Iran does this exact same thing with their own citizens trying to travel abroad on vacation, to see family, for work........Iran absolutely controls who is allowed to leave and who is denied, including taking their passport if needed.
I read Russia did the same thing to the men of military age..... article said their passports were stripped from them to prevent them from defecting, leaving the country.
With these current examples, it blows my mind that people would say, “That can’t happen in America.” Iran is another great example. Afghanistan too. And more appropriate, since their prohibitions stem from religion and preventing “corrupting” influences.
The stance you've described -- no one in or out -- puzzles me. If "undesirables" want to leave the country, why not let them? Why force them (us) to stay?
I take issue with the word "undesirables." I currently choose to live in a European country and not the US. To be blunt, I don't hate the US but prefer life in Europe over life in the US. Does that make me an "undesirable?" Is an illegal immigrant an "undesirable?" What is your definition of an "undesirable?" Is it someone who does not desire to be in the US? Or is it something else?
I can only refer to historical authoritarian regimes, Ed. It is normal for those types of governments to restrict free movement, both into and out of the country. In today's example, East Germany's communist regime constructed the Berlin Wall to halt the flow of humanity both into and out of East Berlin. The Soviet Union restricted movement. To some extent, Russia restricts free movement today. Russians with means can find ways to leave the country, but the vast majority of Russians cannot. China also restricts free movement of its citizens. It is difficult to hear red state calls for free movement restrictions for certain populations and not consider where those things could lead. Or where those things have led in the past. Or what the phrase "seal the border" could mean. These kinds of regimes need oppressed people to fuel them, which is the main reason they restrict movement in the first place.
Sorry -- I didn't phrase my question very well! I also don't like the term "undesirables" -- hence the quotes! An autocratic/theocratic regime could consider people undesirable for any number of reasons, some of which you lay out in your piece. If the regime sees such people as un-American or at least "insufficiently American," why not just let them go? I know current and past autocracies have restricted movement, as you note, but it has always puzzled me why those who do not "conform" (in quotes!) and wish to leave aren't simply shown the door. In part, I suppose, it's about the technology and theatrics of oppression.
I think in the case of Christian Nationalists, a good post for you to read here would be the one about sex and privacy. I’ll find the link and drop it here for you when I finish my reply.
Autocratic and theocratic governments often believe they are called by their deity or their self-ordained power to force a certain code of morality on everyone. Christian Nationalists believe sexual immorality causes God to judge a nation. All persons within that nation, native-born and foreign, are required to abide by their rules to avoid God’s judgment. They wouldn’t let people leave because they might violate that sexual dogma and cause God’s judgment for allowing them to sin. So they would restrict emigration accordingly. It is more important to them to force everyone to abide by their interpretation of the Bible.
An autocratic regime would perceive more of a threat if such people were allowed outside its borders, where they might cause trouble, than if they were kept inside where they can be controlled (and yes punished to teach others a lesson). Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
And also if you let people leave, they will, and you won't be left with anyone to rule over, certainly not anyone with any useful skills.
I think there are those who may want to leave the country (permanently, or at least until sanity prevails) and then those who want to leave the country to do something they may no longer be able to do (thus evading the laws/control of the government). The more the laws take on the mantle of enforcing a particular religious code, the more likely some will want to seek to go out of the country to do something that previously was legal (or at least was their own private business). The examples of those seeking medical care (transgender care, reproductive care, end-of-life care) are particularly poignant, and the effort to restrict movement to prevent access to that care is already playing out in various states. But when you have regime where people seek to leave because they are seeking freedom and feel they can only find it elsewhere....well, let's just say that is a bad look for any country, but particularly one that claims it's whole brand is FREEDOM.
Iran does this exact same thing with their own citizens trying to travel abroad on vacation, to see family, for work........Iran absolutely controls who is allowed to leave and who is denied, including taking their passport if needed.
I read Russia did the same thing to the men of military age..... article said their passports were stripped from them to prevent them from defecting, leaving the country.
With these current examples, it blows my mind that people would say, “That can’t happen in America.” Iran is another great example. Afghanistan too. And more appropriate, since their prohibitions stem from religion and preventing “corrupting” influences.
The stance you've described -- no one in or out -- puzzles me. If "undesirables" want to leave the country, why not let them? Why force them (us) to stay?
I take issue with the word "undesirables." I currently choose to live in a European country and not the US. To be blunt, I don't hate the US but prefer life in Europe over life in the US. Does that make me an "undesirable?" Is an illegal immigrant an "undesirable?" What is your definition of an "undesirable?" Is it someone who does not desire to be in the US? Or is it something else?
I can only refer to historical authoritarian regimes, Ed. It is normal for those types of governments to restrict free movement, both into and out of the country. In today's example, East Germany's communist regime constructed the Berlin Wall to halt the flow of humanity both into and out of East Berlin. The Soviet Union restricted movement. To some extent, Russia restricts free movement today. Russians with means can find ways to leave the country, but the vast majority of Russians cannot. China also restricts free movement of its citizens. It is difficult to hear red state calls for free movement restrictions for certain populations and not consider where those things could lead. Or where those things have led in the past. Or what the phrase "seal the border" could mean. These kinds of regimes need oppressed people to fuel them, which is the main reason they restrict movement in the first place.
Sorry -- I didn't phrase my question very well! I also don't like the term "undesirables" -- hence the quotes! An autocratic/theocratic regime could consider people undesirable for any number of reasons, some of which you lay out in your piece. If the regime sees such people as un-American or at least "insufficiently American," why not just let them go? I know current and past autocracies have restricted movement, as you note, but it has always puzzled me why those who do not "conform" (in quotes!) and wish to leave aren't simply shown the door. In part, I suppose, it's about the technology and theatrics of oppression.
I think in the case of Christian Nationalists, a good post for you to read here would be the one about sex and privacy. I’ll find the link and drop it here for you when I finish my reply.
Autocratic and theocratic governments often believe they are called by their deity or their self-ordained power to force a certain code of morality on everyone. Christian Nationalists believe sexual immorality causes God to judge a nation. All persons within that nation, native-born and foreign, are required to abide by their rules to avoid God’s judgment. They wouldn’t let people leave because they might violate that sexual dogma and cause God’s judgment for allowing them to sin. So they would restrict emigration accordingly. It is more important to them to force everyone to abide by their interpretation of the Bible.
Here’s that link: https://open.substack.com/pub/project2025istheocracy/p/christian-nationalism-where-sex-never?r=1ohjc1&utm_medium=ios
An autocratic regime would perceive more of a threat if such people were allowed outside its borders, where they might cause trouble, than if they were kept inside where they can be controlled (and yes punished to teach others a lesson). Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
And also if you let people leave, they will, and you won't be left with anyone to rule over, certainly not anyone with any useful skills.
Any autocracy's goal is to ultimately conquer the whole world and force everyone to live under its oppression.
Maybe. But it certainly wants to conquer the minds and bodies of its citizens.
I think there are those who may want to leave the country (permanently, or at least until sanity prevails) and then those who want to leave the country to do something they may no longer be able to do (thus evading the laws/control of the government). The more the laws take on the mantle of enforcing a particular religious code, the more likely some will want to seek to go out of the country to do something that previously was legal (or at least was their own private business). The examples of those seeking medical care (transgender care, reproductive care, end-of-life care) are particularly poignant, and the effort to restrict movement to prevent access to that care is already playing out in various states. But when you have regime where people seek to leave because they are seeking freedom and feel they can only find it elsewhere....well, let's just say that is a bad look for any country, but particularly one that claims it's whole brand is FREEDOM.