For example, according to the Henley Passport Index the weakest passport is from Afghanistan (not a surprise) as cizitens there can only visit 24 destinations visa free meaning they require a visa just to travel anywhere while for instance a Japanese passport holder can visit up to 187 destinations visa free making their passport strong.
Why is it that passport holders from “third world” (i.e. Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.). nations are weak, meaning they need to constantly apply for visas just to visit countries that citizens of “first world” countries can enter without a visa. (Like an American can enter Poland without a visa while a Iranian needs a visa before entering).
As in if they saw someone from a “third world” country via immigration, they either get profiled more or face discrimination at border crossings due to suspicion of overstaying or violating the terms of their visa (i.e. entering under a tourist visa but finds employment), is that why it’s difficult for immigrants from those countries to travel?
What determines passport strength? Does it relate to a nation’s diplomatic relations and political stability? Since people from the “first world” can travel to a lot more destinations (is it more on mutual trust? That nations have biases towards certain regions of the world & their reputation, like they consider Middle East as an unstable region).
It’s very much a diplomacy agreement between two country, and how likely the citizen overstaying there. Malaysia, despite having the global GDP/C rank significantly lower than USA, have a passport rank of number 3 globally, with 121 countries visa-free, while USA ranked 10, with 111 countries visa-free. And Malaysia able to enter China(and North Korea before the assassination of Kim Jong Nam) visa-free, while needing to apply an ETA for UK and Australia due to the higher than average chance of people overstaying there.
On the other spectrum, Singapore, which ranked 2, have GPD/C higher than USA. It’s not about wealth it’s about not being an asshole.