<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=141836.msg6563711#msg6563711">Quote from: Chrystal on 09-07-2012, 22:51:54</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Firstly, 90% of contagious diseases that are transmissible to humans are spread by humans, such as cholera, typhoid, plague, smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, flu, tuberculosis, etc... These diseases can be prevented from spreading by a simple inoculation. But as recent history has shown, these diseases, which had at one time been eradicated in the "civilised" world, are putting an appearance back in again, because people are not vaccinating their children any more.<br/><br/>If people do not vaccinate their children, what hope does a slave have of being vaccinated?<br/><br/>All it takes is one person carrying the disease to get in amongst a crowd of unvaccinated people and you have an epidemic the like of which could actually rival the SARS, Bird flu, or even, god forbid, the swine flue pandemics of recent years, with, oooh, dozens of people dying! &lt;/sarcasm&gt;<br/><br/>Anyway, my point being that there may well be cause for a government to restrict the movement of unvaccinated slaves in the same way they restrict the movement of unvaccinated dogs, cats and livestock.<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>The point about vaccinations is well taken. However, I doubt that new regulations would be introduced, because realistically, if they were going to regulate anything, it would be to require slaves to vaccinated, as some jurisdictions do with pets. Rather than making the system of transporting slaves unnecessarily complicated (because, as humans, they wouldn't automatically fall into a different category than non-slaves) it would seem more reasonable just to continue with generally the same level of restriction or permissiveness as is experienced today in human travel.<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=141836.msg6563711#msg6563711">Quote from: Chrystal on 09-07-2012, 22:51:54</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">As for the deportation/arrest issue, their is no crime committed on the nation's soil. When you travel internationally, you leave your country of origin when you go through (air)port security at the departure gate. You do not, then, enter your destination country until you have been through passport control at the (air)port of arrival. A slave holder is more likely to be refused entry than allowed in and arrested.<br/><br/>However, it would be impossible for the non-slave countries to sustain their economies without some trade with the slave nations. (Incidentally, this is a rather odd thing about the map Hai posted - the slave countries are all developed nations, non-slave are all undeveloped, which is ironic as those nations in which the slave law has been enacted are those which do not treat their women like slaves on the most part, while those nations shown to be anti-slavery are the ones that do!) So, there must be trade. This means that there must be contact, and there must be visits. Therefore there must be visas.<br/><br/>So, my question is, would it be possible to get a visa to bring your slave with you to an anti-slave country? I would suggest that it would have to be, somehow.<br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>This works differently in some countries than others, but the idea that for some period of time you are in neither country is simply incorrect. There are legal restrictions about ground, airspace, and national waters that come into effect and a long discussion would be difficult.<br/><br/>In short, however, I was not addressing the issue of connecting flights, but rather the state of having a slave in a country that does not allow slavery. If you mean the master travelling alone, then the country would not likely do anything about it. If you're talking about both, slave and master, travelling together, to a country that does not allow slavery, then, the moment you're inside their jurisdiction with your slave, however they gauge their own jurisdiction, they would consider you to be committing a crime, since you're doing something against the slave's will.<br/><br/>In some places, they might not consider having a slave to be a crime in itself, if they just don't recognize the possibility of one person owning another person as a status. In those cases, they'd probably be looking at an associated crime. Most of these crimes would revolve around consent issues. Things that wouldn't necessarily be crimes, except that you do them without asking the slave's permission. In which case, the moment you go to that other country, the slave gains freedom in that jurisdiction, as a person, and you'd have to treat them as such or risk legal repercussions.<br/><br/>Trade is a separate issue. A country doesn't need to make legal in their own jurisdiction everything that is legal in a trade-partner's jurisdiction in order to trade with them. They only require that people who come to their country follow their laws while within their jurisdiction.