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).
The concept of property itself is flawed, but as long as it is here, this doesn’t seem too surprising. Presumably you don’t want somebody moving into your house without you approving that. It may not even be because you don’t like them, but you need to make decisions based on provisions, space, food, etc.
Immigration is pretty much that at a community / society scale. I’m not saying it is right. But if a society wants to maintain an economy suitable for them to flourish, controlling the rate of population change is a part of that.
Now, of course it actually serves as just another mechanism for the wealthy to fuck the poor, but I think this is the logic.
Why wouldn’t that logic apply to cities within the same country? You also have areas where people move away and other areas people want to go within a country, and governments just deal with that. It still works. They’re not putting up border checks and stopping people from moving into the municipality
I think the nation state borders being different has to do with nationalism and racism more than economic policy. Borders are fine for delineating jurisdiction, but when used to control where people can go, they are good old tools of oppression
That’s a good question, but I suspect it is pretty arbitrary where we choose and are able to draw these lines. But yeah, oppression is a big part of it.