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 you are not "special" person).
Now, I have Russian passport, it's a bit easier but I'm still struggling to get even tourist US visa (I was refused twice).
Changing passport is very long and painful process. It can significantly change your course of life (like in my case).
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.
Brexit might well see to that one though. And working in Australia visa free isn't all sunshine and roses, you have to pay full Australian taxes, but get none of the benefits of being an Australian resident or citizen.
In a blink of an eye, you can become a tax evader and essentially lose everything you've earned plus be sentenced to years in prison... unless you're the husband of the prime minister (who worked in Switzerland, paid no tax in Denmark yet essentially lived here).
So if you're leaving Denmark for Silicon Valley to run your startup, get legal help to ensure you won't suddenly get taxed for all your US-earned income because your left your wife/girlfriend in Denmark, visited her and say, answered a few emails or spent some money.
What, are you barred from going to the beach? :)
Paying full host country taxes isn't a problem unless you're also paying home country taxes.
I was born as an American citizen, but would probably prefer to be German (social benefits, EU access, etc.) or Emirati (a fantastic gravy train).
Edit: Obviously this is not a fully worked out idea. What I find disappointing is that no one in the news ever even talks about alternatives, even narrow alternatives.
How would selling goods be like? An "EU-supermarket" next to the regular one where you have to show your membership to be able to buy?
First, you say that it wouldn't be that expensive at £185/year, but that's the price when you're also offering rights to others in the Union to live and work in your country and giving access to your market to the rest of the Union's goods. The £185/year would barely scratch the surface.
Second, who would the cash come from and go to? Presumably, it would be from individual Britons. Would it go to the rest of Europe? £185/year would be very cheap to gain access to the right to live and work in Europe. In fact, countries do sell citizenships, but for a lot more than that. I believe Malta is the easiest way to buy yourself EU citizenship and requires a gift of €650,000 to the government, €150,000 parked in government bonds for 5 years (probably earning next to nothing), and buying at least €350,000 in property (and holding it for at least 5 years).
Third, if you could cheaply buy the right to live and work in the EU, why would any country stay? Let me explain the scenario. If I'm a member country of the EU, I must open my borders to other EU countries, but in exchange those countries are open to me. Why wouldn't I want to simply leave and then let the minority of those in my country that want access to the rest to pay a tiny fee? In fact, if that fee is the same that I'm paying for all my citizens currently, the government could even pay it for those that want it and save loads of money. In this scenario, everyone leaves the Union because it's cheaper to just buy the right for the small few that want it. If only 1% of your population actually wants to exercise that right in a given year, you could cut your cost from £13B to £130M.
The issue is that a foreign country isn't going to give you access when your country won't give their citizens access on equal terms. It's not an issue of a small fee. Why should a British person willing to pay £185/year get access to the EU while a French person willing to pay £185/year wouldn't get access to the UK? That's the heart of the Brexit issue and why a small fee has nothing to do with the problem. Europe isn't going to give British people freedom of movement into Europe when the UK won't give Europeans freedom of movement into the UK. Why should they give UK citizens more rights than those of other European nations?
The issue is that there aren't a lot of alternatives that are in any way realistic. A realistic solution would mean that UK citizens don't get to live/work in more places than other EU citizens without some form of consideration proportional to the right. £185/year isn't proportional, especially since other EU nations must pay into EU coffers. I'm always interested in alternatives, but most alternatives sound more like, "this would be useful and cheap for me and next I'd like a free, unlimited mobile plan with no strings attached." Of course it would be useful if the EU let you pay a tiny fee for the right to live and work in the rest of the EU. Would the UK also let Europeans pay that fee to live and work in the UK? No? Ah, there's the problem.
A realistic solution could be one where a country in the EU allows UK citizens to become citizens of their country provided they renounce all ties to the UK and give up all rights in the UK. That would allow UK citizens to determine which set of rights they wanted to live under - but they'd lose UK rights if they chose the European side. But that's not "I get the best of both worlds." If you want rights in both the UK and Europe, then you need to be willing to offer those rights to EU citizens, not just UK citizens. To be fair, you might be more than willing to offer that if you were part of the remain camp, but that doesn't square with Brexit.
Ultimately, the issue is just that Brexit is a rejection of the type of thing you think could be nice. Brexit is a rejection of freedom of movement. Brexit is a rejection of making national citizenship less meaningful. Brexit is a rejection of the idea that you should be able to easily live and work where you want to. Your idea might be cool, but it's the opposite of Brexit. Maybe we should move to a world where we can freely join "nations" or "unions" that square with what we want in life rather than being citizens of where we were born or whom we were born to. But that's the opposite of the sentiment expressed by Brexit which seeks to limit that type of freedom.
I like complaining about insignificant things for that specific reason.
Just nitpicking but Taco bell has outlets all around the world. You don't need to visit the US for that.
So yeah, I totally agree that citizenship/passport of a free (or relatively free) country can be one of the greatest assets that you can have in your life.
Turkmenistan for me is kinda mystery because they have a lot of natural gas and they could become pretty rich and developed country (kinda UAE). But they didn't. They got very weird dictator instead.
Yes, I read this blog already.
Is it difficult to leave Turkmenistan? Do you have some variant of exit visas?
There are very few information about this country on the internet.
> Do you have some variant of exit visas?
> Is it difficult to leave Turkmenistan?
I've witnessed Canadian/Turkmen dual citizen was denied to leave the country until she cancel her Canadian or Turkmeni citizenship (which takes about 6+ months).
If you oppose the government they can arbitrarily prohibit you from leaving the country for an arbitrary length of time (read: until the government is changed). And "opposing the government" can be taken very liberally: it can be even a slight criticizing comment in a social network (those are blocked anyway, though).
> I left Uzbekistan when I was 22 years old
No expert on either place but from what little I do know I'd rather live in Cuba. Uzbekistan truly is a police state.
Why not just explicitly state the country....?
We know it's Cuba and these restrictions existed for obvious reasons.
I would think a quarter century qualifies as "long ago" in the timescale of a single human life.
It is very effective writing.
For citizens and expats it's ridiculously painless to enter/exit the UAE. Even as an American citizen with Global Entry, it's far easier to go in and out of the UAE than it is to enter/exit the USA.
I assume you're referring to the controversial Kafala system which chiefly harms migrant workers. It does not, in fact, require that anyone receive an exit visa.
The issue is primarily one of employers confiscating passports, not the government requiring you to obtain an exit visa. Fortunately, even in the four years I lived there the situation improved with more employees getting to hold on to their passports.
If you want to talk about repressive policies, you're much better off talking about Saudi Arabia which does require exit permits and has a far worse record on human rights (for both citizens and migrant workers).
Also, there are not "first world" or "third world" countries. Those terms are throwbacks to an era where everything was separated out by communists vs capitalist states. The correct terms today are high income, mid-income and low-income/peripheral nations.
After some research it turns out that Germany allows people to acquire a foreign citizenship without losing their German citizenship in special circumstances. You need their explicit permission before beginning the citizenship process of another country. The application is free form.
I just went through this a few months ago and Germany approved my request with no issues. Soon I'll be a German and US citizen.
Additionally to what you said, you can stay German citizen without any approval if you acquire an EU or Swiss citizenship.
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, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Chad, Ghana. In reality these countries may not allow dual citizenship! Benin and Burkina Faso however do recognize dual citizenship while Senegal does not. (http://www.multiplecitizenship.com/worldsummary.html)
The highest power level you can have as a dual citizen is 170. Any combination of these three African countries and Western European nations will achieve this. So the most powerful dual citizens are mostly West African migrants.
Now for triple citizens, the highest possible power is a whopping 178. There are a few combinations that do this, involving those 3 African countries, plus Russian Federation, Singapore, Japan and Turkey. For example, Turkey/Japan/Senegal, Burkina Faso/Russia/Singapore, Japan/Benin/Turkey. So it looks like the path to ultimate power is sadly blocked for those of us in the USA and Europe, and in fact, the most powerful dual citizens cannot become the most powerful triple citizens. On the other hand, Senegal/United States of America/Malaysia will get you 177, nearly as good.
assuming marriage is unfavorable and you don't want to pretend to be jewish, there are a couple of treaties you can take advantage of, typically old imperialist countries have guilt trips with their former south american or african colonies and have an easy citizenship path for citizens in those former colonies. But then those former colonies have really malleable government officials so you can get one passport and upgrade to EU, in theory.
then next way that is less theoretical requires money, liquid, cash.
Malta is in the EU and lets you buy an EU citizenship and passport. Takes one year, it isn't that expensive though. ~500,000 euros. Any homeowner in the bay area could do it. The majority of the cost is a real estate or bond investment, so you actually still have your principle.
Many first world countries like the US have pay for citizenship programs if you are wealthy and have liquid assets. Malta's is most analogous to the US' EB-5 citizenship investment program, except you get free trade and travel with a bunch of other countries (like if you really wanted to take advantage of Germany's laws or the UK's laws for your next domicile or company)
St. Kitts and Nevis is a federation in the Caribbean, they offer the same thing for like $250,000. The US State Department cautions investment with that country because of some favorable expropriation laws that government granted itself, but it is no different than civil asset forfeiture in almost any US state. The key point in St. Kitts and Nevis being a federation, like the United States, is that Nevis itself is a semi-autonomous state, like North Carolina would be. And has duplicate laws and officials that fly far under the radar for most international purposes. So, just keep that in mind if you ever need to get crafty.
I'm not sure whether to roll my eyes at over half a million dollars being "not that expensive" or the assertion that any Bay Area homeowner has that much liquidity to just toss at a Maltese passport. Unless you're suggesting selling the house to do it.
the primary distinction I was hoping to make was that you didn't need to be an international spy or an oil baron to achieve the levels of wealth necessary to get these things.
Most area homeowners I know are driving Civics or Jettas and worrying about property tax assessments, so. The comment was just silly in terms of perspective and was silly to come across in a thread that already discussed privilege (for lack of a better word, I know it's loaded).
A HELOC is a monumentally terrible idea for the situation, by the way.
haha, no - nothing about guilt. They only offer citizenship paths only to 3rd-/4th-generation descendants of emigrees. Allowing the natives of former colonies to easily gain citizenship in the old country is simply not tenable, old chap, they need to have the right pedigree. tut-tut.
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.
Check the specific rules. For instance I know Norway don't allow dual citizenship, with one exception if parents are from different countries. Hence my kids have Norwegian and British passports.
As far as dual citizenship (with the greatest amount of travel) is concerned, anyone of the G7 country passport (minus Japan) and one other should be fine. Best I could think of is US/Germany/UK/etc. + Chile (visa free throughout S. America, Europe including Russia, India). For visa-free travel to China, if your nationality & business qualifies, you can apply for an APEC business travel card.
My combined number is 159, an increase of only 3 from my third ranked passport.
My second citizenship adds 6 countries to my first, for a total of 163. These 6 include Yemen, Syria, Rwanda, Mali, Guinea and my second country itself, so I guess at the moment it probably only counts as a +4, really.
However, if I were to travel to one of those countries, I think I'd rather apply for a visa with my European passport, to make sure I can request assistance from the consulate should anything happen.
Honorable mention to Brazil and Bosnia for having passports without a coat of arms type of thing on the front.
To be fair, I had to search for the Vatican and Switzerland, so they didn't stand out to me. The most noticeable was Brazil's with a "design" (at least a line) that fills the whole cover. It might have hurt though that the Vatican's and Switzerland's passports were on the far left side on my monitor size while Brazil's was near the center.
Most have dignified, darker tones. Singapore and Switzerland have the brightest backgrounds of brilliant red while a few have pale but not over-saturated greens (Niger, Guinea, Saudi Arabia). Actually Fiji has quite a cyan passport too.
 The red Singapore passport comes close to orange, although that might just be the way they scanned it.
> Honorable mention to Brazil and Bosnia for having passports without a coat of arms type of thing on the front.
I'm not sure what Bosnian passport you saw, but my friend's definitely has a coat of arms (shield) on it.
Personally, I love the coat of arms, it's such an anachronistic thing that's actually still a thing!
I just can't remember the name of the service and also can't figure out appropriate search terms.
> 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.
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.
this is just how countries managed/refused treaties with each others, based on mutual interests, history, etc
(They also have an unusually tasteful flag, that manages to represent the geography of the country without looking like a map.)
I didn't know about the Gambia, but there are others in English, or example "The Czech Republic."
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. 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.
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.
Just did a quick check on this (as it's a curious question) and it seems to be the case:
"If your visa is from a "Schengen area" country, it automatically allows you to travel to the other Schengen countries as well."
Americans can go to many countries (even ones without a large tourism economy) despite being rather stingy with letting others in.
Far more important is assessing the likelihood that someone will try to permanently stay/work on a tourist visa.
Not in the EU as the Schengen agreement regulates the Visa rules for the entire Schengen area.
 the SA and Rhodesian forces frequently intercepted insurgents carrying Swedish-origin provisions
1. No need for a bilateral agreement meaning too few people would be affected by this (think of: number of expats/tourists).
2. Historical reasons, e.g. due to colonialism. This could be true for your vietnam example since The Netherlands got colonies on now-Vietnames territory.
Edit: The international Civil Aviation Organization issues the specification. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Civil_Aviation...
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.
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".
>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.
Unfortunately there is no good way to get access to this information in machine readable format. It's all free form text and full of special rules.
 United Nations laissez-passer
I'm working on acquiring an Italian passport not because it will allow me to enter more countries without a visa (an American passport is fine for that) but because it allows long-term working/residence in EU countries. Unfortunately, this ranking doesn't capture that dynamic.
In any case, it's all pretty irrelevant to the site.
It would be nice to see the World and Sovereign Military Order of Malta passports on here, as well as any others that I don't know about
That said, neither of them align well with the purposes of the company running the site - securing multiple citizenships for rich people.
The latter requires rather a lot of effort to get, as you need to work up to become one of the three senior officials of the order (which, I think, requires a vow of poverty).
The former costs as little as $55 for three years, and doesn't have any visa-free arrangements.
National borders are imaginary lines on a map that people are
willing to kill people for; just for the privilege to keep imagining
the lines 
(It's baby blue of course) It's kind of neat to see them in the wild.
I'm sure there are other perks akin to having a diplomatic passport from whereveristan, but with the added weight that it's issued by the UN.
> Most countries do not accept a UNLP as a travel document, unless a visa has been added.
and most people with the blue passport don't get diplomatic immunity - that's limited to a few people with the right visas and the red version.
> Most officials hold a blue UNLP (up to D-1 level), which is similar in legal status to a service passport (however, diplomatic status may be conferred on the holder if the visa issued in the UNLP is a diplomatic visa). A red UNLP is issued to particularly high officials (D-2 and above), and depending on their rank, this may confer diplomatic privileges and the red UNLP may therefore be similar to a diplomatic passport.
I said that holders don't require Visas in many countries - According to the second paragraph of the Wiki link there are at least 29 countries. This qualifies as many.
I also said "You get to bypass the regular folk and use the diplomatic lane for processing" - As per the Wiki link, it's considered equivalent to a "Service Passport". This allows processing through diplomatic lanes at airports that have them. Further reference is here: https://books.google.ca/books?id=RpIDDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA508&ots=...
Lastly, I said "some versions …carry diplomatic privileges (including immunity)". Here is a chart with some more details (see "International Organizations section"): http://www.slogold.net/diplomatic_immunity.html It clearly says support staff enjoy immunity for official acts and higher ranking officials (with the red version of UNLP) enjoy full immunity.
But I agree, it would be a very near passport to have, and I wish there really was such a thing as a 'citizen of earth'-passport.
What is the value?
For example, someone from Afghanistan working for the UN Refugee Agency travelling to a conference in the USA might receive less suspicion at the border.
The first time I went through the facial recognition it had issues recognising me and I had to queue for 10-15 minutes, but when I went through 2 years later (having been in a motorcycle accident 24 hours earlier with a smashed up face, beard and not having showered in 36 hours) it worked flawlessly.
I always have to speak to a customs agent when traveling to Australia. My passport and all alternate photo ids are pre-big-bushy-beard, which throws the facial recognition kiosks for a loop. I made the mistake of trying to joke about it to the customs agent one time, and I remember her raising her eyebrows at me and calling over a supervisor.
The grandparent's comment is pretty descriptive of my experience at the Australian border.
> At the airport we treat all arriving passengers as criminals
The closest I've come to not being treated like a criminal are borders in SEA where the agents only spoke a few words of English so they may have looked at me like I was a criminal but couldn't really say it in a way I would understand.
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 ethical issue compared to restricting based on country of origin (what this site shows).
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.
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.
"The French like being French and living in a French country, with all that entails" - This claim also implies a right for the French people to preserve the ethnic composition (white French) of their country, which is both racist and probably impossible.
I'd argue the aggregate human benefit to letting people from poor countries move to wealthy countries far outweighs any inconvenience or discomfort caused to the wealthy. 100 million people aren't going to move from the Middle East, but they might well move from subsaharan Africa, and it would certainly greatly improve their lives, and living conditions in Africa as they sent money 'back home'. French culture does not seem important compared to stopping millions of deaths from disease and starvation.
which is both racist
and probably impossible.
it would certainly greatly improve their
lives, and living conditions in Africa
The fear of the anti-immigration crowd (whether right or wrong) is that mass migration will bring the target country down, rather than lift the immigrants up.
The fact that everything dies in the long run doesn't mean that those who hold their nations and cultures dear today should not work toward their preservation. An argument from nihilism isn't convincing to me. You and I will die too, but that shouldn't stop us from pursuing the good life in the meantime.
Besides, it's not a given that all current nations and cultures will die. They will certainly change over time, but it could very well be that the first human colony in another galaxy will fly an American flag. It's unlikely, but who knows.
I'm not talking (just) about who came on the mayflower, there has been influxes of immigrants since the founding of the nation. I currently reside in a part of town referred to as "German Village", which was settled primarily by German immigrants in the mid to late 1800's and continues to have places that serve "German" cuisine.
America from its founding was a place for people of all stripes to gather. It of course not only is a amalgamation of cultures but it has birthed its own cultures, some of which are associated with certain groups or regions: southern culture, new england culture, african american culture to name a few subcultures/groups--even the cultures we've birthed show diversity!
Can pass the citizenship test.
Can speak english at a conversational or better level.
Can afford a more than nominal sum for a visa (1500-5000 dollars).
Can pass a criminal history check of some sort.
Doing so would get you a 5 year work visa, after the expiration of that, you could renew it again, and after that, you must either formally file for citizenship (and then agree to remain here for 5 years after other than short visits home) or go back home for at least 5 years when you can start the process over again.
This divide has existed as long as the united states has existed - and it will exist as long as there is immigration - this pressure exists to ensure that too much immigration doesnt happen, and that the melting pot can keep up.
That said, we're the only country in the world where being an 'real member of the country' largely means some legal gobbily-gook and deciding that you wish to ascribe to some somewhat nebulous american ideals.
The constitution and the philosophy espoused in the declaration of independence are perhaps open to interpretation but it's not that nebulous. I do agree you saying "somewhat" could either be sarcasm or you could literally mean that the "American ideals" are just somewhat nebulous other than totally arbitrary.
It's... frustrating... that a failure in presenting 1st, 2nd, 3rd generations of immigrants with a good life results in terrorism, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Where? Who would want them?
Some years ago, there was a judge in a Southern town who had the bright idea of giving their criminals a bus ticket to LA. One of the criminals was arrested in LA and told cops and prosecutors about this. LA authorities were annoyed, and there was some press coverage. Someone pointed out that LA could easily give bus tickets to a few hundred of their crooks and send them to the Southern town. The judge stopped sending people to LA.
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 want to allow this to happen.
The flow of capital and education to poor countries would increase their productivity (and thus wages and standard of living) while the increased supply of labor decreases prices in rich countries, and the new equilibrium would be strictly better for both sides.
Find a good economics textbook. (This is an issue where economists are in almost universal agreement, and almost universally opposed by politicians and the general public).
Expanded access to markets may be unequal. For example, if there was an untapped country that had a million unemployed meteorologists - signing a free-trade deal with that country would most likely be terrible for meteorologists in America - although all other Americans would be better off with improved weather forecasts.
Replace "meteorologists" with "factory laborer" and you can see why so many of the current anti-trade folks are upset with what they see happening. They aren't barbers or plumbers - they're factory workers. The barbers, plumbers and engineers get cheaper stuff (and are better off), but the factory workers get paid less.
Clearly you use that phrase to mean people who share a nationality with you. Historically, this phrase has been used more often to refer to people with the same skin color, or religion, as you.
You could use the exact words you used to justify systematic exclusion of people of another race or religion from jobs and markets controlled by "your people". I like to think that we’d all consider that appalling.
Like race or religion, nationality is largely determined by an accident of birth. It is inconsistent to hold that racial or religious discrimination is unethical, but discriminating on the basis of nationality is somehow okay.
“We are all human, we deserve the same opportunities. But when [black people move into white neighborhoods], they threaten [white neighborhoods] and also don't solve the problem back in [black neighborhoods]. The solution would be to make it better to live everywhere, so that people would not be so tempted to migrate. It will probably happen for [Cape Town and Johannesburg?] in this century, as technology advances quickly.”
Or, in other words, you propose the “separate but equal” solution.
The fact that it isn't zero-sum doesn't mean that it's always strictly better for both sides. There are many policies that will give +4 to a foreign citizen at the cost of -2 to a US citizen, which is not zero sum but is still not to the advantage of the US.
> (This is an issue where economists are in almost universal agreement, and almost universally opposed by politicians and the general public).
Not an unexpected result, since economists are generally utilitarians more than nationalists and politicians the opposite.
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.
One other simple reference proves this point dramatically as well: governance.
The equilibrium theory of borders is equivalent to the perfect market pricing theory in equity markets. Both assume and require omniscience along with perfect action at all times by all actors. All possible knowledge must be perfectly distributed to all actors involved at all times, and then digested and acted on identically at exactly the same time. It collapses into comedy extremely quickly if you try to actually pursue the thought concept.
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.
It isn't logic, it's politics. Immigrants who become citizens get the vote. It should be self-evident that the ideological composition of the voters controls what our laws and constitution will be and is therefore very important to the existing people.
Even outside of general ideological differences, you can imagine the trouble if antagonistic governments were free to send a million of their people to vote in strategic districts in swing states.
Obviously asking for someone's religion is the most stupid way of filtering terrorist, when governments decide to do something like that they discriminate based on place of origin.
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.)
(1) a ban on a country is usually there for a temporary reason of leverage on leaders/system of government on which the citizens may have a varying degree of control through different means.
(2) However, a ban on a religion which has many movements (some of them infighting), and radically opposed views and some crazies, on which the majority have no control or relationship with whatsoever could seem more wrong.
(1) is trading on an existing system of unethical attributes (2) is creating an additional one.
Let's not forget that the USA was founded by people who were looking for religious freedom and peace from prosecution.
A test on specific beliefs is much more appropriate and actually already implemented on immigration forms (e.g. questions on polygamy).
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.
Minor bit of trivia: European Union countries, with a few exceptions, all use a standardized passport format. The burgundy red color is specified. (This was one of the reasons given by the "Leave" campaign in the run up to the Brexit vote, that the United Kingdom would be able to return to a blue cover color.)
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passports_of_the_European_Unio...
1 - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:...
And visiting Iran is visa-free for 186 countries!
US pizza sucks. Easily one of the things I miss most about home.
Also good sausages.
I've lost 8kg (15 pounds) since returning to Australia, but just thinking about deep dish pizza makes my mouth water. Its really something special. I try to go to Homeroom, Zacharies and Fentons every time I visit.
I've travelled a lot and I've never been to any place where there wasn't good food. The desire to cook and eat delicious food is universal, and the practice exists wherever there is enough wealth to support it.
That was amazing pizza indeed. Loved it.
On average though ...
I'm also pretty sure that the internal passports are 100% irrelevant to this site and one would get confused by this only if they really, really wanted to.