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.
