Freedom of movement 1270497 225337229 2008-07-13T04:18:52Z Flowanda 2184097 deleted content and external link sourced to nn website and book; please see deletion discussions related to [[Industrial Systems Research]] {{Freedom}} [[Image:British-passport.jpg|185px|thumb|Title page of a [[European Union]] member state [[passport]].]] '''Freedom of movement''', '''mobility rights''' or the '''right to travel''' is a [[human rights]] concept which is respected in the [[constitution]]s of numerous [[state]]s. It asserts that a [[citizen]] of a [[state]], in which that citizen is present, generally has the right to leave that state, travel wherever the citizen is welcome, and, with proper documentation, return to that state at any time; and also (of equal or greater importance) to travel to, reside in, and/or work in, any part of the state the citizen wishes without interference from the state. ==Common limitations== Freedom of movement is often more limited for minors, and [[penal law]] can modify this right as it applies to persons charged with or convicted of crimes (for instance, [[parole]], [[probation]], registration). In some countries, freedom of movement has historically been limited for women, and for members of disfavored racial and social groups. Circumstances, both legal and practical, may operate to limit this freedom. For example, a nation that is generally permissive with respect to travel may restrict that right during time of [[war]]. In some instances, the laws of a nation may assert a guarantee of this right, but lawless conditions may make unfettered movement impossible. In other instances, a nation whose written laws codify such rights may fail to actually provide them. ===Freedom of movement between private parties=== Freedom of movement is not construed as a right to permit an individual to enter [[private property]] of another. Such an unauthorized entry constitutes a [[trespass]], often punishable as a [[tort]] or a [[crime]], for which the private landowner can summon public officials to remove a trespasser from the landowner's property. In some jurisdictions, questions have arisen as to the extent to which a private owner of land can exclude certain persons from land used for public purposes, such as a [[shopping mall]] or a [[park]]. There is also a rule of law that a landowner whose property is completely boxed in by that of other private landowners shall have the right to cross private land if that is necessary to reach a public thoroughfare. The concept is also used as the basis for enacting laws to prevent alternate use of streets, roads and right-of-ways from blocking or restricting freedom of movement such as block parties and playing basketball. There is a converse duty for a private person not to impede the free movement of another. Where a person prevents another from freely leaving an area, either by physically imprisoning them or by threats, that person may be subject to a [[lawsuit]] for [[false imprisonment]], and to criminal charges for [[kidnapping]]. ===Entrance restrictions in certain countries=== {{Main|Illegal immigration}} ===Exit restrictions in certain countries=== {{Main|Illegal emigration}} Some countries, such as the defunct [[Soviet Union]], require that their citizens, and sometimes foreign travelers, obtain an [[exit visa]] in order to be allowed to leave the country. Currently, foreign students in [[Russia]] are issued only an entry visa on being accepted to University there, and must obtain an exit visa to return home. Citizens of the [[People's Republic of China]] that are residents of the [[mainland China|mainland]] are required to apply for [[exit endorsement|special permits]] in order to leave the mainland, including to enter the [[Special Administrative Region]]s of [[Hong Kong]] and [[Macau]] (and SAR residents require a [[Home Return Permit]] to visit the mainland). [[Saudi Arabia]] requires all resident foreigners, but not citizens, to obtain an exit visa before leaving the kingdom. ==History== The recognition and protection of the freedom of movement was first recognized by [[Cyrus the Great]], founder of the [[Achaemenid Empire|Achaemenid]] [[Persian Empire]], in his charter of [[human rights]] documented in the [[Cyrus cylinder]] in [[539 BCE]].<ref>Arthur Henry Robertson, John Graham Merrills (1996). ''Human Rights in the World: An Introduction to the Study of the International Protection of Human Rights''. [[Manchester University Press]]. ISBN 0719049237.</ref> When [[Augustus]] established the [[Roman Empire]] in [[27 BCE]], he assumed monarchical powers over the new Roman province of [[Aegyptus (Roman province)|Egypt]] and was able to prohibit [[Roman Senate|Senators]] from traveling there without his permission. However, Augustus would also allow more liberty to travel at times. During a [[famine]] in [[6 CE]], he attempted to relieve strain on the food supply by granting senators the liberty to leave [[Rome]] and to travel to wherever they wished.<ref>Cassius Dio, ''Roman History'', Book LV, 26.</ref> In [[England]] in [[1215]], the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of the [[Magna Carta]]: :It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above. After [[World War II]], the [[United Nations]] was established. The new international organization recognized the importance of freedom of movement through documents such as the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] ([[1948]]) and the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] ([[1966]]). Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, :Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. :Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Article 12(2) of the International Covenant also defends this right. ==Institutional laws by region== ===Africa=== Freedom of movement laws and restrictions vary from country to country on the African continent, however several international agreements beyond those proscribed by the [[United Nations]] govern freedom of movement within the African continent. [http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/z1afchar.htm The African Charter on Human and People's Rights], Article 12, guarantees that every individual will have the right to freedom of movement within the borders of their own state so long as they abide by the states laws.<ref>[http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/z1afchar.htm African [Banjul&#93; Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, adopted June 27, 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), entered into force Oct. 21, 1986: [excerpts&#93;<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>The Charter also recognizes the right to leave and return to one's country at will, barring concerns of national security, public health, or a threat to the general population. The charter also prevents the mass expulsion of entire groups of people.<ref>[http://www.hrea.org/learn/guides/freedom-of-movement.html Human Rights Education Associates - Education and training in support of human rights worldwide<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> However, these laws are not necessarily followed or enforced, as evidenced recently by the genocide and mass expulsion in Sudan. There have been attempts to have intellectuals recognized as having special freedom of movement rights, to protect their intellectual ideals as they cross national boundaries.<ref>[http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/KAMDOK.htm The Kampala Declaration on Intellectual Freedom and Social Responsibility (1990)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> The [[Constitution of South Africa]] also contains express freedoms of movement, in section 21 of [[Constitution of South Africa Chapter 2: Bill of Rights|Chapter 2]]. Freedom of movement is guaranteed to "everyone" in regard to leaving the country but is limited to citizens when entering it or staying in it. Citizens also have a right to a [[passport]]. ===Burma/Myanmar=== The military regime in [[Burma]] has been criticized for allegations of restrictions to freedom of movement.<ref>[http://www.burmalibrary.org/show.php?cat=1170 Online Burma Library > Main Library > Human Rights > Freedom of Movement > Freedom of Movement, violations of<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> These include restrictions on movement by political dissidents,<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html#Issues CIA - The World Factbook - Burma<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> women,<ref name="movement1">[http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/Yearbook2002-3/yearbooks/12.%20The%20Freedom%20of%20Movement.htm 12<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> and migrant workers.<ref name="movement1"/> Burmese passports contain a microchip embedded in them which carries identifying information about the passport holder. UN special envoy [[Razali Ismail]], part owner of Iris corporation which won the contract to install the new system, dismissed any security concerns, and said, "Must you think of things in such sinister terms? Anyway, it’s only for those people who want to travel outside. In most cases, those will be government people."<ref>BBC / The Washington Times August 15, 2002</ref> ===Canada=== The [[Constitution of Canada]] contains mobility rights expressly in [[Section Six of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 6]] of the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]. The rights specified include the right of citizens to leave and enter the country and the right of both citizens and [[permanent residency|permanent residents]] to move within its boundaries. However, the subsections protect poorer regions' [[affirmative action]] programs that favour residents who have lived in the region for longer. Section 6 mobility rights are among the select rights that cannot be limited by the Charter's [[Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|notwithstanding clause]]. Canada's [[Social Union Framework Agreement]], an agreement between governments made in 1999, affirms that "All governments believe that the freedom of movement of Canadians to pursue opportunities anywhere in Canada is an essential element of Canadian citizenship." In the Agreement, it is pledged that "Governments will ensure that no new barriers to mobility are created in new social policy initiatives."<ref>Government of Canada, Social Union, News Release, "[http://socialunion.gc.ca/news/020499_e.html A Framework to Improve the Social Union for Canadians: An Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces and Territories, February 4, 1999]," URL accessed 20 December 2006.</ref> ===European Union=== {{main|Four Freedoms (European Union)}} Within the [[European Union]], residents are guaranteed the right to freely move within the EU's internal borders by the [[EC Treaty]] and the European Parliament and Council [[Directive 2004/38/EC]] of 29 April 2004.<ref name="movement2">[http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33152.htm SCADPlus: Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Union residents are given the right to enter any member state for up to three months with a valid passport or identity card. If the citizen does not have a travel document, the member state must afford them every facility in obtaining the documents. Under no circumstances can an entry or exit visa be required. There are some security limitations<ref>[http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l23010.htm SCADPlus: Limitations on the movement and residence which are justified on grounds of public policy<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> and public policy restrictions on extended stays by EU residents. For instance, a member state may require that persons register their presence in the country "within a reasonable and non-discriminatory period of time". In general, however, the burden of notification and justification lies with the state. EU citizens also earn a right to permanent residence in member states they have maintained an uninterrupted five year period of legal residence. This residency cannot be subject to any conditions, and is lost only by two successive years absence from the host nation. Family members of EU residents, in general, also acquire the same freedom of travel rights as the resident they accompany, though they may be subject to a short-stay visa requirement.<ref name="movement2"/> Furthermore, no EU citizen may be declared permanently ''persona non grata'' within the European Union, or permanently excluded from entry by any member state. ===Hong Kong=== Under '''Basic Law of Hong Kong''' article 31, "Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of movement within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and freedom of emigration to other countries and regions. They shall have freedom to travel and to enter or leave the Region. '''Unless restrained by law''', holders of valid travel documents shall be free to leave the Region without special authorization." ===Ireland=== In [[Ireland]], the [[Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland]] was adopted in November of [[1992]] by a [[plebiscite]] of the [[Irish people]] in order to ensure the freedom of movement in the specific circumstance of a women traveling abroad to receive an [[abortion]] - a practice that is banned in Ireland itself. ===Republic of Poland=== The freedom of movement in [[Republic of Poland]] of Polish nationals holding dual citizenship is or might be unlawfully restricted by Polish government. US Department of State is warning Polish nationals holding dual citizenship, that Polish government despite that Poland joined the Schengen System are obliged to use Polish travel documents (a Polish passport or, as an alternative within the Schengen zone, a Polish National ID card (Dowód Osobisty), or they will '''NOT''' be allowed to leave Poland. The latest such incident is recorded as of January 15, 2008. '''Poland requires Polish citizens (including American citizens who are or can be claimed as Polish citizens), or those who can be suspected to be Polish citizens, to enter and depart Poland using a Polish passport. <br> Poland does not recognize (although it does not prohibit) dual nationality. <br> A person holding Polish and U.S. citizenship is deemed by Poland to be a Polish citizen and subject to Polish law.''' The US Embassy in Poland will not be in a position assist Polish citizens in case of not being allowed to leave Poland. *[http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1000.html Poland] - US Department of State: Country Specific Information. *[http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html Dual Citizenship] ===Syria=== The [[Constitution of Syria|Syrian Constitution]] states "Every citizen has the right to liberty of movement within the territory of the State unless prohibited therefrom under the terms of a court order or public health and safety regulations.".<ref> Article 33, Paragraph 2, Syrian Constitution </ref> The [[United Nations]] has reported that "in Syria, no laws or measures restrict the liberty of movement or choice of residence of citizens.".<ref>[http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G04/440/26/PDF/G0444026.pdf?OpenElement Ods Home Page<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Legislative Decree No. 29 of [[1970]] regulates the right of foreigners to enter, reside in and leave the territory of Syria, and is the controlling document regarding the issuance of passports, visas, and diplomatic travel status. The document specifically states "The latter provision is intended merely to ensure that our country is not the final destination of stateless persons."<ref> Legislative Decree No. 29 of 1970, Syrian Government</ref> However, Syria has been criticized by groups, including [[Amnesty International]] for restrictions to freedom of movement. In August [[2005]], Amnesty International released an "appeal case", citing several freedom of movement restrictions including exit restriction without explanation, refusal to issue passports to political dissidents, detention, restriction from entering certain structures, denial of travel documents, and denial of nationality.<ref>[http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde240732005 Syria: Unable to Move: Freedom of Movement restricted for Human Rights Defenders (and Others) | Amnesty International<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> The [[United Nations Human Rights Committee]] issues regular reports on human rights in Syria, including freedom of movement.<ref>http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/hrcs84.htm</ref> ===Tibet=== Article 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination explicitly guarantees "...the right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of the State".<ref>[http://www.tchrd.org/publications/topical_reports/racial_discrimination-2000/housing/06_restrictions.html Restrictions on Freedom of Movement and Residence - Discrimination in Housing - Racial Discrimination in Tibet (2000) - Publications - TCHRD<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Under the Chinese household registration citizen, Tibetan residents must receive permission to change their household between a rural and urban area. Tibetans are also forced to agree to Chinese communist party ideals in order to receive a permit to exit the country.<ref>TCHRD.org as above, "Promise to state that the Chinese Communist Party policies in Tibet are "good" and refrain from criticising the Party; "</ref> It has been reported that Chinese residents in Tibet are not subject to these restrictions, especially if they have access to a Chinese household permit.<ref> TCHRD as above "Chinese traders from outside Tibet area are also able to move into and around Tibet without restriction as part of special preferential policies introduced by the government to advance the rapid development of a free market system." </ref> ===United States=== The [[Privileges and Immunities Clause]] of the [[United States]] [[U.S. Constitution|Constitution]] states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the [[United States circuit court|circuit court]] ruling in ''[[Corfield v. Coryell]],'' [[case citation|6 Fed. Cas. 546]] (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In ''[[Paul v. Virginia]],'' [[case citation|75 U.S. 168]] (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=75&invol=168 75 U.S. 168 (1868)] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as ''[[Ward v. Maryland]],'' [[case citation|79 U.S. 418]] (1871), the ''[[Slaughter-House Cases]],'' [[case citation|83 U.S. 36]] (1873) and ''[[United States v. Harris]],'' [[case citation|106 U.S. 629]] (1883).<ref name="Symposium1">Duster, Michael J. "Criminal Justice System Reform Symposium: Note: Out of Sight, Out of Mind: State Attempts to Banish Sex Offenders." ''Drake Law Review.'' 53:711 (Spring 2005).</ref><ref name="Note">"Note: Membership Has Its Privileges and Immunities: Congressional Power to Define and Enforce the Rights of National Citizenship." ''Harvard Law Review.'' 102:1925 (June 1989).</ref> In ''[[United States v. Wheeler]],'' [[case citation|254 U.S. 281]] (1920), the Supreme Court reiterated its position that the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to protect freedom of movement. However, ''Wheeler'' had a significant impact in other ways. For many years, the roots of the Constitution's "privileges and immunities" clause had only vaguely been determined.<ref name="Bogen">Bogen, David Skillen. ''Privileges and Immunities: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution.'' Westport, Ct.: Praeger Press, 2003. ISBN 0313313474</ref> In 1823, the circuit court in ''Corfield'' had provided a list of the rights (some fundamental, some not) which the clause could cover.<ref>Wadley, James B. "Indian Citizenship and the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the United States Constitution: An Alternative to the Problems of the Full Faith and Credit and Comity?" ''Southern Illinois University Law Journal.'' 31:31 (Fall 2006).</ref><ref>Dunlap, Frank L. "Constitutional Law: Power of States to Prevent Entry of Paupers from Other States." ''California Law Review.'' 26:5 (July 1938).</ref> The ''Wheeler'' court dramatically changed this. It was the first to locate the right to travel in the privileges and immunities clause, providing the right with a specific guarantee of constitutional protection.<ref>Foscarinis, Maria. "Downward Spiral: Homelessness and Its Criminalization." ''Yale Law & Policy Review.'' 14:1 (1996).</ref> By reasoning that the clause derived from Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, the decision suggested a narrower set of rights than those enumerated in ''Corfield,'' but also more clearly defined those rights as absolutely fundamental.<ref name="Nelson">Nelson, William E. ''The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principle to Judicial Doctrine.'' Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988. ISBN 0674316258</ref> But the Supreme Court began rejecting ''Wheeler's'' reasoning within a few short years. Finally, in ''[[United States v. Guest]],'' [[case citation|383 U.S. 745]] (1966), the Supreme Court overruled Chief Justice White's conclusion that the federal government could protect the right to travel only against state infringement.<ref>''United States v. Guest,'' 383 U.S. 745, 759, n.16.</ref><ref name="Symposium1"/><ref name="Note" /> In ''[[Kent v. Dulles]],'' [[case citation|357 U.S. 116]] (1958) (overruled by ''[[Regan v. Wald]],'' [[case citation|468 U.S. 222]], reh'g denied, [[case citation|469 U.S. 912]] (1984)),[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=357&invol=116] the [[United States Secretary of State]] had refused to issue a [[passport]] to an American citizen based on the suspicion that the [[plaintiff]] was going abroad to promote [[communism]]. Although the Court did not reach the question of constitutionality in this case, Justice [[William O. Douglas]] held that the federal government may not restrict the right to travel without [[due process]]: :The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. Six years later, the Court struck down a federal ban restricting travel by communists (''[[Aptheker v. Secretary of State]],'' [[case citation|378 U.S. 500]] (1964)). But the court struggled to find a way to protect legitimate government interests (such as national security) in light of these decisions. Just a year after ''Aptheker,'' the Supreme Court fashioned the [[rational relationship test]] for constitutionality in ''[[Zemel v. Rusk]],'' [[case citation|381 U.S. 1]] (1965), as a way of reconciling the rights of the individual with the interests of the state.<ref name="Mode">Mode, Gregory J. "Comment: Wisconsin, A Constitutional Right to Intrastate Travel, and Anti-Cruising Ordinances." ''Marquette Law Review.'' 78:735 (Spring 1995).</ref> The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of ''[[Saenz v. Roe]]'', [[Case citation|526 U.S. 489]] ([[1999]]). In that case, Justice [[John Paul Stevens]], writing for the majority, held that the [[United States Constitution]] protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states: the right to enter one state and leave another, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the "privileges and immunities" clause in [[Article Four of the United States Constitution|Article IV]], § 2), and (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native born citizens (this is protected by the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment's]] [[Citizenship Clause]]). The Court's establishment of a strong constitutional right to freedom of movement has also had far-reaching and unintended effects. For example, the Supreme Court overturned state prohibitions on welfare payments to individuals who had not resided within the jurisdiction for at least one year as an impermissible burden on the right to travel (''[[Shapiro v. Thompson]],'' [[case citation|394 U.S. 618]] (1969)). The Court has also struck down one-year residency requirements for voting in state elections (''[[Dunn v. Blumstein]],'' [[case citation|405 U.S. 330]] (1972)), one-year waiting periods before receiving state-provided medical care (''[[Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County]],'' [[case citation|415 U.S. 250]] (1974)), civil service preferences for state veterans (''[[Attorney Gen. of New York v. Soto-Lopez]],'' [[case citation|476 U.S. 898]] (1986)), and higher fishing and hunting license fees for out-of-state residents (''[[Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana]],'' [[case citation|436 U.S. 371]] (1978)).<ref name="Mode" /><ref>Porter, Andrew C. "Comment: Toward a Constitutional Analysis of the Right to Intrastate Travel." ''Northwestern University Law Review.'' 86:820 (1992).</ref><ref>Zubler, Todd. "The Right to Migrate and Welfare Reform: Time for Shapiro v. Thompson to Take A Hike." ''Valparaiso University Law Review.'' 31:893 (Summer 1997).</ref> A strong right to freedom of movement may yet have even farther-reaching implications. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that freedom of movement is closely related to [[freedom of association]] and to [[Freedom of speech|freedom of expression]]. Strong constitutional protection for the right to travel may have significant implications for state attempts to limit [[pro-choice|abortion rights]], ban or refuse to recognize [[same-sex marriage]], and enact anti-crime or [[consumer protection]] laws. It may even undermine current Court-fashioned concepts of [[federalism]].<ref>Simon, Harry. "Towns Without Pity: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis of Official Efforts to Drive Homeless Persons From American Cities." ''Tulane Law Review.'' 66:631 (March 1992).</ref><ref>Kreimer, Seth F. "The Law of Choice and Choice of Law: Abortion, the Right to Travel, and Extraterritorial Regulation in American Federalism." ''New York University Law Review.'' 67:451 (June 1992).</ref><ref>Rosen, Mark D. "Extraterritoriality and Political Heterogeneity in American Federalism." ''University of Pennsylvania Law Review.'' 150:855 (January 2002).</ref><ref>Kreimer, Seth F. "Territoriality and Moral Dissensus: Thoughts on Abortion, Slavery, Gay Marriage and Family Values." ''Bridgeport Law Review/Quinnipiac Law Review.'' 16:161 (Spring/Summer 1996).</ref><ref>Hemmens, Craig and Bennett, Katherine. "Out in the Street: Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Curfews, and the Constitution." ''Gonzaga Law Review.'' 34:267 (1998/1999).</ref> The issue of freedom of movement has received new attention in the [[United States]] [[as of 2004]], particularly concerning the methods and practices of the [[Transportation Security Administration]].{{Fact|date=February 2007}} Another issue of contention deals with freedom of movement across U.S. national borders. The United States has long been lax in permitting persons to cross from Canada into the United States.{{Fact|date=October 2007}} Concerns about drug trafficking and illegal immigrants seeking employment have led to much stricter controls on those crossing the border from Mexico.{{Fact|date=January 2008}} <br> {{Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights}} ==See also== * [[Leave to enter]] ==References== {{reflist}} <!--<nowiki>Please do not type footnotes here. Instead insert the footnote in its proper spot in the body of this article using the <ref name=> </ref> tags. See [[Wikipedia:Footnotes]] for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the tags.</nowiki>--> ==External links== *[http://www.cubaverdad.net/freedom_of_movement.htm Freedom of Movement and limitations thereof in Cuba] *[http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/s17000.htm Freedom of Travel policy within the European Union] *[http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm UN, Universal Declaration of Human Rights] {{Human rights}} [[Category:Human rights]] [[Category:Travel]] [[es:Libertad de circulación]] [[fr:Liberté de circulation]] [[he:חופש התנועה]] [[no:Bevegelsesfrihet]] [[fi:Liikkumisvapaus]]