Originally Posted by guyy

Right?

One of the current justifications for what goes on the southern border is that wooooooo! TERRRORISTS wooooooo! might sneak into the US via Mexico. That's one reason why Guantanamo and so-called "national security" issues are very much relevant to the discussion. Another is that the borders have been militarised. According to the Bush cabal's interpretation of the constitution, in the current state of exception, they, as agents of the Commander in Chief, have "broad discretion" to do whatever the hell they want. See section V of their 2002 memo on torture.

Tell that to someone on the no-fly list. Yes, you can theoretically canoe to London or Tokyo so in a certain, perverse sense of the word, you are still "free to travel". More generally, though, what good does it do us to be "free" to travel if we can't go anywhere?

You must have a passport to travel, but they don't have to issue you a passport. Furthermore, the one you have can be revoked if you do something they don't like. (Bobby Fischer had his taken away for playing chess in Yugoslavia and being an all-around jerk.) So, no, you aren't exactly free to travel. Remember it wasn't so long ago that a passport was not always necessary, not even for overseas trips.