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

71–80 of 247 posts

Re: Passport Index 2016

#71

Post by tuna-piano »

uniqueid wrote: post #37
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 int…

I'm not so sure it's illogical. It's tough to kick people out of a country that they were born in. While a 3 time armed robber born in the US and released from prison will be back on the streets of the US - ideally he / she would be sent somewhere else.

Immigration is a rare time when a country can choose what people to allow in or not. I would think that a country should be more concerned about its own residents than about residents of other countries. So for example, when the US sees that visitors / immigrants from some other country has on average high rates of unsavory activities - the US is in a position to restrict entry.

In a slightly extreme example: Imagine a country, safe-istan, has almost no crime. But 50% of immigrants / visitors from crime-istan commit crimes when they visit safe-istan. Should safe-istan allow all people from crime-istan unrestricted entry into their country? Or should they have an application / visa program?*

*I actually think this is a pretty realistic situation - visible especially in the Nordic countries and Japan.

Re: Passport Index 2016

#73

Post by Cyph0n »

sevenless wrote: post #42

Is there a guide to multiple citizenship power leveling anywhere? Edit: A bit of munging from the web page later... For Americans and British/Western Europe, the passports you want are Burkina Faso, Benin and Senegal. They will bring your passport power level up by 13 points to 168 (American) and 170 (UK) and give you visa free access to Cote Divoire (Ivory Coast), Mali, Iran, Congo, Niger, Benin, Nigeria, Liberia, C…

I have Australia/Tunisia/USA, but I haven't looked up the total number of countries I can enter visa-free. Tunisia gives me visa-free entry to Turkey and a few African countries, but not much else.

I'm looking to emigrate to a European country once I finish my studies in the hopes of getting a 4th passport - anyone know if that's possible in the EU? I know that Sweden, my top choice, only allows dual citizenship. South Korea looks quite attractive given that I'm in the field of electronics, but language looks like a barrier.

Re: Passport Index 2016

#75

Post by Bulkington »

charlesism wrote: post #43
uniqueid wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 int…

...while I'm ranting: citizenship in return for military service, honorary citizenship, citizenship from owning property, and outright purchase of citizenship. Can anyone think of more? I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Birth tourism, or the politically freighted 'anchor baby'?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism

Re: Passport Index 2016

#76

Post by tuna-piano »

jahnu wrote: post #46
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 can imagine. When I was in Uzbekistan I met a local man who had studied in the UK and he explained to me how hard it was to travel. I was amazed you needed exit visas for your own country. I thought that stuff died long ago (with the exception of North Korea or so).

Just 90 miles from Key West, Florida there is a country which required strict exit visas until just 3 years ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/15/cuba-relaxes-t...

Re: Passport Index 2016

#77

Post by ThePhysicist »

schlowmo wrote: post #9
invaliduser wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

While you find reciprocity in many visa-agreements, it's not mandatory. If you look at the example from the parent comment: Germans can enter Vietnam visa-free, while Vietnamese can't enter Germany visa-free. You find those one-sided visa-free agreements especially for many African countries.

It always comes down to negotiation power. To my knowledge, the (incoming) visa requirements should be identical for all countries of the Schengen zone though, as there is freedom of movement inside so having different entry requirements for each country wouldn't make much sense.

UPDATE:

Just did a quick check on this (as it's a curious question) and it seems to be the case:

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/entry-exit/non-e...

"If your visa is from a "Schengen area" country, it automatically allows you to travel to the other Schengen countries as well."

Re: Passport Index 2016

#78

Post by wildmusings »

tuna-piano wrote: post #71
uniqueid wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 int…

I'm not so sure it's illogical. It's tough to kick people out of a country that they were born in. While a 3 time armed robber born in the US and released from prison will be back on the streets of the US - ideally he / she would be sent somewhere else. Immigration is a rare time when a country can choose what people to allow in or not. I would think that a country should be more concerned about its own residents tha…

I'd expand that to cultural preservation in general. The French like being French and living in a French country, with all that entails concerning values, music, food, and way of life. The Japanese like being Japanese and living in a Japanese country. Mass migration can change the character of a country. It's totally logical to want to preserve your culture and way of life.

If 100 million people from the Middle East moved into France (to use a hyperbolic thought experiment), it would cease to be a French country. And we don't need to use this thought experiment. You're kidding yourself if you think that mass migration from the Middle East and Northern Africa into France over the last few decades has been anything but an unmitigated disaster. There are plenty of great people from those countries, and their children, who have assimilated and contributed great things to French society. But the problems are so great that I think most French people would turn back the clock and undo the whole thing if they could.

Re: Passport Index 2016

#79

Post by ZoF »

tuna-piano wrote: post #76
jahnu wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can imagine. When I was in Uzbekistan I met a local man who had studied in the UK and he explained to me how hard it was to travel. I was amazed you needed exit visas for your own country. I thought that stuff died long ago (with the exception of North Korea or so).

Just 90 miles from Key West, Florida there is a country which required strict exit visas until just 3 years ago. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/15/cuba-relaxes-t...

"Just 90 miles from Key West there is a country" -

Why not just explicitly state the country....?

We know it's Cuba and these restrictions existed for obvious reasons.

Re: Passport Index 2016

#80

Post by AnthonyMouse »

adventured wrote: post #64
Negitivefrags wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing illogical about it. If all the worlds borders were open then economies would move to the average. Workers in poor countries would move to rich countries (because they have higher wages) until those countries wages had gone down, and the countries they left would have their wages go up due to the supply decrease in workers. It's complete logical self interest for country richer than the average to not…

> If all the worlds borders were open then economies would move to the average. That's not the case. That premise would only hold true in a bad simulation - ie one that ignored or removed thousands of factors. Back in actuality, those thousands of factors would still ensure drastic differences between countries. Equilibrium in regards to this premise is inherently impossible. Any amount of friction alone guarantees i…

> That's not the case. That premise would only hold true in a bad simulation - ie one that ignored or removed thousands of factors. Back in actuality, those thousands of factors would still ensure drastic differences between countries. Equilibrium in regards to this premise is inherently impossible. Any amount of friction alone guarantees it, and there would be vast amounts of friction.

The conclusion that all countries with open borders would become exactly average is clearly wrong, but the principle that allowing unrestricted immigration will tend to move your country closer to the average still holds.

And is actually worse than that, because the people in an above average position within their own countries would have less incentive to emigrate. If you open your borders to countries with exactly the same population composition but your country has more economic mobility or better social assistance programs then those things will disproportionately attract economically weak immigrants.

This is highly confusing to political partisans because the two issues contradict party lines in the US. Democrats generally favor both reducing immigration restrictions and increasing social assistance and mobility, but the two policies don't mesh well.

Post reply on HN