Hacker News Reader

Comment by capableweb | Hacker News Reader

> Americans used to have one of the most prized passports in the world, considered a golden ticket to wealth, travel and opportunity.

What? This is not at all true. Maybe that's a belief that many Americans have, but the US passport is not one of the most prized passports in the world, there are about 30 other country's passport I'd rather have before having a US one, if you're talking about getting access to other countries with/without requiring a visa. A quick check of any of the "passport indexes" (Henley Passport Index, Arton Capital Passport Index) will show you that the US passport is fairly low ranked compared to the top ones.

Hard to take the rest of the article serious when it starts out with a serious flaw in the reasoning.

View on HN

>but the US passport is not one of the most prized passports in the world

Henley Passport Index ranks the US at #7, by a reasonable definition of "one of the most prized", I'd say #7 counts.

#1 Japan only has access to 6 more countries visa free than the US does.

Edit: The US was ranked #1 in 2006, went down to #7 by 2010, and then was back up to #1 in 2014. We're talking swinging between 185 countries with visa free access and 191 countries here, so the top 10 positions change frequently.

To add to this, most of the additional countries aren't really umm... worth traveling to, at least for most people. I compared against germany, and the additional countries are:

    Myanmar
    Pakistan
    Vietnam
    Venezuela
    Iran
    Turkey

I'm sure those countries have interesting places to go to and the people there are nice, but they're not exactly on the top of most tourists' list when it comes to destinations.

edit: not sure what the downvotes are about. maybe hn thinks that all countries are equal, and thinking otherwise is racist?

According to this list, Turkey ranks 6th in tourist destinations worldwide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings#Most_vi...

I think the operative metric is how it would rank for US passport holders in a world where the us passport was entirely unrestricted. I.e. how much is the typical US passport holder losing out compared to their ideal preferences. I think the parent's point is accurate by that metric. I doubt that many Americans urgently desire to travel there compared to most other places. I would actually quibble more with Vietnam -- it seems like a fantastic tourist destination, similar in many respects to Thailand.

gruez said the countries on the list are “not worth travelling to“ and “not exactly on the top of most tourists’ list”, but if Turkey is the 6th most popular tourist destination in the world that’s obviously not true

I agree that person's way of expressing their opinion was inelegant. But I'm trying to cut through to something true that they might have meant by what they said.

>gruez said the countries on the list are “not worth travelling to“

correction: "most of the countries", and "at least for most people". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23977923

Vietnam and Turkey are actually very nice.

Maybe you should examine your assumptions.

Turkey is a very popular destination for Danish people.

I, for one, would very much like to visit Venezuela and Vietnam.

Turkey is a pretty popular tourist destination - good climate and one of the worlds most ancient civilizations.

> To add to this, most of the additional countries aren't really umm... worth traveling to, at least for most people.

This is a quite unfortunate attitude to have. Every country I've been to has something to offer, has helped me gain perspective and empathy with other people and has been "worth" traveling to.

I feel like you fixated on that part of the sentence and ignored the first part:

>I'm sure those countries have interesting places to go to and the people there are nice

The reality is that for most people, their time and money budgets are constrained, and they're optimizing for more than just "gaining perspective and empathy" (eg. they might just want to party/relax). As such, those countries are low on most people's list.

> they're not exactly on the top of most tourists' list

Turkey is the #6 most visited country in the world, and Vietnam is also a popular tourist destination (#27 on the first list I found).

I'm not going to argue with most of that list but Vietnam is absolutely a growing tourist destination, with over 18 million international visitors in 2019[1] and nearly beating India in 2018[2].

It is particularly popular with Chinese visitors lately but also historically with the "Gap Year" backpackers from Europe who travel around Asia.

Incidentally it is a beautiful and incredibly friendly country and I highly recommend it.

[1] http7 s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Vietnam#Tourism_statistics

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings

Vietnam and Turkey are not worthwhile? And then goes the cliché about Americans...

Pakistan was Condé Nast Traveller's best holiday destination for 2020.

Source: https://www.cntraveller.com/gallery/best-holiday-destination...

Vietnam and Turkey has tons of tourism.

> not sure what the downvotes are about. maybe hn thinks that all countries are equal, and thinking otherwise is racist?

Downvotes are because you assumed certain countries are "not worth traveling to", when some of them consistently rank as fairly popular tourist destinations.

I said most of the countries, not all of them. In particular, Pakistan, Venezuela, Iran have "Reconsider Travel" or "Do Not Travel" on the state dept's website. Myanmar has "exercise caution" advisory, with certain regions having civil unrest.

I'd love to travel to Pasargadae and Persepolis in Iran and Çatalhöyük, Ḫattuša, and the Hagia Sophia in Turkey. In fact, I'm likely to travel to Turkey when this pandemic is over and Iran if relations ever improve to the point where my American passport doesn't paint a target on my back.

American here, I've been to a number of the countries on that list that you say are not "worth traveling to," along with many other countries that you think are probably worth traveling to. I've really enjoyed the ones to which I've traveled and plan to go back. I won't pile on with the top tourist destinations, but check out the other responses for those, I'm just providing an anecdotal response from a tech worker.

> edit: not sure what the downvotes are about. maybe hn thinks that all countries are equal, and thinking otherwise is racist?

Your edit is bad by the way and a gross mischaracterization.

>American here, I've been to a number of the countries on that list that you say are not "worth traveling to,"

>Your edit is bad by the way and a gross mischaracterization.

Ironically your comment is also a mischaracterization. I never claimed that all of the countries on the list weren't worth going to. In addition, in the edit I was posing a question rather than making a statement.

> most of the additional countries aren't really umm... worth traveling to

> not sure what the downvotes are about. maybe hn thinks that all countries are equal, and thinking otherwise is racist?

You dismiss these countries as not worth traveling to, and seriously can't comprehend why you were downvoted? Wow some people just completely lack awareness.

Rudeness of such a statement aside, I've been to Vietnam and Turkey and they are fantastic countries. I would absolutely love to visit Myanmar and Iran as I've heard fantastic things. I've heard good things about Pakistan as well. Venezuela of course is unfortunately dangerous to travel to right now, but it is a beautiful country.

In any case, dismissing a country you know nothing about as "not worth traveling to" is rude and uncultured at best.

Yeah, "Rank Group" #7 but actual position 17, so not even in the top ten. I'd say "one of the most prized" should at least be in the top ten, if not in the top three, to actually be "most prized".

But since we don't agree on that, I guess agree to disagree.

And we should not underestimate the amount of trouble US citizens have due to FATCA, etc.

In Europe, many banks and insurers will turn them down as customers.

Indeed, that even impacts French citizens who were born in the US but have never been there since then. And apparently it's a huge pain in the ass.

Out of 200 odd passports you could have, top 10% is definitely a reasonable definition of most prized. Particularly when the difference is so insignificant.

The vehemence of your disagreement in the original post vastly exceeds what one would expect if you were merely stating that you don't think that one of the most prized should only mean top 10.

The US has 15 countries head of it. Most by 1 or 2 countries. Unless you specifically want to visit one of those 1 or 2 countries the difference is irrelevant. Compared to Sweden the US misses out on Vietnam and Turkey, but gains access to Mongolia.

These numbers could change at any time. So basing your passport decision on such a minute and frequently changing number is ridiculous.

By the way the US is actively working to develop a better relationship with Vietnam--my brother went there on a diplomatic/military relations visit a few years ago, and 90% of Vietnamese have a positive view of the US. It's very likely that sometime in the next year we gain Visa free access.

All countries with the same number of visa-free access get the same rank group in Henley index, so actual position is irrelevant.

If you check the webpage it shows South Korea above Germany, if you download the pdf on the webpage it shows Germany above South Korea. But in reality doesn't matter since it's a tie with both being in the same rank group.

Again, you and OP seem to be talking about 2 different time periods. What does the historical (OPs time frame) rather than the present (your time frame) look like in terms of passport position? What there a time since 1776 (or whenever passports became a thing) that the US passport was in the top 10?

> What there a time since 1776 (or whenever passports became a thing) that the US passport was in the top 10?

Yes in 2006 and 2014 it was #1. The numbers fluctuate every year because the difference between #1 and #20 is only 7 countries.

It's a shame hacker news has gotten this political as of late. They're likely going to have to go with the lock comments strategy much of reddit has to do, or just allow each thread to blow up into wild America hate like this.

6 less countries than the number one country, and you get these comments about how "the US hasn't been a sought after passport for years" when the US was number one just 6 years ago, and even now it's a better passport than 170 countries, with the ones you can't get into basically rubber stamps if you do apply.

And the full extent of it isn't obvious, because I've seen a lot of intensely political submissions get hundreds of upvotes flung at them before they're flagged within the hour. A lot of normally reasonable people have simply decided that they're cool with flamebait and chucking insults. And I'm not sure whether moderators can maintain a good intellectual environment when the userbase is willing to tolerate a bad one.

I'm not American but you're off-base here. Sure, if you already have another western passport an American passport may not buy you much. But if you go to Asia or Africa, you'll find that an American passport is still the Holy Grail; certainly "one of the most prized" as the article says.

And, BTW, if you're poor (like most of the world!), the mobility offered by a passport matters little in the short term; it's the economic mobility a new nationality gives you.

Besides, those passport indexes are ridiculous -- they rank them by number of countries you can access. But let's be real -- would you prefer an Emerati passport to an American one because you get a visa-on-arrival in Liberia or similar places? Insane.

Africa and Asia are not countries. As I understand it, American tourists in Egypt are treated like shit, but Italians are welcomed with open arms. Source: a friend who holds both passports (born in US to Italian citizens) whose family vacations in Egypt.

Also, the US is one of the few countries where long-term minded people can move, have a kid, and then their kid will have a US passport. That is not true for most of the world, and is certainly not true for other "prized passports".

Also – doesn’t the US passport mean you have to pay (or at least declare) taxes on your non-US income back to the IRS? That doesn’t seem desirable.

An EU passport would vastly outrank the US passport in terms of economic opportunity because it gives you the right to live and work anywhere in the EU without a visa or much paperwork.

Only after the first $100,000. I don't see a big problem with this either.

> An EU passport would vastly outrank the US passport in terms of economic opportunity

Extremely debatable, even more so with using the term "vastly".

Come to live in Switzerland and then you will understand why the US embassy here has the highest US citizenship renunciation in the world...

Switzerland isn't part of the EU.

yes but Switzerland has freedom of movement with EU, meaning that EU passport holder can freely settle in CH or Swiss passport holder in EU...

I'm not sure what that metric is supposed to prove? That Switzerland has a higher number of rich US expats who want to avoid paying US taxes than other countries do?

It's very difficult to get Swiss citizenship in the first place, so it makes sense that it's mostly well off US citizens who are able to get Swiss citizenship, and are thus able to renounce their US citizenship.

@learc83 it just shows that when you have a dual citizenship (US- CH or European one) the IRS issue is a real problem in a country where the median salary is just under 85k$ per year (no need to be a rich guy). The point is a US passport is great to live in the US, that's it. (personally know 3 ex US citizen that where tired to pay a US accountant when they already had to go through Swiss tax system).

>The point is a US passport is great to live in the US, that's it.

Yes assuming you never want to work or live in the US, compared to a Swiss passport and a handful of other passports that's true. Compared to 90% of countries on the planet, it's not true.

>the IRS issue is a real problem in a country where the median salary is just under 85k$ per year (no need to be a rich guy).

How many dual US and Swiss citizens are making under under or anywhere near the median income? It's very hard to migrate to Switzerland, so my guess is not many.

A median is a median... and if you are a married couple very easily. But it is also the case if you have a EU-US dual citizenship. So in fact that's a lot of person. Also it's not that complicated to migrate to Switzerland is you are an American with a EU passport (get an Italian passport if one of your grand-parents was Italian and bingo), and that's the case of a lot of people.

In Switzerland every year between 500-700 people renounce their US citizenship... so at least a few.

>A median is a median

>in a country where the median salary is just under 85k$ per year

If $85k is the median salary for the country, that says nothing about the median salary of US expats in the country.

> But it is also the case if you have a EU-US dual citizenship

How is that relevant when we were taking about people with US and Swiss citizenship?

>Also it's not that complicated to migrate to Switzerland is you are an American with a EU passport (get an Italian passport if one of your grand-parents was Italian and bingo),

It's not that hard, you just need to have an Italian Grandparent, go through the process (which can take years depending on where you live), move to Switzerland, find a job, then live there for 10 years.

>How is that relevant when we were taking about people with US and Swiss citizenship?

It is relevant because if you are for instance a FR-US dual citizen (because for instance you were born in the US while your parents were working there as an expat for a few years), you can freely settle in Switzerland (CH-EU free movement agreement). In any cases you have to do your IRS stuff whatever the amount you are earning so this is already a problem and if you work in IT you salary will easily get over 100k which potentially trigger amount to pay (even with the high tax rate of CH). My colleague in front of me, was a US citizen because he was in this exact situation, and was tired of all the paperwork required by his US citizenship (and the fact that all the banks were considering him as a liability). So if you don't intend to live in the US, having a US citizenship is a problem for a lot of people, and if you have to pay for it, it becomes a burden (including all UE/CH-US dual citizen living in CH).

Anyway all of this to say that about 25% of the worldwide US renunciation are taking place in CH, so this figure alone prove that this is a problem in this country.

My American colleagues living in London tend to disagree with you. It’s easy to accept the additional taxation when it’s not happening to you. When Uncle Sam is picking your pocket and giving little back in return, it’s a different story.

So surely you sympathize with those living in the U.S. who feel the same way?

I do sympathise with people who are unhappy about being taxed by a government of a country they do not live in.

I do not sympathise with people who are unhappy about being taxed by the government of the country they do live in.

EDIT: That's not to say I love the rate at which I get taxed at, but everyone around you is subject to the same rules, and so you're preaching (complaining) to the choir.

Immigrants suffering double taxation, both by the nation they live in, and the nation they're a citizen of, strikes me as massively unfair by comparison.

I think many people would argue they are paying taxes and not getting much in return.

There are probably very few people immigrants making over $100,000 as well. It probably keeps people from making a bunch of money off of US-based businesses and then skating off to Vietnam or something.

But this introduces a huge pain and expense of preparing US taxes every year even if you live abroad and don't step foot on US soil. Additionally, tons of foreign banks won't let you set up accounts even if you live in their country due to FATCA reporting requirements for US citizens.

Finally, on a more conceptual level, is it fair that US citizens have to pay taxes where they get nothing in return? Especially when no other developed country has citizenship-based taxation?

If a US citizen gets nothing in return for their taxes why would anyone want the citizenship?

> "An EU passport would vastly outrank the US passport in terms of economic opportunity"

EU GDP: $18.29 Trillion

US GDP: $20.54 Trillion

And that's before factoring in per capita differences, which tip the scales even farther to the US.

Moving around the EU is now as easy as moving around the US, so congrats I guess?

I'd hardly call visa-free access to 6 fewer countries (185 vs 191) as "fairly low ranking".

I actually went through the list to see what the differences were in terms of access between Japan (the top ranking passport right now) and the US passport. These are ignoring any COVID related temporary closures.

A Japanese passport will get you into the following countries visa-free that the US passport won't:

- China

- India

- Myanmar

- Pakistan

- Vietnam

- Suriname

- Venezuela

- Azerbaijan

- Iran

- Turkey

A US passport will get you into the following countries visa-free that the Japanese passport won't:

- Burkina Faso

- Central African Republic

To be honest, nearly all of the above make sense

- US-China relations are bad

- The US middle-eastern wars have pissed off:

  - Pakistan

  - Azerbaijan

  - Iran

  - Turkey

- The US currently has sanctions against Venezuela

I am a little surprised about India, Myanmar, Suriname, and Vietnam. However, it doesn't appear that European passports will get you into India visa-free either.

>US-China relations are bad

That's true although going back over 10 years (and I'm sure before) at least getting a Chinese business visa has been a bit of a pain--not really difficult but a bunch of paperwork. On the plus side, as of a few years ago, you could get a 10-year visa.

And India was just a bureaucratic mess. I ended up canceling two different business trips to India because I couldn't get a visa in the necessary window. My understanding is that in normal now there's visa on arrival.

You have not seen the difference in how bureaucratic problems are solved with US passport and any other.

Hey there internet stranger, rather than assuming how other strangers life are, why don't you ask?

I do know how bureaucratic issues are handled (with my own experience) by using three different passport at different times of my life, one of them being with a US passport.

Is there anything in particular you're thinking about that I can help share my experience regarding?

You are welcome to go forward and share any relevant experience

Isn't the US the country that has the most immigrants per year?

https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/wmr_2020.pdf

"The most striking feature of the main migration corridors within and from the region (figure 22 is the dominance of the United States as the main country of destination. Most of the corridors in 2019 were to the United States,"

Most immigrants don't know or care about things like Henley Passport Index.

Access to all countries are weighted equally in these passport indexes. So I would say they are flawed.

I would prefer a passport that gives me access to say Switzerland rather than North Korea (but they will count same in all the passport indices).

These indices are vanity numbers (just like number of lines of code or number of papers published for an academic)

> Americans used to have

> the US passport is not

You and the comment you are replying to seem to be discussing two different time periods, perhaps separated by a century or more.

Used to. Like 30-40 years ago.

No, the article is mentioning that the "downfall" is because of "the onset of COVID-19", mentioned later in the article. Although 30-40 years ago is probably closer to when the US passport lost its power in reality.

I would put it at pre-Korean war. So, about 70 years ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com