So, no responses so far. It is very interesting for me, how different the world would be without such precautions, and is it possible at all – which metrics would serve as "suspicion" instead of color of your passport?
I think it is possible actually, but the world would be much less "sharing", and social care would be developed much less (like in USA some time ago, where you basically had to survive all by yourself).
As a russian, I've encountered this few times, that countries are not very happy to invite me – I have to apply for UK visa ~6 months in advance with full itinerary, and same for few other countries with strict rules. Other are easier, but still, for the "developed" world, I am at the level of some refugee. Yeah, I know, I can have 5 previous successfull visas, have few millions saved in my homeland, but as a young person, it is pretty hard – and is true discrimanation; but I understand it's roots completely and don't complain about it, it just makes me laugh how different one's possibilities could be based on random things.
To be honest, right now for immigrants outside of EU it's even worse than being a refugee. Refugees can get into EU without any documents or proof of their identity, while honest immigrants and tourists have to do ton of paperwork, proof of money, family invitation letters and stuff like that.
As a tourist I showed up in the Munich airport on a plane from the States. They stamped my passport without a pre-arranged visa and set me on the intra-continental flight to Pisa. Which countries need pre-arranged visas for tourism in the EU?
Without any border controls people would be forced to assume that anyone from outside their country was a thief or con-man looking to find some quick victims and head home.
I don't really assume people from other states are thieves or con men. I assume the same thing goes for countries in the EU with no border control between their countries.
But you don't really live in a country without borders. Within the EU doesn't count.
In a case of genuine open borders criminals can leave the state quickly to avoid punishment. Then move on to a new target country.
This doesn't happen only because no country signs an open border agreement without also setting up a legal framework to punish criminals who would try to exploit borders to escape punishment.
The reality is that there are bad actors out there and if you aren't stopping them at borders then you'll have to start watching out for them closer to home.
High trust nations are like unpatched machines. You need a firewall.
Why doesn't within the EU count? There are dramatic differences in trust and economic levels between didn't states in the EU, as well as dramatic language differences. Seems like it would be a perfect case study for a region crossing sovereign states without passports.
I'll go with Michael Savage's definition. A country is defined by language, borders, culture.
Presumably, if one demonstrates mastery of language(1) and cultural knowledge(2), he can be assumed to be a countryman.
1) This practice dates back to biblical times.
"Shibboleth": mid 17th cent.: from Hebrew šibbōleṯ ‘ear of corn,’ used as a test of nationality by its difficult pronunciation (Judg. 12:6).
2) Common example: During WW2, if a suspected spy were encountered, mastery of language and accent may not be enough to assess his status. Cultural questions were asked: Where does the NY Mets play? What's Mickey Mouse's girlfriend's name? Questions could also be about celebrities, movie stars, music, novels, etc.
Maybe it's nitpicking but the shibboleth was used to differentiate between members of different tribes of the same people involved in what amounted to a civil war. It is useless for distinguishing between speakers of different languages.
No, that's a good point. My intention was to use it as an example of distinguishing regional dialects, accents, etc. but also native speakers from second-language speakers.
Page is 503ing for me, which is probably why there are few responses.
The development of the passport was more or less inevitable. Internal state-issued identification is a necessity at least for the right to vote if not also many domestic services from law enforcement (show us ID so we can ensure there isn't a warrant out for your arrest) to healthcare (show us ID so we can look up your health history, allergies, etc). The passport is merely a very-limited global standard for such identification.
What's interesting (and regrettable) is that these issues and restrictions are not a reflection of you as an individual but rather your government, their policies and behavior as well as political push-pull around the world.
We, as individuals, are not judged as such but rather as members of the "tribe" we accidentally belong to, whether we agree with the leadership or not or have any part whatsoever in their conduct.
Not only your government but also your fellow citizens. Especially them, as this makes it harder to distinguish you from the tribe. It is even more regretful that it only takes few of them to spoil the impression.
I think it is possible actually, but the world would be much less "sharing", and social care would be developed much less (like in USA some time ago, where you basically had to survive all by yourself).
As a russian, I've encountered this few times, that countries are not very happy to invite me – I have to apply for UK visa ~6 months in advance with full itinerary, and same for few other countries with strict rules. Other are easier, but still, for the "developed" world, I am at the level of some refugee. Yeah, I know, I can have 5 previous successfull visas, have few millions saved in my homeland, but as a young person, it is pretty hard – and is true discrimanation; but I understand it's roots completely and don't complain about it, it just makes me laugh how different one's possibilities could be based on random things.