Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Passport Index 2016

passportindex.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 247 posts

Re: Passport Index 2016

#31

Post by thesimon »

tuna-piano wrote: post #29
thesimon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the time "Visa on Arrival" costs money as well whereas "Visa Free" is free.

I'm not sure if that's right. Countries all the time have mandatory fees included in Airline tickets. Sometimes those fees are paid at the airport on arrival instead. Many other other Visa Free countries have a mandatory departure tax. A lot of the "Visa Free" countries have fees (whether they call them visa fees, tourism fee, etc). I'm not sure that any correlation can be drawn between "Visa Free" and "$0".

>Countries all the time have mandatory fees included in Airline tickets.

>Sometimes those fees are paid at the airport on arrival instead.

In most cases they apply to everyone though, even people with no visa requirement.

>I'm not sure that any correlation can be drawn between "Visa Free" and "$0".

Not in general, but when looking at the visa costs.

Re: Passport Index 2016

#32

Post by [deleted] »

tuna-piano wrote: post #14

In case anyone else was curious as to the difference between "Visa on Arrival" and "Visa Free", check out this Quora thread: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-visa-on... It seems the practical difference is mainly in name only, although it's possible that immigration officers are given more leeway to restrict entry for the "visa on arrival" countries.

[deleted]

Re: Passport Index 2016

#33

Post by hypertexthero »

Reminds me of [Quest][1] by sailor-philosopher and self-declared citizen of the world [George Dibbern][2], who renounced his German passport in 1940 and created his own with the following declaration:

> I, George Dibbern, through long years in different countries and sincere friendship with many people in many lands feel my place to be outside of nationality, a citizen of the world and a friend of all peoples.

> I recognize the divine origin of all nations and therefore their value in being as they are, respect their laws, and feel my existence solely as a bridge of good fellowship between them.

[1]: http://www.georgedibbern.com/aboutdibbern.html [2]: http://www.georgedibbern.com/quest-dibbern.html

Re: Passport Index 2016

#34

Post by tuna-piano »

hal9000xp wrote: post #28

I had citizenship of one most repressive and poor countries in the world - Uzbekistan. Later I obtained Russian citizenship. Now, I'm living in the Netherlands and plan to obtain citizenship of some first world country (NL, SG etc). So I have first hand experience to live with Uzbek passport and being practically completely isolated from the first world (nobody give you EU tourist visa if you have Uzbek passport and…

I've often thought of the dollar value of my US passport (/citizenship). It would definitely be my most valuable asset (then again, taxes are by far my biggest expense). Besides almost unrestricted travel - my income is far higher in the US than it would be in any other country I've looked at.

It's easy to forget how lucky those of us in the developed world are and how so many try so hard to gain status here.

Good luck on your journey, and I hope someday you're able to get the US tourist visa to experience the joys of the US: Yosemite, NYC, Disney World and Taco Bell.

Re: Passport Index 2016

#35

Post by MichaelGG »

sanswork wrote: post #21
tuna-piano wrote: post #17

In relation to passport power - I find Trump's proposed ban on Muslims pretty interesting to think about. Although widely criticized, it seems to me more ethically wrong to base entry decisions on country of origin (not a choice) than of religion (a choice). Obviously there are many issues with the practicality, unintended consequences, and the blanket nature of a ban on muslims. That said, I'm not sure I see an ethi…

Believing in a religion is largely a choice though some arguments could be made for conditioning from childhood meaning it isn't but being a member of a religion definitely isn't a choice in large parts of the world.

It'd be better off to quiz people on their beliefs. Perhaps if someone answers they think honour killings are barbaric (to play off what Trudeau said), then they don't get a visa. But I suppose that'd be as much of a joke as the previous questions they asked "are you a member of a terrorist organisation". OTOH maybe it's not such a big stretch to say that visa-issuing officers should review for cultural acceptability in addition to financial capability, likelihood-of-return and all the other criteria they use.

And then it'd leak information. People would say "hey, wait, how did you get a visa if it asks serious questions". Unless there's an exemption for lying in that group, then the group might go after them. (IIRC, certain religious groups in Europe were big on quizzing others regarding baptism. Some answerers viewed lying incredibly poorly, to the point of answering truthfully even if it mean they'd be killed.)

Re: Passport Index 2016

#36

Post by zumu »

dorfsmay wrote: post #18

The passports with a symbol of a circle inside a rectangle at the bottom include biometric information: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_passport

Thank you. I have been wondering this for quite some time.

Re: Passport Index 2016

#37

Post by uniqueid »

tuna-piano wrote: post #17

In relation to passport power - I find Trump's proposed ban on Muslims pretty interesting to think about. Although widely criticized, it seems to me more ethically wrong to base entry decisions on country of origin (not a choice) than of religion (a choice). Obviously there are many issues with the practicality, unintended consequences, and the blanket nature of a ban on muslims. That said, I'm not sure I see an ethi…

Reasoning about immigration laws is pointless because the foundation is based on magical thinking. There is no logic at all behind any of it. Citizenship by blood, by birthplace, by religion... then you look into getting a travel visa, or a work permit. There's nothing rational about any of it. Just endless lunacy. I probably shouldn't complain, as I'm eligible for four different citizenships... but when you look into this stuff, there's nothing very logical about it, and it's somewhat depressing that the planet is still this bizarre.

Re: Passport Index 2016

#38

Post by MichaelGG »

thesimon wrote: post #24
tuna-piano wrote: post #17

In relation to passport power - I find Trump's proposed ban on Muslims pretty interesting to think about. Although widely criticized, it seems to me more ethically wrong to base entry decisions on country of origin (not a choice) than of religion (a choice). Obviously there are many issues with the practicality, unintended consequences, and the blanket nature of a ban on muslims. That said, I'm not sure I see an ethi…

But wasn't Trump not only suggesting a visa-requirement, but a complete ban? Seems very different.

That's what he originally said and all I could find on his website[1]. I think in other interviews he's backed off, first with "of course there'd be exceptions". Which would be obvious: otherwise you'd prevent heads-of-state visiting. Then he changed it to "obviously this is about countries related to terrorism" which can probably be seen as just an extension of current policy, a backtrack from his earlier position. Which seems typical: stay something "outrageous" back off to something more reasonable.

1: Side note: How utterly obnoxious is CloudFlare? They feel they need to present a CAPTCHA to visitors (at least out of US?) to prevent a DDoS of read-only material. Lame.

Re: Passport Index 2016

#40

Post by MichaelGG »

invaliduser wrote: post #3
Freak_NL wrote: post #2

Looking at the passports that provide visa-free access to 158, 157, and 156 countries, I wonder why Viet Nam and Rwanda grant visas on arrival to specifically some European countries, but not others. So for Viet Nam; Denmark, Germany, Sweden and Spain are okay, but not Austria, Belgium and The Netherlands. Interesting visualisation; the map is missing South Sudan though.

It's just a matter of reciprocity. Look for instance at Gambia: it's visa-free to go there for citizens of countries where Gambian citizen can go visa-free too. this is just how countries managed/refused treaties with each others, based on mutual interests, history, etc

I doubt there's reciprocity involved many times. Better-off countries are going to have their citizens let in much more easily, in general. From a easier viewpoint: Who is more likely to overstay a visa/illegally immigrate? Apart from special deals (like the new Mexico-Canada one) that's probably a good way to guess at the visa status.

Although, after the visa issue, many less well-off countries are far more restrictive on immigration laws. Guatemala, for instance, charges a per-day fine for visa overstay and won't let you leave until it's resolved. My daughter, born to a GT national, owes around $4000 in fines on leaving.[1] Can you imagine how it'd be if Canada/EU/US would be viewed if they didn't let illegal immigrants leave until they paid fines?

Guatemala also supposedly requires a local transit-license to drive here. Whereas you can get stopped by the police as a Guatemala tourist in Canada/US just fine, here, even with passport and drivers' license, you can be detained/fined. However I imagine this is selectively enforced.

1: We'll end up either getting local citizenship to eliminate it, or somehow negotiating a better deal.

Post reply on HN