Global Passport Power Rank 2019 | Hacker News Reader

Global Passport Power Rank 2019

passportindex.org

89 pointsEL_Loco85 comments

The "mobility score" is just a number of countries you can visit without visa. But that's a poor indication of what passport you'd like to own.

For example, Singapore is 4th on the list, 166 countries. But in order to live in any of these countries, you need a visa. On the other hand, Romania is 9th on the list, but Romania belongs to EU so its citizens can move to any of other 26 EU countries without visa. Doesn't it make their passport more powerful?

Hong Kong citizens can move to China, so while they can go without visa "only" to 154 countries, they can decide to move to China and freely move around the area of 10 million square meters, which is twice bigger than EU. Doesn't it impact the power of their passport?

I guess what I'm saying is: this list is too simple to take it seriously.

That's exactly it! The list is so focused on country counts that it doesn't account for things that make visits interesting, such as population, area, or even economic development of the countries with access to. It would be easy to augment this index with this info though.

It even falls flat on being a decent mobility index--I'd take a Schengen passport with full rights of abode in the EU over a UAE passport any day.

SoverignMan's passport index is different, it uses 'area' + access to certain countries (so it comes pretty close to what you are asking for):

https://www.sovereignman.com/passport-ranking/

Hmm, maybe then use 3 axes? 1 for the number of countries you can enter, one for the area of the country you can enter, and 1 for length of visa (maybe not just length though). Take the line of best fit, see which passport is furthest above that line?

We need more of a Page Rank type of measure, where the inbound links (non-visa countries) are weighted by value.

In reality though the true answer is something like dual citizenship in Canada and an EU Country or similar. Example: I have friends who are Canadian/Romanian and hold tech degrees, so most of the world is wide-open to them.

I agree, the right to work and live in any Schengen country is very powerful and not at all included in the score.

>Doesn't it make their passport more powerful? No, because you don't need the passport to do the moving.

I guess the downvotes are because people are under the impression that you do need a passport to move between EU countries if you are an EU citizen, but of course this is not the case, and as it is not the case the passport itself does not gain any points from this property of EU citizenship.

I believe we just all assume that passport here really means the citizenship.

This site has been submitted to HN a dozen times but the only time it got much discussion was in 2015:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9481026

Here's a couple related links submitted in the last year with significant discussion:

"Traveling the World on a Third World Passport":

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17778108

"Show HN: Compare benefits of a second passport based on the one you have":

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17577386

I think one of the most interesting and actionable takeaways from the previous discussions is that holders of weak passports with a US, Canada, or EU tourist visa gives tourist access to an increasing list of developing countries. The thinking seems to be, "If the US/UK/EU/Canada vetted the person, it's good enough for us, and that person would probably prefer to overstay in those places, not here." With visa validity periods trending upwards of 5-10 years, it's a good way to temporarily increase passport power.

Comparing passport power by total number of countries you can enter is a bad metric.

The UK has a much higher rating than Chile because Britons can enter countries like Lesotho or Namibia visa-free. On the other hand, Chilean citizens can enter both Russia and Iran without a visa, which I think makes it more powerful.

IMO, the countries passport holders can travel should be weighted by: 1) their size and economic strength 2) attractiveness as a tourist destination.

For example, right now, Estonian and Polish passports have the same score. However, Estonians do not need visa to travel to the USA, while the Polish need it. This is arguably a significant difference.

How exactly countries should be weighted is a separate debate.

On the country welcoming list,[0] Greenland is coloured black like North Korea and Afghanistan. But surely as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, it should fall under the same rules as Denmark? Or since it is not in the EU, maybe not?

Speaking as a Dane, I get unsure. But it is a vast part of the map that looks completely uninviting.

Edit: According to Wikipedia, Greenland follows the same policy as the EU, and thus Denmark.[1] Additionally, it seems there is also a Greenlandic and a Faroese passport, although abroad they count as a Danish passport.[2]

[0] https://www.passportindex.org/byWelcomingRank.php [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_Schengen_Ar... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_passport#Physical_appea...

The country corresponding to the selected passport is always shown as black.

I did not select Greenland (nor Denmark for that matter, but Denmark was not black), since it's not possible to select Greenland.

Ah I misunderstood. Maybe it corresponds to "no data"?

EDIT: probably a bug with their data.

> Add passport(s) to your current one, and see your score improve.

Interesting, but it's not so easy to "add" a passport to you.

I know some people (freelancers mostly) who seem to be collecting passports as some kind of expensive complicated beurocratic sport.

Would also be good to see a relative rating on how difficult/lengthy/costly the process is to get each of these passports. I'm sure there's a known combination of passports that gets you optimal country coverage with minimal effort/cost.

1) Malta - 1.3 million euros. Half of it is in investments so reedeemable. 1 year. No physical residency required. European Union, Schengen Area

2) Portugal - 350k euros OR 500k euros. All in property so reedemable. 6 year. No physical residency required, but property counts as residence and gives EU visa for all 6 years until citizenship and passport is possible. European Union, Schengen Area.

Can also employ 10 Portugal citizens for work. Likely as low as 90k euros per year. Obtains EU visa and by year 6 you an get passport.

3) Cyprus - similar to Malta and is EU but not Schengen Area. Might take a little longer too.

4) Austria - informal kickback process, but follows due process. 10 million euro+

5 - 10) Caribbean countries that are not EU so I don't care. Low 6 figures. Known to revoke purchased passports when indicted of a crime somewhere else in the world. Long after having a clean background check and being approved and not being accused of any crime.

If I'm not mistaken, Maltese citizenship would allow one to live in Britain even if Brexit happens. So I would call its passport the most valuable.

Directly relative to your net worth in most cases. In fact, this website appears to be an intake funnel to get rich people to pay for services that help them get residency and passports for other countries.

Actually quite a few countries have a high net worth investment citizen track. You promise to loan/invest in the country above a specified amount and you can get a passport.

There is the USA EB-5 for example. Reading up, an investment of only $500,000 and creating 10 jobs can be sufficient.

Presumably those countries also tax your income as long as you’re considered a dual citizen of them?

I've heard here and elsewhere that only USA uniquely tax citizens living abroad. Most other countries don't. Seems Eritria and Myanmar are the other two countries with that tax regime on expats [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax

If you're not currently a resident, I don't think so. I think that the US is unique or rare in taxing citizens who are non-residents.

No, but you can over a period of time. I have two, I could apply for a third due to marriage and a fourth one because I lived in a place long enough, without having to renounce citizenships.

If you are a "high net worth investor", the creators of the site (Arton Capital) seems happy to help.

This is the ad in their footer: https://www.artoncapital.com/high-net-worth-investors/

If you're wealthy enough, it's quite easy to pick up an extra passport or three.

Maybe you're eligible through your parents, and trying to decide if it's worth the effort.

In Canada, 40% of people are immigrants or children of immigrants. Depending on the country of origin, many of these people could be eligible for a second passport.

A surprising number would be able to add Irish, thanks to their descendency rules.

There was a huge spike in Britons applying for Irish passports thanks to Brexit.

the affiliated company can 'help' you do just that

So, what good is this list? To make the people on top feel smug, and the people on bottom foment revolution to change their country?

It's not like you can easily choose your passport like choosing a sports team or college or something.

If you look at the source (arton Capital) their business is "high net worth investors" - so this list is for their high net worth clients to choose which country they want to invest in.

Part of it is them selling support and work on changing citizenship through money. The very rich do not have allegiance to a nation, only to themselves.

Or get citizenship in.

Sorry my "invest in" was supposed to be in air quotes - too late to edit. This is exactly what they want. However they're less concerned about actusl citizenship and more with the benefits (tax status, access to countries/properties)

I think it makes an excellent point for borders not really making sense in the first place and having little reason to exist beyond adding leverage for dictators in poor countries and assuaging people's fear of foreigners. Both are probably linked.

Borders make perfect sense. Why shouldn't groups of individuals have self-determination including the power to limit who can enter their country?

Different groups make different decisions about how they want to run their government (which is a good thing). Some of those decisions work and some fail horribly, thus borders are needed to keep a functioning system. For example, if you didn't control who can live in your country, you'd never be able to have a generous social safety net.

>Why shouldn't groups of individuals have self-determination including the power to limit who can enter their country?

Why shouldn't groups of individuals have self-determination including the power to marginalize any subgroup or wage wars to others? Because it is immoral no matter how many people agree with it. Not letting people fleeing other countries' misery, war or repressive regimes is immoral no matter how many ways one wants to spin it. There are all sorts of questions on the implementation of it but the basic question (should we abandon people to misery, war or political persecution) is pretty much answered from a moral point of view.

>Different groups make different decisions about how they want to run their government (which is a good thing).

Most 'groups' are run by a single dictator imposing theie view on the rest, and even modern democracies are subject to interferences such as disenfranchising, lobbying etc. There's little legitimizing to be had on 'self-determination' there.

>For example, if you didn't control who can live in your country, you'd never be able to have a generous social safety net.

Is there any evidence for this? I mean most rich countries have both open borders within the EU and their social safety nets seem to be doing pretty fine.

I mean most rich countries have both open borders within the EU and their social safety nets seem to be doing pretty fine.

This is clearly untrue. Open borders for other citizens of EU countries, yes, but hardly "open borders".

So, who should rule people in those places, the UN, Russia, China, the US, someone else, anarchy?

Just try to get India and Pakistan to "erase their border" see the reaction you get.

India and Pakistan have very hostile relationships and a tumultuous past so it is one of the more understandable cases. (Still not an excuse seeing how the EU came to be half a century after one of the bloodiest wars of history ravaged the continent.) For other countries that are at peace and don't have any inclination to go to war with one another though, why enforce borders at all, if not as a vested interest for both parties to control their population on one side and appease xenophobic fear on the other?

People are probably ok with trade and flow of people, but probably a lot less so if you propose reassigning Alsace-Lorraine to Germany or Provence-Alpes to the control of Italy. In other words the “land” which is what borders are about and protect.

Let’s say there are two countries, Denmark and Sweden. If one day Denmark is going downhill and 50% of the pop would want to move to Sweden because life is much better there and Denmark is going nowhere but down, why shouldn’t it be in Sweden’s interest to one, either stop the flow or alternatively take control and annex Denmark in order to bring it into the fold?

In any case, I see it eventually resulting in a new colonialism where elites and businesses are the main ones deriving advantage and wealth from this new arrangement. Localities lose power to distant and disconnected power.

>why shouldn’t it be in Sweden’s interest to one, either stop the flow or alternatively take control and annex Denmark in order to bring it into the fold?

Because Sweden is not ruled by a dictator? The moral thing to do would be for the government to ask "jeez, what are we doing so badly that half our population is telling us to fuck off?" and implement policies that give incentives for the population to stay there. The immoral thing to do is to go full iron curtain.

>In any case, I see it eventually resulting in a new colonialism where elites and businesses are the main ones deriving advantage and wealth from this new arrangement. Localities lose power to distant and disconnected power.

So would you advocate for the borders between US states to close down and all citizens to require a visa to change states within the US?

The states of the US (or Brazil or Mexico or China, etc.) have all developed with a common body of law language and customs, so I don’t think it would make sense for them to devolve (a federal system devolves a lot, compared to centralized systems).

Nation states still make sense (one day when we become a monoculture perhaps it’ll bd different). We have our peculiar takes on economics, government, culture, norms, etc. I’m not ready for a one world government.

>The immoral thing to do is to go full iron curtain.

What happened to the cry for “self-determination of nations” that was the rallying cry of people on the left? It’s a complete 180 on this.

> It's not like you can easily choose your passport like choosing a sports team or college or something.

If you're rich, you kinda can. This website appears to be associated with an investment firm of some kind, and there are many visa investment programs, and even some citizenship investment programs. Quite a few high wealth people use multiple citizenships as an "insurance" of sorts, in addition to increased convenience during travel (using your dual citizenship's passport to travel to one where your passport isn't visa-free).

I think it's mostly just an interesting collection of state relations. For example you can compare the difference between two EU member states with similar "passport power" and figure out why one country has free access to Mongolia and the other to Nigeria.

It tells you a lot about foreign/trade relations but for people who can move around/work or be able to claim ancestry for passports it might be a nifty guide to keep in mind. I know a Latvian who was living in Ireland, and applied for Irish citizenship solely for easier travel (which also required renouncing their latvian citizenship). In Europe it's not hard to find people with multiple ancestries (i.e. born in one country, with parents from two different parts of the world) and for them it's also a good guide to see if it's worth applying for citizenship if they want the access that the passport gives them.

Interesting.

#1 (UAE) beats the #2 ones (Finland etc.) in the following countries: Burundi, Chad, China, Congo, Congo (DR), Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Nauru, Niger, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Yemen. Mostly a handful of African countries and a handful of countries known for human-rights abuses. As for the latter, not necessarily something to be proud of.

But measuring "power" by number of countries treats countries equally. More interesting would be to calculate by the number of people in the world you can visit without a visa... or number of people multiplied by GDP per capita -- to reflect the fact that a passport which allows you access to richer countries could arguably reflect more "power".

Looking forward to seeing the reranking after Brexit

So, never, then.

The ability to enter another country as a tourist without a visa (or with some electronic visa) is cool. Obviously problematic for a citizen of a country with few such agreements.

What I find far more interesting personally is the ability to reside or do business meaningfully in another country in virtue of the bilateral agreements between the two countries.

Some examples of which I have read here or elsewhere. - US citizens can establish their own business in NL - US citizens can overstay Schengen limits in PL due to anterior bilateral agreements - reduced time to permanent residency in CH for CA or US citizens.

Why is electronic travel authorization (such as ESTA) ranked worse than eVisa or Visa on Arrival?

I always feared (maybe for no reason) that with visa on arrival one can still get refused, but now you are already in the country.

You can always be refused entry. The closest to an exception is that you may have some sort of permanent right of entry as a citizen for example, but the determination that you're eligible for entry on that basis is a decision for the exact same people who can refuse you entry.

In the US courts have accepted the government's theory that it's allowed to basically treat anybody who it doesn't let in as non-American and so they don't have any rights, including the right to have a court look into whether actually they have right of entry and so should have been let in.

You can still get refused entry with an ESTA

Doesn't that hold for a e-VISA too ?

Yeah this is ridiculous, I've applied for an ESTA in a taxi to Gatwick and printed it before boarding. So strange.

Don't do that. Your ESTA application can be 'randomly' selected for further inspection, which will cause a delay up to a couple of weeks before you get it.

This happened to me, I was happy I applied well in advance of my trip. IIRC, it took 3 weeks before I got the confirmation email.

Shit, that's fucked up. I did get grilled for about 6 hours at LAX by dudes who were like why are you even here and I was like I don't really know, I just kinda thought it would be fun.

Maybe Visa has stricter requirements for approval than ESTA?

Wouldn't that make the visa worse than ESTA? To me ESTA was the closest thing to free entry.

A required visa in itself does not have to be problematic? I have been to (for me) required visa countries like Russia and China without any problem. Cannot even remember I applied for visa (but it shows required here, so I guess I did - both were some years ago). At worst its just a bureaucratic process.

But I guess its difficult for some countries. So adding some indication of the difficulty to get visa for the 'missing' countries would certainly add value.

A bit off-topic but the great majority are center-aligned with a few exceptions:

Switzerland

Bosnia-Herzegovina

Peru (two columns aligned left)

Sweden

Brazil

and a couple others have some left aligned layout.

But the great majority regardless of script do center-alignment.

Having a Mercosur passport (Argentina) and EU passport (Spanish) I think I have a pretty sweet deal - Spanish passport gets me visa free to most of the countries in the world, and the Argentinian passport gets me to Russia visa-free (hi Putin!). And then on top of that I can live in any EU country and also live and work in any (or most I think) Mercosur countries without having to worry too much about work visas, etc.

When I see the kind of hoops that some of my fellow countrypeople need to go through just to find work abroad (i.e. come to the EU) I really really appreciate that my mam was intelligent enough to tell my 15 year old self to go get the citizenship when we could.

I've got US and German passports, vehemently opposed to Brexit for purely selfish reasons.

Argie here: I will try to fly Moscow then. Thanks for the info!

Neat! I always find myself trying to get a better look at the designs of different passports whenever I'm at the airport.

Yeah, passports are up there alongside currencies in that countries are increasingly putting a lot of effort into the designs to show off their culture, history, art, etc. Too bad the fear of forgeries prevents the artwork from being more commonly shared...

The Swiss passport has the best design for sure.

  Global Passport Power Rank

  Passports of the world are sorted by their total Mobility
  Score, which includes visa-free and visa on arrival
  privileges. The higher the MS score, the better global
  mobility its passport bearer enjoys.

  Mobility Score (MS) – includes visa-free (VF),
  visa on arrival (VOA), eTA and eVisa

The rank it gives is purely one dimensional yet comparing passport power is multidimensional. For example I compared Canada, Australia and UK. Canada got 166 just above the others but looking at the compare list some countries give visa free for fewer days than the others. Is that more or less "power"?

"UNITED ARAB EMIRATES" 1st yeah that's some bs, just take the example of a EU passport where you can live and work indefinitely in any EU country without visa.

EU benefits have nothing to do with the passport

To hold a passport you must be citizen. If you're let say American and German, you have a EU passport which is very powerful since you can live and work in any EU country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passports_of_the_European_Unio...

My point is it's better to hold a EU passport than a UAE one.

It's a power ranking. The score is based on _travel_ ability. Living and Working isn't factored into travel, because that's not the point.

There's value (and power?) to the length of stay though. It's a good starting measure to see which countries can you just hop on a plane to without a visa, but after getting off that plane, what if you want to stay for a while? The UAE passport allows 30 days in Korea or Japan, while many other visa-exempt passport holders have 90 days. The Schengen zone is a special case where the entire group of countries together allow at most 90 days every 180 days. As a tourist traveling between those countries, it would be useful to not need to leave the EU every 3 months, and go back after another 3 months.

So basically, economic power translate into geopolitical power. Or vice versa. Is there a highly developed nation that isn't ranked highly on the visa-free list?

Why is Greenland dark grey? Greenlanders are Danish citizens and get (optionally) a variant of the Danish passport with the same privileges and restrictions.

The creators of the site just don't seem to take overseas territories into account, except for the US ones. French Guiana or Réunion are grey as well for example while Hawaii and Alaska light up at the same time of the rest of the US.

That appears to be right. At a minimum a neutral color should be applied if the rank has not been assessed.

Wow, Emiratis made major gains in 2018.

Not coincidentally the bottom six positions on that list are also the countries the US and NATO decided to invade during the previous two decades.

Can't have those people you want to kill leaving the country now can you?

Not so much about leaving the country, as about knowing who from there is in your country. Most of the point of requiring a visa for entry (at this point in globalization when very few countries are ever actively at war) isn’t stopping people from entering, but rather knowing exactly who’s entering, and then being able to track them from the time they enter until the time they leave, if you feel the need to.

As well, when you don’t trust a foreign government to ensure that people only get passports for their own identity, you can’t be sure that a random person coming in with a passport from said country isn’t actually a Person of Interest. So, you require they fill out a passport-like form in your own country, and then try as best as you can to figure out if they are who their passport says they are. That’s a visa.

Pakistan is down there with them. I don't know how much higher Iraq and Afghanistan would be up the list had the US never invaded.

I also doubt Syria would be much further up the list had the US never set foot there.

Not supporting the US position, but those areas had passport and visa issues well before any US involvement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com