I have recently made a decision not to travel to the U.S. for a planned work commitment. I have three main reasons for that hesitation, as discussed below.

The In-Between Is a Big Place Under the Current U.S. Administration

My first reason for being uneasy to travel to the U.S. is the current human-rights abuses by the U.S. Government. As I wrote in my first post, I am a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen. Although I am originally from the U.S., I have lived in Canada for a very long time. My education is split across the two countries, with my master’s and doctorate in law from Canada. I am an academic at a Canadian university, but I was privileged to recently spend a year in the U.S., teaching at a law school there.

I have family and friends on both sides of the Border, and I have always viewed both countries as home in many ways. Whenever I have opportunities to go to the U.S., I take the chance, especially if it is in a location where I can combine business and personal visits.

So when an association announced its annual conference in the U.S. this year, it was an easy decision to plan to go. It’s always a great conference. I applied for this conference in October, and, as we all know, much has changed since then.

I have written extensively in other posts (here, here, here, here, and here)  about the aggressive immigration actions taken by the U.S. administration. It is, more generally, just well known. As the U.S. President acts against lawyers, universities, and political opponents, among others, he has also continued to express a wish to “deport” U.S. citizens. Obviously, U.S. citizens cannot be deported, as that is an immigration tool, but 238 men also cannot legally be sent to indefinite detention and torture in El Salvador, at all, but certainly not without any due process. And yet, here we are. 

With a Government so willing to skirt the law, to race to evade court orders, and then to throw up its hands and plead helplessness when courts order it to reverse specific illegal human-rights-related actions, the frightening place is in the “in-between.” The expression, the “in-between,” has appeared in various places in popular literature, and it generally refers to the place of transition, with an example being twilight.

It would be likely that, if the Government sent a citizen to El Salvador, courts would rule against it. But what happens to those individuals who might be caught in that in-between, who are sent there before the courts can intervene, especially when the Government demonstrates such contempt for court orders to reverse such actions? Under the best of circumstances, national borders represent an in-between, where the typical laws and rules do not apply the same way. These are not the best of circumstances.

The in-between is a real concern.

It creates fear, and, as I said earlier, the fear is really the point. Sadly, it can be an effective tool. I am not inclined to stop critiquing human-rights abuses, where such critique is warranted, but it has caused me to hesitate in thinking of travel to the U.S. That is especially so since I am a law academic who has criticized the U.S. Government.

In that context, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (“CAUT”) issued a travel advisory, cautioning its members against travel to the U.S. unless “essential and necessary.” Two of the categories of people who are warned against such travel include: 

 

 
I would arguably fit into both categories.
 
Do I think I am likely to be sent to El Salvador if I try to enter the U.S.? No, not really. But the problem is that I do not know what to expect. I would be careful about what devices I brought, but my views on this administration’s human-rights abuses are well known. To be fair, I have had critiques of all U.S. administrations in my time as an academic, but I am not sure that matters. I am more worried about general difficulty when travelling, and I am, frankly, worried about the unpredictability of this current Government. Something may seem fine one day but not the next.
 
As a U.S. citizen, I have a considerable amount of privilege in such travel, and I’m sure it would be fine. But I am still uneasy. That is especially so in relation to this specific academic travel in which I am giving a talk that criticizes the U.S. and Canadian Governments.

Benefitting From Privilege Denied to Others Is Problematic

In its travel advisory, CAUT also cautioned other groups including:
 
 

                                                                  …

Travel, by definition, involves privilege when crossing borders. Country of citizenship, and the passport a traveler holds, has always determined the ability to travel and the experiences of travel. It is painfully obvious that people are being targeted in the U.S.’s aggressive immigration actions based on immutable characteristics. The men sent to El Salvador in the initial action were reportedly Venezuelan. Generally speaking, the high-profile immigration actions have targeted people from Latin America and the Middle East. This is not particularly new (see my book for some discussion of this long-term practice), but it is arguably escalated now. At the same time, the U.S. Administration has given refugee status to white nationals of South Africa, under a claim of genocide that has been widely disputed.

I do not support a system that causes such inhumane treatment of people because of such immutable characteristics. Especially with no due process, the U.S. Government has failed to persuade me that its actions are based on conduct, and not on immutable characteristics. Beyond that, no conduct would ever justify sending people to indefinite detention, involuntary servitude, and torture in a third country.

While discrimination in this realm is a long-term issue, and it has always been a major problem (again see my book for a discussion of this discrimination), the recent escalation of human-rights abuses in this realm adds an additional disturbing dimension. Even that is not entirely new, as demonstrated by the torture program run by the U.S. after 9/11, again discussed in my book. But, as I argued in an earlier post, that rotten post-9/11 foundation is now serving as a launchpad for expanded abuses. The inclusion of people who identify as trans aligns with actions by the U.S. Government regarding trans people’s passports and underscores another aspect of a targeting based on personal characteristics.

The current government is seeking to expand an already discriminatory and deeply problematic realm, and it has added explicit and egregious human-rights consequences for those falling afoul of its preferences. That is a second reason to hesitate to travel to the U.S. now.

The Treatment of Canada in Terms of Disrespect and Threats Is Appalling

My third reason for being uncomfortable with U.S. travel is that I wish to support my fellow Canadians. That support is found in responses to outrageous threats by the U.S. Government to make Canada its 51st state, unjust tariffs against Canada, and overall disrespectful commentary, as well as a more general wish that has emerged among Canadians to avoid travel to the U.S. because of its immigration-related conduct. I discussed these issues at length in a past post.

I have always wondered how it must feel for people who immigrate to have tension between their two countries. But I am fortunate in that I do not feel that is happening now for me. I do not see the current situation as choosing the U.S. over Canada, or Canada over the U.S. I see opposing extreme human-rights abuses by the U.S. Government as defense of the U.S., so supporting Canada in this current situation is, to my mind, also displaying loyalty to the U.S. and to long-standing legal values there. Supporting the abuses of the current U.S. Government would feel the opposite way, as disloyal to both the U.S. and to Canada.

Will I Travel to the U.S. Going Forward?
 
I have heard people in Canada say they will not travel to the U.S. at all under this administration. I would not go that far, with loved ones there. As I said in a prior post, I have faith in the U.S. to right itself, and I believe the current extreme environment to be temporary. The courts have, thus far, frequently confirmed my faith. I hope I will not be proven wrong, but I will wait and see what happens. 

I actually found myself hesitating to post this blog, wondering if it would cause me travel issues. I spent the last year, however, teaching First Amendment Law in the U.S., and I believe in the constitutional values of the country that promulgated that free speech protection in its foundational document. 
 
For the moment, I will avoid such travel unless it cannot be avoided for personal reasons. I will be presenting at my conference via Zoom, which the organizers have graciously permitted for those hesitating to travel to the U.S. Beyond that, I cannot say what I will decide.