Thread: When The Government Says No. . .

The U.S Government from time to time [in the best interests of American citizens] issues travel advisories that warn tourists from visiting certain countries. It just happens that while at times they have good reason to do this [in case of political instability in a country] most of the time these travel advisories are not revoked publicly so much as political stability may have been restored in some country, you won't get to know it and therefore miss out on a wonderful tourist destination.

Would you ignore a travel advisory and visit the country you want to anyway?

Not without a whole bunch of research to figure out what I'm getting into. If it turns out to be an overblown warning, or a case of diplomatic tension, then hooray but no one wants to end up being that clueless backpacker on the news whose release we're negotiating.

I guess that really depends. For instance, there is a travel advisory on Pakistan. I'm pretty sure that it's not in my better interest to go to Pakistan given the current social climate. I would absolutely listen to that advice.

I imagine that some level of personal judgement, analytical thinking, and just plain common sense should be utilized depending on the country.

No, I'd stay at home. Specially if said country is too far away from mine. Like for example Asia or Africa, even Europe! I'd be too concerned about the safety of my family, not only me, and that's something I'd not be able to deal with so well. Sometimes it's better to go local, there is danger every where, but there are places that should definitely be avoided, specially if you have never visited said country before.

Originally Posted by zlemune

Not without a whole bunch of research to figure out what I'm getting into. If it turns out to be an overblown warning, or a case of diplomatic tension, then hooray but no one wants to end up being that clueless backpacker on the news whose release we're negotiating.

I agree with this quote. I would have to do some prior thorough research first so as to find out for sure if political and social stability has been restored. I probably go as far as calling the embassy of that country to find out some additional details.

I agree that caution and safety would be my first reaction to an advisory. There are too many stories of tourists getting caught in the "cross fire" so to speak and having had advisories at the time. I want to make it to my next vacation!

Oh, I'll add that if I could do it without getting caught I would totally go to Cuba. Everyone I know who has been said it was a great place to visit, especially if you like history and speak Spanish.

Nowadays there is google so you don't really have to rely on what they say anymore. Once again common sense is all you need to figure out what to do.

I think we have nowadays more reliable sources of information on countries' stability than the government. I mean, if there was an issue with the country I was planning on visiting I would definitely be more hesitant and try to understand why there was a problem, if that was valid and legitimate and if it presented ME a threat.
That being said, I don't know which country I could ever want to visit that has political instability. I tend not to want to go to that kind of place as it is.

I wouldn't automatically rule a place out for that reason, but I would do as much research as possible and put a lot of thought into it. I would need to know what the risks are and whether they're being blown out of proportion for any reason, political or otherwise, would be a big factor to me.

Maybe this has to do with the fact that my father was diplomat, so I grew up in embassies and was very aware of travel advisories and the embassies' general attitude towards Americans in the foreign countries so I might be a bit biased. But I would absolutely listen to the travel advisory. I mean sometimes (like the one for Mexico) it says where it actually is safe to go and where it isn't. So in that case, I would probably go, despite there being a general travel advisory, but definitely only to the places they said were safe. But if they recommended staying out of a country I would stay out.

While it may seem a country has regained stability, a lot of times there are still under currents and a possibility that it'll fall apart again, and the embassies keep a very close eye on things like that and are aware if there's a strong possibility that something will happen, and their number one priority really are Americans abroad, whether living there or just visiting. And I've just read or heard of so many people who ignored the travel advisory and got caught in terrible situations.

There are so many places in the world to see that I'd rather avoid the travel advisory ones then risk it.

Actually they have the point, wasting nations money and time is not worthy on these kind of projects.