"Success in crossing a border using a World Passport is generally attributable to the whim or ignorance of individual immigration officers, not official recognition of the document."
I was admitted to Brazil 5 times under an allegedly expired visa.
I had no way of knowing it was expired, it’s not specified anywhere on the visa or in any Brazilian embassy/travel advisory site. But on the 6th time after it had expired, I finally hit an immigration agent who cared enough to turn me away or understand that it was expired. So this really tracks.
If you're from a 2nd/3rd world country, your passport might as well be fake because that's how Uncle Sam treats papers from nth (n > 1) world countries. Getting a visa stamped in your passport is like playing a lottery game with somewhat higher chances of winning than the latter. Again, though, visa doesn't guarantee a successful entry as you can be just as easily turned away at the port of entry. If the border crossing officer deems you unfit (no reason necessary), you'll be denied and no justifications will be given.
I'm pretty sure virtually all 2nd world passports (Russia, Armenia, Latvia...) and most third world countries (Brazil, Peru, India...) are taken pretty seriously by the US.
Having visited the Baltics several times, I wouldn't call Latvia a 2nd world country. For starters, they are a member of the EU and have been using the Euro for years...
"Second world" doesn't mean "half way between developed and developing" to me, it means "was part of or heavily allied with the USSR".
I am not trying to insist that "third world" needs to retain its original cold war meaning or anything, obviously it is widely used to refer to less-developed nations.
I understand you point, but the USSR collapsed 30 years ago, and the Baltics joined the EU in 2004. Nobody uses that definition of "second world" anymore.
What makes a country 2nd or 3rd world? Intuitively, I'd say India is straddling both categories, they're doing 2nd/1st world things in space, but vast swathes of their population still live in decidedly 3rd world conditions. I guess as far as passports are concerned, considering India 3rd world isn't far off the mark.
They are extremely technologically advanced, but they also (1) two thirds of their population lives in poverty, on under $2/day, and (2) they were not a major player in the cold war so they can both be considered third world in that they are a developing country and in the original meaning of the term.
“Third world” in this context might refer to the original meaning, that is countries which neither aligned with the communist block nor NATO during the Cold War. Colloquially, of course, it’s mostly meant to mean technologically deficient or otherwise “not modern” countries. However, I am not OP, so I do not know which meaning they intend.
US is very vehement in stating that a US visa does not guarantee entry, and it is the prerogative of the official at the entry point to decide to allow entry.
Because generally countries care about passports from other countries. It's certainly not a necessity, international/foreign law can be whatever nonsense you want, but that's how it usually works.
Because countries have specific laws about what constitutes acceptable documents for entry into a country and the usually include things like “issued by a countries recognized and lawful issuer of passports”?
Most immigration decisions are negotiated and often reciprocal (you give me visa free travel, I’ll give you visa free travel).
Unless a document is specifically recognized as issues from a non-state entity (e.g. UN refugee passports) they aren’t valid travel documents anywhere.
Like you say yourself it is possible that non-state entities can have their travel documents recognized in some cases. I don't see any reason why that non-state entity couldn't potentially be a US non-profit. Obviously in this particular case, this agency's documents are not widely recognized, but that has nothing to do with their legal status in the US.
So, is this a bit like "clubs that have accepted my fake id, thus proving it is genuine"? I'm assuming customs are accidentally accepting passports that were printed by internet randos.
Correct, and generally known as ‘passport control’ in Europe and many other countries.
I think ‘immigration’ is primarily used by English speaking New World countries which historically had large scale immigration (as in, settlement) programs after the world wars—although I don’t have a definitive source for this.
Given the countries they cite as having accepted it (decades ago!) , it looks mostly useful as a tool to check whether a baseline level of border security even exists.
I was interested in the countries in bold that have been listed as officially recognizing the passport.
The wikipedia page (which lists this passport as a "fantasy travel document") is skeptical:
> "The World Service Authority website has scans of letters dating from many decades ago from six countries (Burkina Faso, Ecuador, Mauritania, Tanzania, Togo and Zambia) which the WSA claims is legal recognition of the World Passports. "
> "These letters of recognition are several decades old (i.e., 1954 for Ecuador, 1972 for Burkina Faso, 1975 for Mauritania, 1995 for Tanzania, 1983 for Togo, 1973 for Zambia)"
Also notably, of that list, Burkina Faso and Togo border each other, as do Tanzania and Zambia (though the acceptance dates don't line up). In the cases of Ecuador and Mauritania, how acceptance happened on one side of each of their border, but not the other, is left as an exercise to the reader (and this reader is inferring that they were refused—but both of those nations have large, porous borders, so there's any number of possibilities, many of which illicit).
The following is a list of countries which, on at least one occasion, have recognized the World Passport on a "de facto" basis, by stamping a national visa and/or entry/exit stamp.
It's a stretch to interpret one-off stamps in various countries to recognition of the world passport as a legitimate travel document. "Passports" based on strongly held beliefs about identity (global, regional, tribal, or otherwise) as opposed to national citizenship and the legal frameworks that underpin international travel almost always run into the cold, hard reality of border-crossing procedures, as holders of passports created by North American tribes discovered some years ago:
"Native American nations debate sovereignty after Iroquois passport dispute"
Not an expert on US tribal law, but US-recognized tribes have signed treaties as 'nations' with the US federal government; membership and 'nationhood' is therefore more than just a 'belief', and has some level of legal legitimacy and status within the commonly agreed upon system of treaties underlying international travel
obviously not enough for it to count for too much, even domestically, but - main point - this isn't just a 'belief' from a legal perspective as is/would be in the case of this 'world passport'.
If the tribal nations are indeed states, then they would have to open diplomatic relationships with the UK to get their passports recognized. In that case, the USA is a third party and not responsible for their recognition.
If in turn the US government manages to get the UK to accept their passport, then this would be evidence that the tribes are not sovereign regarding international law.
> "Passports" based on strongly held beliefs about identity (global, regional, tribal, or otherwise) as opposed to national citizenship and the legal frameworks
Those are also just strongly held beliefs, only they're held by people with more power.
Rapper Mos Def was arrested and charged in South Africa for trying to use his 'World Passport'. It's considered a fake document and is a criminal offence.
“He wanted to start using the World Passport because it’s more representative of his personal ideals and philosophies,” the representative told FP. He said Bey, whose lyrics often touch on issues of social justice, has been disheartened by the way police have treated young black men in the United States. That, and “just the whole idea of the world as being a unified place a place without borders or boundaries” made Bey prefer the World Passport over his American one. One of Bey’s recent projects reflects that belief: He has helped build A Country Called Earth, a website that uses art, writing, and music to challenge conventional ideas about borders and nationalities.
States can expect payment of taxes and fees in their currency and can force businesses in their jurisdiction to accept their currency. Most importantly, they have sticks and guns to enforce that. This is the crucial difference between "fake" and "normal" currencies and is unlikely to change as long as states exist. People might trade in cryptocurrencies between them, but they will find it necessary to convert it to other currencies whenever a state can force them to.
I agree with all the comments here that this seems pretty sketchy, and that "de facto" acceptance seems more like "accidental" acceptance. But I've been interested in the idea of "global citizenship" for a while... Are there any less sketchy organizations working towards a similar end?
The EU's Freedom of Movement is a remarkable achievement. It's far from world wide and doesn't even aim for that, but it does allow you to move freely in ~30 sovereign countries. (Shame some 70 million of us just lost it)
Even for you it means that if you get a Schengen visa (ie a visa for a country in the Schengen zone) that you may travel freely around the Schengen zone with that visa for 90 days
Citizenship confers legal rights/privileges but also duties.
The notion of "global" citizenship sounds more like globalist hyperindividualism and something that opens the door to mass migration. If so, it disregards the concept of ethnic and cultural group and the effects of unrestricted migration on the host country. (Actually, mass migration is a social engineering tactic that's been used in the past for the purposes of ethnic cleansing. Once you get enough people in the door from an alien culture, this causes fragmentation and destabilization and possibly the emigration if not destruction of the host populace. Whether that is the intention or not is irrelevant because that is the effect.)
> Isn’t pretty much everybody where they are today because of mass migration of their ancestors?
That's a preposterous argument. You're basically saying it's okay for host countries and culture to be wiped off the face of the planet for the sake of unrestricted migration. Why on earth would anyone want that to that happen to their country?
It's one thing to migrate en masse into unoccupied land. It is a different matter to migrate en masse into an existing society. Whenever the latter has happened, it has led to the destruction of the host society.
> My government doesn’t tell me where I can travel.
This has nothing to do with travel. Citizenship isn't the privilege of traveling. It is a legally enshrined commitment made to some society. The idea of global citizenship is simply vacuous. Hence my question above. it's it's about being able to flit about the world as your please, then it's an abuse of the term because that's not citizenship.
Scotland has been in a Union with England for 300 years, with a great deal of migration and no barriers between the nations. Has Scottish culture been "wiped off the face of the planet" in that time? No.
Yeah, it used to be the case until a few years ago that the immigration here was run by the police and a lot of them would pretty much just wave you by if you were a white guy in the Irish citizens queue that took out a passport without inspecting it. At the distance some of them looked, pretty sure anything the right shade of red and right shape would have done. Certainly _other_ EU passports would not have been distinguishable from an Irish passport at that level of inspection.
Nowadays we have a separate immigration staff and they'll at least look at the passport insides.
A few months before 9/11 my France -> Switzerland border control on the TGV was a conductor asking our train car "Is anyone not allowed in Switzerland? OK, good." Almost jarring, having gone through US border controls a lot.
9/11 changed a lot. Before then it wasn’t unusual for Americans and Canadians who lived close to the border to freely cross without identification if they were recognized by the guard.
For the "France -> Switzerland" border not much changed, it's still super easy to pass (maybe even easier) due to Schengen space. (Ignoring covid special cases for a moment.)
Not all but a lot of border in Schegen space already often (not always) had very lose controls years before Schegen space was established, it was one of many reasons why it was established. I.e. it was doubling down on a already well establish trend.
Driving across the San Ysidro border in a California-plated car was basically answering "American" to the "Citizenship?" question and "No" to "Anything to declare?"
It's a bit more involved now, but not much - they only started requiring passports a few years ago.
This used to be very common in Western Europe before the Schengen Agreement was instated. There were practically no person check if you weren’t looking suspicious.
Some of the stamps are not even related to imigration at all
The German "visa" stamps on [1] are not from the government but from the national train company. The first one seems just to be the office stamp of the service / information desk in the Duisburg main station. The second stamp is hard to read but I think its a train ticket.
The other "visa" does not look official either (though I'm not sure how the stamps looked back than. In any case it's not a Visa issued by a German embassy).
For all the talk about "World Citizenship", the reality is if you actually had world-wide democracy where everyone could vote, you would actually end up with a very regressive government in terms of women's rights and LGBTQ rights.
Those rights mainly are accepted in Western Europe and the US, and by the business elite in many countries. But among the vast majority of the populations of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, those rights are not accepted.
With such different views about basic rights, I am actually happy that we do not have a global government, but that I can live in a country that respects those rights.
There's opportunity for nuance in these concepts. World citizenship needn't mean the elimination of any other hierarchy of rule and representation, in the same sense that the existence of the US Federal government doesn't eliminate state law, nor the EU government negate individual nations.
There exist some entities like this already, like the International Court of Justice (although admittedly weakened by being beholden to countries signing on).
However, your point in that most folks that use the phrase "citizen of the world" are likely to be more politically progressive writ large than the median person strikes me as likely to be true.
And on the flip size, those living in countries that reject the notion that these are rights don't wish to be subjected to ceaseless attempts to jam them down their throats. Yet that is what's happening. That's what the American empire and its proxies has been doing.
But trust me. Anyone who's interested in "world citizenship" isn't keen on letting people vote, certainly not those you call "regressive".
Well you should otherwise you don't really have the right to leave.
I live in a dictatorship that actively suppresses passport requests by its citizens. You have no idea how much I support this initiative. You have no idea what its like to have military assholes controlling your life and the rest of the world turning a blind eye when you just want to live peacefully.
It could've been you instead of me. This is a right worth fighting for.
No it's not. You don't get to control what how the people of countries treat you and others with this mindset.
My passport is the result of a society and country my ancestors shaped and fought for. You don't get to turn up with your cultural baggage and demand entry.
Quite a few societies/countries have made the call that accepting refugees from things like dictatorships is a moral obligation they want to take on, though.
This is subject to prudential judgement and not categorical a priori commitment. First, are the people in question actually refugees? The EU migrant crisis a few years ago wasn't that. It was unrestricted migration. It was a shit show of mind-boggling political stupidity.
Second, you must prioritize the good of your country. What is your realistic capacity for taking in refugees before your country is harmed? On what basis and on what terms are they being admitted?
In most countries, individuals claiming refugee status aren't given free entry to a country. They make an application and are held until application is either denied or approved.
Using the refugee argument is diversionary nonsense when discussing at will free-for-all immigration.
While it may be true that your country is the result
of your ancestors having fought and killed people
for the land it's on and the wealth and privilege it has today,
that argument doesn't support what you think it does.
An interesting idea but the whole point of a passport is to prove which country are a citizen of. Countries set their visa policies to accept or deny based on passport origin. A US passport can get you a visa quickly in most places in the world but a North Korean passport would likely not. If I can simply pay for a World Passport, what incentive do they have to diligently verify my documents? Obviously a country could produce fake passports for their own citizens but that would be for some specific reason like espionage. Maybe a small country would produce a passport for me with a big bribe but I'm guessing the countries willing to do so are at the bottom of the list of "most accepted passports". Allowing anyone to get a passport with little scrutiny just devalues the passport. Perhaps in a more enlightened time, something like a UN passport would allow stateless people to travel easily to countries that would accept it.
No, most countries allow you to purchase a citizen and depending on your ancestry or knowledge of several country constitutions you could just walk in and demand citizenship.
St. Kitts & Nevis, accepted over 100 places, fairly powerful, purchase price at about 100k. Real estate can be a trust where you have partial ownership of a parcel which value is in excess of any amount needed to prove financial interest.
Antigua and Barbuda, same 100k gets you papers and a passport in a week with 150+ countries.
Price doubles for St. Lucia, but you're talking about 150 countries of visa free for 200k.
UN passports actually are highly suspicious, simply because of the diplomatic ties it contains - and bad image you can present the country in. You're there to highlight a political event, not to take leisure or secure travel. Very different circumstances.
It's not a fake passport, it's just an unrecognized passport. Odds are you will just be denied entry.
That said, even getting turned around the border can be pretty painful, and you're often asked to declare this kind of thing on every single visa application for the rest of your life.
Many countries consider it a fraudulent travel document. It's more under the train of thought that you are attempting to access the country through illegitimate means.
I am not sure I understand the distinction you're making.
Suppose you and I come up with our own passport and issue it to people. Its just a piece of paper saying "The bearer of this paper is ok" and we stamp it.
Do you think the authorities care if the person wrote up their own one or if they got ours with our special stamp?
There's a great scene in a french series which explains this tongue in cheek with a fake passport, fake name, real name but fake passport and fake name but real passport.
So many scenarios, wish this clip was on youtube but it's "A Very Secret Service" it's on Netflix.
No, it is a fake passport. While you may be denied entry, you may end up in a bit more trouble depending on whether the custom officials recognized you were playing a joke on them or whether they thought the document you were presenting was a real passport.
No, a passport is a travel document and there are requirements set by each nation as to what is an authentic travel document and what is not. It is those nation's requirements that apply when you are at their border, responding to their request for the documentation you have been told in advance you will need.
These requirements are legal requirements, made known to you when you inquire as to what are the necessary documents when requesting entry to a nation. Each embassy can tell you that.
If you present just any old paper when asked to present a valid travel document, then you are either playing a joke on the requestor (not a good idea) or you are representing that the travel document you are providing meets the requirements of the travel document that is requested. In which case it is fraudulent. It's fake.
It is no different when you are pulled over by a cop and asked to provide proof of insurance, and you give him your handwritten note that says your uncle will insure you. Are you going to try to argue that your uncle is just an unrecognized insurance company and so your insurance card is not fake? Every sane person will think your insurance card is a fake card. So it is when a custom officials asks you to present a passport and you give them this document.
Interesting to see US immigrant visa entry stamps in the photo section - were these people whose countries were no longer viable and were given some special permission to use this passport? Were they refugees? Seems better if US could issue a joint one-time passport/visa type of credential for travelers in those situations
I just checked the scan "confirming" that it is accepted by Poland and that proof is a temporary 14 day visa issued in June 1990 in Berlin embassy by a 65y old communist diplomat/spy (according to publicly available documents). With a stamp of "Polish People's Republic" - a name that was changed to "Republic of Poland" at the end of 1989. I guess that was a moment in time where anyone in that embassy could happily stamp an outdated visa on anything for $50.
I'm now very curious about the stories behind all of these. Did someone attempt to enter the EU with a Byzantine Empire passport?? What did it even look like?
I presume you’re talking of https://worldservice.org/visas/2/Usa_Australia.jpg. Yes, it has a 1998 Canadian stamp in the top half, but it also has a 1999 Australian stamp on the lower half. A departure stamp, incidentally, which I imagine could be less picky about what they stamp, and marked Hamilton Island, a fairly small tourist place. I dunno, did Hamilton Island Airport perhaps do some international flights back then? It looks to be domestic-only now.
Thanks for the correction, I didn't spot that at all.
I know that Australian immigration match passports at both ends of trips - I'm dual-national and if I don't get the right passport at the desk they ask me for the other one. So I would suspect this is domestic and the stamp is a vanity thing.
We could do with a more real version of this with an area of land that anyone could go live. Maybe the US / EU could lease somewhere for 200 years say for refugees and the like to be able to hang out?
I like the idea, but something about this feels really dubious to me. I notice that the person that started all this is still the ‘world govenor’, and has single handedly appointed all the commitees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Passport