportations-ex... Airlines really do not want an entire aircraft refused landing because of one person. All the pre-departure paperwork procedures exist to prevent this from happening. Airlines won't go along with "just board them anyways" schemes unless forced to do so under threat. If they do cooperate (or are forced to) it gives the destination country cause to void that airline's licenses without risk of reciprocal sanctions against its own airlines. Dragging commercial airlines into a political dispute like this won't work.
- wahern 5y ago
  I realize nations do this, but do nations like Australia or the U.S., which fancy themselves more in harmony with the rule of law, want to be put in that position? Which reminds me, many nations, such as the U.S., have domestic laws which would prevent denying re-entry to citizens. The airplane example isn't the best because there are many technical ways to stop inbound air traffic[1]; ports of entry at land borders, not so much. [1] Stopping outbound air traffic is even easier as a technical matter.