For many, international travel has long been seen as a simple experience, akin to a routine purchase at a checkout counter.
For others, however, traversing borders can feel as daunting as undergoing a root canal.
The distinction often hinges on a single factor: the birthplace of the traveler.
Since President Trump’s administration took office, Westerners attempting to enter the United States have encountered challenges reminiscent of the experiences typically faced by travelers from the Global South.
Recent incidents illustrate this shift in treatment.
For instance, German tourist Lucas Sielaff was handcuffed and shackled at the border in Tijuana, and after 16 days in detention, he was deported at his own expense.
This harsh treatment reportedly stemmed from a misunderstanding during questioning conducted in English, which is not Sielaff’s first language.
Similarly, another German national and a Canadian on a work visa faced detention at the same border, enduring prolonged holds of more than six weeks and 12 days, with no clear explanations provided.
Fabian Schmidt, another German who holds a green card, was detained at Boston Logan International Airport where he experienced aggressive interrogation and was denied basic comforts, culminating in a cold shower while naked.
Currently, he remains in a detention facility in Rhode Island without clear charges against him.
These incidents of harsh treatment extend to foreign nationals as well.
A French scientist was reportedly denied entry due to critical messages about President Trump found on his phone.
The United States operates under a visa waiver program that allows citizens from 43 nations—including staunch allies like Britain, Germany, Canada, and France—to enter the country without a visa for stays of up to 90 days.
However, in light of recent troubling incidents, both Britain and Germany have updated their travel advisories, signaling a waning welcome for their citizens.
Many travelers who have become accustomed to breezing through immigration with minimal hassle now face a drastically different reality.
Conversely, individuals holding “weak passports” have grappled with borders and visa challenges for years.
For example, citizens from countries such as Bangladesh or Tanzania often find themselves scrutinized heavily before obtaining the chance to visit another nation, including the United States.
Potential travelers must often prepare to provide extensive personal details: grueling queries about employment, finance, family ties, previous travel history, and even scrutiny of their social media content.
Planning becomes a compulsory endeavor, as the waiting time for a visitor visa interview can stretch into months or even years.
Currently, data shows that wait times for visa interviews to the U.S. range from 228 days in Dhaka, Bangladesh, to 507 days in Bogotá, Colombia; while in Lagos, Nigeria and Mexico City, the waits are 377 and 350 days, respectively.
If a traveler is fortunate enough to secure an appointment, they are at the mercy of a consular officer who has sole authority over the issuance of visas.
Should a visa be denied, applicants receive a standard notice indicating that the decision is final, with no option for an appeal.
What’s more, travelers do not receive refunds for the considerable fees they have already paid to apply.
Potential difficulties may worsen for travelers aspiring to enter the U.S.
Reports suggest that the Trump administration is contemplating a new version of a previously established Muslim ban, which caused significant chaos at airports alongside protests and a slew of lawsuits during Trump’s first term.
This new travel ban could extend to 43 countries, with over half of them located in Africa.
Interestingly, many Americans may not oppose such a move, viewing the right of sovereign nations to control their immigration policies as acceptable.
This perspective emerges from a broader societal view where international travel is primarily seen as a privilege rather than a universal right.
However, the question remains: should this be the case?
Other policies that unjustly disadvantage people based on immutable characteristics—such as ethnicity, race, gender, religious background, or native language—would typically be viewed as unacceptable.
So why do we accept policies that disproportionately affect individuals based solely on their country of origin?
In today’s interconnected world, the ability to travel freely is paramount for individuals seeking to pursue personal, educational, and professional opportunities, all made possible by globalization.
Such freedom of movement should not be dictated by the accident of one’s birthplace.
While the concept of open borders may currently seem politically unfeasible, there remains the potential for resistance against growing xenophobia and nationalism in both the U.S. and Europe.
Adopting more liberal border policies not only upholds moral principles but also fosters economic growth, cultural understanding, and tourism for the host nations.
Notably, since 2018, Rwanda has adopted a policy allowing citizens from any country to obtain a visa upon arrival, eliminating the need for prior application procedures.
Samoa has gone a step further by allowing visitors to stay for up to 60 days without a visa.
Even China, which has historically maintained stringent immigration policies, is progressing towards more inclusive regulations.
The nation has formed mutual visa exemption agreements with 23 countries, and since 2023, it has been implementing unilateral visa-free access for 38 nations, easing entry for tourism and business on trips lasting up to 30 days.
These advancements by Rwanda, Samoa, and China highlight that a more open world is not merely a dream but a practicality that is beneficial for all.
They present a constructive example for countries like the United States to consider, rather than continuing to erect insurmountable barriers.
The right to travel should be guaranteed for everyone, transcending privilege and recognizing the shared humanity that binds us all in this increasingly globalized society.
image source from：https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2025-04-16/international-travelers-united-states-detention
