Judge Jim Gray: Liberty and the Right to Travel

Judge Jim Gray

January 4, 2016

Liberty requires the right to unrestricted foreign travel, so our government generally should have no right to impede that travel. It does have the right to place some reasonable conditions upon that right – but only in those rare occasions in which that travel is for the purpose of causing material harm to our national safety or interests. So today if we want to travel to North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela or virtually anywhere else, as free people we should have the right to do so without any restrictions, much less sanctions.

One of the rare situations in which the government could place restrictions would be for travel to places like Syria, Iraq or Libya to join terrorist forces as they fight against humanity. If those people are not citizens, they should have that right, but with the express condition that they could never return to the United States. Of course it is a violation of international law to prohibit citizens from returning to their own country. So our government would be justified to pass and enforce a law that would impose a prison sentence for a conviction upon our citizens who traveled or attempted to travel to those areas of the world. But that sanction could be avoided by those travelers if they voluntarily renounced their citizenship before they departed. Thus they could be treated as a non-citizen. This overall approach would accomplish two important purposes. First, it would uphold the critically important freedom to travel. And, second, if someone has terrorist tendencies, it would be better for them to be in those other places instead of here. So once again, Liberty works both to our philosophical as well as our practical advantage.

Judge Gray was the Libertarian Party’s candidate for Vice-President in 2012. This is from his series called 2 Paragraphs 4 Liberty

4 thoughts on “Judge Jim Gray: Liberty and the Right to Travel

  1. desertspeaks

    hmm it seems as though the Judge of the above article believes that the Constitution and laws apply to everyone because of their physical location in an organic state. BUT CAN HE ACTUALLY PROVE THAT IT ISN’T JUST APPLIED ARBITRARILY??

    If the judge would like to offer his evidence that it does in fact apply, his proof/evidence MUST be tangible, factual, personal firsthand, irrefutable information. His proof/evidence shall not be comprised of something he heard, ie hearsay, nor rumors, nor historical documents that don’t have the wet ink signature of any man/woman being charged “without said signature, it would definitively excludes any man/woman as a party to any referenced document”, Nor shall we suffer his opinions, someone else’s opinions, his beliefs, someone else’s beliefs, his feelings, someone else’s feelings, assumptions, presumptions, hypotheticals, conjecture, sophistry, obfuscation, fraud, lies, scenarios or what if’s.
    Further; he shall not invoke laws, statutes, codes, policies, treaties, etc, nor any CON-stitution, nor any amendments to any CON-stitution, as that presupposes that any of it is applicable when that is what is in question in the first place!

    Good luck!

  2. Andy Craig

    A legal point of some relevance: you can only renounce your citizenship, if you already have the citizenship of some foreign nation. Otherwise the U.S. would be creating stateless persons, which is banned by treaty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *