Before the 20th century, travel was largely the province of the upper classes (one-way travel, on the other hand, was popularly known as “emigration.”). National economies weren’t as dependent on travel as they are today, nor did many nations develop tourism as a means of economic development. During the 19th century, as the notion of leisure time began to develop, guidebooks were written for the moneyed classes, who had both the funds and the time for sightseeing. Starting in the 17th century, “The Grand Tour” was a rite of passage for young, well-bred graduates of prep schools and finishing academies, before the assumption of their adult lives.

The advent of industrialized transportation made a trip to the seashore or to a mountain resort possible for an expanding middle class, and by the dawn of the 20th century, travel as a leisure activity bloomed. Many countries began to take notice, and tourism boards developed, niche tourism flowered, and concepts such as “eco-tourism” took root.

Now, in the 21st century, most people have traveled a bit, especially compared to their grandparents and great-grandparents, some of whom never traveled more than 100 miles away from home, or left the state/province, or even journeyed outside their own country. Some regions of the world, while not wholly dependent on tourism, derive a large percentage of their GNP (Gross National Product) from the jet-setters.

The United States, while it has a diversified economy, still depends on tourism to an extent. In 2003, the United
States’ Travel & Tourism Industry was expected to generate 4.3 per cent of GDP and 6,480,480 jobs (for more, see this report (PDF)). Although this was nearly four years ago, the figures are probably somewhat the same these days. While 4.3% is not a lot, over 6 million jobs is a big deal, especially when you consider the ripple effect should many of those jobs vanish.

It is rather troubling, then, to realize that foreign travelers are starting to avoid the United States. Countries such as Great Britain, Spain, and others where terrorism and political instability have existed generally have no problem with customs procedures, and from what I’ve heard, are generally reasonable about entry and exit policies (Israel being a possible exception; they’ve just changed their luggage identification policies, are known to thoroughly question travelers, and have security every thirty feet(or so it seems). But a dual citizen offers an interesting take comparing the U.S. and Israeli systems).

Here in the States, there is a proposal to start gathering data about religious beliefs and sexual habits from passengers. This is a huge difference from asking the purpose of a trip and the origin and destination of a traveler. If I were traveling, I would consider questions about where I’m coming from and going to to be somewhat intrusive, but at least logical. Queries about my spiritual beliefs and what I do behind closed doors is a different matter entirely.

I’m wondering if passengers who will merely be changing planes on U.S. soil will be subjected to these questions as well. As it is, travelers now have to undergo heightened security, fingerprinting, and constant waiting. As Nonny Mouse, who traveled on a flight from England to New Zealand, with a stopover here at LAX, relates:

“…we were herded into a bigger Immigration area, where all those who were not US passport holders filled out long green cards asking detailed personal information, to be handed over to US Immigration officials busy taking everyone’s fingerprints and photographs.”

Nonny is a U.S. national, but for someone who is on U.S. soil for the first time, and not even leaving the airport, this treatment really reeks of American hospitality, doesn’t it? This kind of treatment based on gummint policy is having consequences, as the “Ask the Pilot” column at Salon, notes:

Air New Zealand has … launch[ed]… a service from Auckland to Europe with a hassle-free transfer at Vancouver, British Columbia, eliminating its long-standing Auckland-Los Angeles-London route. Air Canada is following suit with a nonstop Vancouver-Sydney flight, bypassing its traditional layover in Hawaii, which, in the words of the magazine, “will enable global travelers to avoid the United States.”

Security is important, yes. But illogical, intrusive, boorish policies complicate international relationships and our global image, which is now having consequences. I’ve spoken before about the treatment of people traveling within the United States, and mentioned the proposed x-ray screening machines. Somehow none of this makes me feel safe, secure, and welcomed. I can’t imagine others feel reassured either.

The money we’re spending on the security we have doesn’t seem to be doing a whole lot other than turning a lot of people off to travel within and to the United States. There are also questions as to whether what’s being done so far is doing any good. As the “Ask the Pilot” columnist, Patrick Smith, notes, profiling and prohibitions on shampoo bottles probably are a waste of time, energy, and money– money that could be put to better use.

In the meantime, our global brethren are avoiding the friendly skies, or at least those skies directly above and within the United States. Let’s hope someone who is in a position to do something about this is paying attention…