No visa required(economist.com)
economist.com
No visa required
http://www.economist.com/node/16885221
80 comments
As an American in China, you have no idea how many times I've envied the Singaporeans. China goes out of its way to gouge Americans for visas - a visa costs about $150 for us, maybe $30 for a Canadian or European.
I'm told visas are about equally expensive for Chinese entering the US (although the US does a much more thorough background check to ensure the Chinese person has consistently had a good job with regular income), so I guess the feeling between the 2 governments is mutual.
The visas for foreigners here are also of relatively low quality - they have a short duration. And the rules about what a person can obtain are constantly changing. I've spent so much time, effort, and money dealing with visa issues, I've really contemplated marrying my Chinese girlfriend. We're not really ready to get married from a relationship perspective, but we're both pragmatists and it would save us money and headaches.
I'm told visas are about equally expensive for Chinese entering the US (although the US does a much more thorough background check to ensure the Chinese person has consistently had a good job with regular income), so I guess the feeling between the 2 governments is mutual.
The visas for foreigners here are also of relatively low quality - they have a short duration. And the rules about what a person can obtain are constantly changing. I've spent so much time, effort, and money dealing with visa issues, I've really contemplated marrying my Chinese girlfriend. We're not really ready to get married from a relationship perspective, but we're both pragmatists and it would save us money and headaches.
Yeah, tell me about it. I spent a small fortune on my multiple entry L visa in HK, and it was only good for a month at a time-- not quite enough time to get my long term residence visa. Worse yet, getting a simple extension while the paperwork goes through is more expensive than just hopping on a train and leaving the country only to re-enter it again. What a waste of my time, of space on the train and of fuel. And for what?
If only it wasn't a single citizenship country :(
This is a rare occasion - Britain at the top of a chart that's measuring something good! I suspect the scope and influence of the empire might be what just pushes us over the top, though I guess that doesn't explain Denmark too well.
I'd also suspect that another reason is that immigration from Britain was never really an issue anywhere at any point in the history, so there was no reason to limit travel rights of British persons. After all, it was always a modern, industrialized country with English-speaking population, and mostly white (which unfortunately mattered in less enlightened times, not even too long ago).
Overpopulation was actually a major problem for Britain for most of its history, (hence the continent-sized penal colony in Australia.)
It was just that British immigrants had the nasty habit of overthrowing the government in their new homes.
It was just that British immigrants had the nasty habit of overthrowing the government in their new homes.
> continent-sized penal colony in Australian
Highly inaccurate.
Accurate : 4 or small 5 penal settlements in a vastly empty continent with only a few hundred thousand native inhabitants started the colonies of Australia. The main reasons for convict settlement in Australia were (a) the loss of the USA in the revolutionary war and, as such, the need for new colonial holdings to offset this loss, and (b) the need to establish a permanent settlement on the continent to cement the claim made 18 years earlier by Captain Cook. It's a little known fact that a French expeditionary force also landed in modern-day Sydney the day after the 'first fleet' landed and erected the Union Jack.
Tiny numbers of convicts (164,000) were transported over a 80 year period from 1788. This is against estimates of the England/Wales population of 8.5 million people, and you can see that transportation wasn't really a useful way of reducing the English population - certainly not as such a great expense when execution was just as effective and a whole lot cheaper (and regularly handed out by magistrates)
Also compare the convict numbers to numbers of people arriving for the Gold rush - 370,000 in 1852 alone - and you can see that while Convicts make for a great story, they really aren't a large part of the story.
So the true story of Australia was that it's foundation as a European colony were more to do with establishing new colonies after the loss of the revolutionary war than it was in reducing english population. The shipping of convicts merely met two aims simultaneously : establishing a colony with forced labour and removing the eyesore prison hulks being used as prisons. It didn't meaningfully help in reducing the overpopulation or unemployment in England. That was eventually solved by free immigration in large numbers to both Australia and the USA/Canada.
Highly inaccurate.
Accurate : 4 or small 5 penal settlements in a vastly empty continent with only a few hundred thousand native inhabitants started the colonies of Australia. The main reasons for convict settlement in Australia were (a) the loss of the USA in the revolutionary war and, as such, the need for new colonial holdings to offset this loss, and (b) the need to establish a permanent settlement on the continent to cement the claim made 18 years earlier by Captain Cook. It's a little known fact that a French expeditionary force also landed in modern-day Sydney the day after the 'first fleet' landed and erected the Union Jack.
Tiny numbers of convicts (164,000) were transported over a 80 year period from 1788. This is against estimates of the England/Wales population of 8.5 million people, and you can see that transportation wasn't really a useful way of reducing the English population - certainly not as such a great expense when execution was just as effective and a whole lot cheaper (and regularly handed out by magistrates)
Also compare the convict numbers to numbers of people arriving for the Gold rush - 370,000 in 1852 alone - and you can see that while Convicts make for a great story, they really aren't a large part of the story.
So the true story of Australia was that it's foundation as a European colony were more to do with establishing new colonies after the loss of the revolutionary war than it was in reducing english population. The shipping of convicts merely met two aims simultaneously : establishing a colony with forced labour and removing the eyesore prison hulks being used as prisons. It didn't meaningfully help in reducing the overpopulation or unemployment in England. That was eventually solved by free immigration in large numbers to both Australia and the USA/Canada.
It was just that British immigrants had the nasty habit of overthrowing the government in their new homes.
How many countries did that happen in?
How many countries did that happen in?
If you count native populations as the local government, then basically every single colony England setup.
The U.S. itself. Indirectly, Texas and California. Rhodesia.
Any others?
Any others?
Bengal. If you count Texas and California, then Hawaii as well.
Of course, if you compare the British to other colonial powers, they also did a significant amount to preserve the local culture, even when assuming sovereign power from the local states.
Of course, if you compare the British to other colonial powers, they also did a significant amount to preserve the local culture, even when assuming sovereign power from the local states.
[deleted]
And this is only number of countries - it doesn't weight them by importance.
So being able to travel to a dozen tiny Caribbean islands offsets not being abke to go visa free to India or china.
Also visa free doesn't mean much - europeans can go to the US without a Visa, you just need to register online in advance, provide all your details and have the airline supply the details of all the other flights you take, your credit card numbers and what kind of meal you had - but no actual visa
Also visa free doesn't mean much - europeans can go to the US without a Visa, you just need to register online in advance, provide all your details and have the airline supply the details of all the other flights you take, your credit card numbers and what kind of meal you had - but no actual visa
Not all Europeans can go to the US without a Visa. Romanians stills have to apply for a visa and I think that Bulgarians too.
Indeed, and this is also true for non-EU Europeans.
My point was that:
You don't need a visa, a visa is a form you have to fill in before they allow you in the country.
Instead you just have to fill in these other bunch of forms before they allow you in without a visa.
You don't need a visa, a visa is a form you have to fill in before they allow you in the country.
Instead you just have to fill in these other bunch of forms before they allow you in without a visa.
I guess the difference is that in one case they have to explicitly allow you in -- by issuing the visa. And in the other case, they have to explicitly not let you in (presumably by stopping you at the airport before boarding?).
The new US online form authorizes you before you go - can't see how that is different from a visa.
Yes in that case it is not. They are just saving you a trip to the embassy and $100+.
The website with the original data is quite confusing, but as far as I understand the UK is only number one since this year. In 2008 and 2009 it was still number 6.
Initially I also thought it must have to do with the empire/commonwealth, but this makes it seem less likely. And yes, why Denmark? It was number one since 2006!
Initially I also thought it must have to do with the empire/commonwealth, but this makes it seem less likely. And yes, why Denmark? It was number one since 2006!
[deleted]
As a US citizen, it's wonderful getting into other countries with so little hassle.
The only annoying part is getting back into the US.
The only annoying part is getting back into the US.
Going to the US is so bad an experience that I now choose not to. If I have to go to North America I arrange for it to be in Canada, and if I don't have to go then London does just fine. I personally feel that the experience is that bad, and that I have a choice.
When are you in a situation where you "have to go to North America", but where it still makes sense to choose Canada instead of the US?
When I have meetings with multiple NA-based people who are already spread out and already have to fly to one place.
We used to do Seattle, Chicago or NYC. Now we nearly always do Toronto, and occasionally Vancouver. No-one objects to my having set the location north of the border, and the Hong Kong attendee greatly prefers it too (for the same reason, though he has extra hassle at immigration).
Speaking of Toronto, there's a ridiculously good restaurant there. One worthy of saving up for months in advance... North 44. If you get the chance go.
We used to do Seattle, Chicago or NYC. Now we nearly always do Toronto, and occasionally Vancouver. No-one objects to my having set the location north of the border, and the Hong Kong attendee greatly prefers it too (for the same reason, though he has extra hassle at immigration).
Speaking of Toronto, there's a ridiculously good restaurant there. One worthy of saving up for months in advance... North 44. If you get the chance go.
Flights from central america to europe often have connecting flights in the US - and, unlike Canada and most of the rest of the world, the US requires people to pass through US Customs & Immigration to change airplanes.
In the rest of the world - you simply stay in the secure international area of the airport, and never have to deal with customs & immigration until you land in your destination.
In the rest of the world - you simply stay in the secure international area of the airport, and never have to deal with customs & immigration until you land in your destination.
I have to agree with this. Landing in the US on an international flight is always the worst part of the trip.
1. Taking so long to get my bags, then getting them re-scanned, that I miss/almost miss the connector
and/or
2. answering 20 questions to the customs officer
1. Taking so long to get my bags, then getting them re-scanned, that I miss/almost miss the connector
and/or
2. answering 20 questions to the customs officer
I've had part 2 vary a lot, from being interrogated by a suspicious customs officer, to being asked one or two half-assed questions by a very bored one.
so true and that's the USC/Permanent resident line, how about that visitors line...
That actually varies as well. Typically one would expect the USC line to always go much faster, and it usually does, but sometime a flight is just full of USC/PR passangers and not many visitors, so you get the opposite effect (happened to me twice).
Also now they fingerprint and photograph permanent residents. So what used to be "Hello!" + 2 questions now is "Hello!" + 5 questions + fingerprinting + photographing.
But, hey we all feel safer, right !?
Also now they fingerprint and photograph permanent residents. So what used to be "Hello!" + 2 questions now is "Hello!" + 5 questions + fingerprinting + photographing.
But, hey we all feel safer, right !?
really? i haven't had much of a problem (edit: or rather, not much more of a problem than the process required to enter in the other country). but i've also never had much to declare, either.
I haven't traveled that extensively, but every time I've entered a Schengen country with nothing to declare, I've been able to walk right in after getting my passport stamped.
Every time I've returned to the US, however, I've had to go through an exhaustive baggage screening and pat-down before I could even board the plane, and then stand in line for half an hour in Immigration once I got back, filling out an entire form to declare that I have nothing to declare, and answering random identity-verifying questions from an immigration officer. I feel tired and uncomfortable just thinking about it.
Every time I've returned to the US, however, I've had to go through an exhaustive baggage screening and pat-down before I could even board the plane, and then stand in line for half an hour in Immigration once I got back, filling out an entire form to declare that I have nothing to declare, and answering random identity-verifying questions from an immigration officer. I feel tired and uncomfortable just thinking about it.
I'm one of those lucky people that is apparently innocent-looking enough that I never get messed with by customs. And I've been through lots of weird customs checkpoints.
Returning to the US you have to fill out that annoying form on the plane but other than that it's just a rubber stamp
Returning to the US you have to fill out that annoying form on the plane but other than that it's just a rubber stamp
China is similar. I had to act like I was entering the country and leaving right after just for a transfer flight/layover. They're the only place that detected the belt buckle and cared about shaving razors.
i haven't either, but my experiences were actually the opposite.
i usually get searched when entering a foreign country because i have snacks on me or something. i usually have very little hassle when returning to the US, never been searched (knock on wood).
i usually get searched when entering a foreign country because i have snacks on me or something. i usually have very little hassle when returning to the US, never been searched (knock on wood).
Experience getting back into us after a vacation during financial meltdown of 2008-2009
Immigration "officer": Are you sure you still have your job at the bank.
Me: yes
Immigration "officer": If that turns out to be false we will kick you out like dogs
Immigration "officer": Are you sure you still have your job at the bank.
Me: yes
Immigration "officer": If that turns out to be false we will kick you out like dogs
Returning from Oslo, Norway
Immigration officer: Why were you visiting Norway?
Me: I was there visiting some friends.
Immigration officer: Why do you have friends in another country, sir?
The sad part is. There is nothing you can say to that. You cannot argue with them. The best you can do is not say anything and take his abuse.
For a country that generally does a great job of customer service the experience you get as a foreigner entering the place is awful.
I just recently returned to the US and for the first time got to go through the citizen's/residents line (Green card holder), and the difference between the two was unbelievable. This time round, the queues were a fraction of the size, the immigration officers were friendly (as opposed to being outright rude to visitors) and the whole process was incredibly simple and quick. The difference is striking, and I'm certain it's not just me - visiting family always complain about how long immigration takes.
This doesn't jibe with my experience as a Canadian H1B visa holder who's flown into the US over a dozen times over the past 6 years. I've never found US customs agents to be rude; they are always courteous and often friendly. FWIW I usually fly into LAX so I wonder if your experience differs depending on where you enter.
Does anyone know where I can get the raw data they used to generate this? (Preferably in a format I can slice and dice programmaticly)
I'd be interested to see the converse as well - the countries that let the most other countries' citizens in without passports.
It'd be even more interesting to see these 2 plotted next to each other. Countries you can go to without a visa V/s Citizens of countries that you let in without a visa.
I wish we could go further than this. During the UK elections, I hated hearing the anti-immigration rhetoric from all sides. Where is the party offering more free movement of people?
We employ people from all corners of the globe here in the UK and hate the visa hurdles. We opened our US subsidiary in February and had to jump through all kinds of hurdles and pay lots of legal fees to set up a company that already employs 6 Americans.
I think if there was a way of limiting social benefits until you had proved you planned to contribute then unlimited economic migration would greatly help entrepreneurship.
We employ people from all corners of the globe here in the UK and hate the visa hurdles. We opened our US subsidiary in February and had to jump through all kinds of hurdles and pay lots of legal fees to set up a company that already employs 6 Americans.
I think if there was a way of limiting social benefits until you had proved you planned to contribute then unlimited economic migration would greatly help entrepreneurship.
People throughout the political spectrum conflate legal and illegal immigrants for their own agendas. But they are two entirely disparate groups.
I think if there was a way of limiting social benefits until you had proved you planned to contribute
That should apply to "locals" as well!
I think if there was a way of limiting social benefits until you had proved you planned to contribute
That should apply to "locals" as well!
I think if I ever tried to get Italian citizenship in addition to US, it might be to get a passport that would let me go some places more unobtrusively. Not that I'm much of a traveler though... so it's not high on my list.
I received my italian citizenship a few weeks ago, still need to go tet the passport :)
[deleted]
As an Indian, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at India's place in that chart.
There's a couple of things that surprise me.
First, all the countries in the Schengen treaty I think end up with the same score. Indeed France, Germany and Italy do. I would imagine many more do too (e.g. Spain). It seemed like it would have been a better label.
On the other hand I am surprised that Denmark got more.. .and it is kind of a counterexample to my first point. Isn't Denmark in the Schengen treaty too? Where else can they go than Germany/French/Italians can't?
First, all the countries in the Schengen treaty I think end up with the same score. Indeed France, Germany and Italy do. I would imagine many more do too (e.g. Spain). It seemed like it would have been a better label.
On the other hand I am surprised that Denmark got more.. .and it is kind of a counterexample to my first point. Isn't Denmark in the Schengen treaty too? Where else can they go than Germany/French/Italians can't?
No. The Schengen treaty affects (maybe not that strictly) visa policies for the member states in the way that all the members are expected to have the same visa requirements (that's quite logical).
There are only some old EU15 members listed, but not a single country from the 2004 extension, nor Bulgaria and Romania. I live in the Czech republic, which has some kind of non-visa agreement with the USA (ESTA?), something much simpler and easier than regular visas, but you still need some kind of stamp. In fact, there was a discussion about this and how should be our EU membership leveraged in order to get a better position, but there weren't much of a agreement. I believe that old EU states (Great Britain first) weren't happy about the fact that there should be some common policy.
(Indeed, Schengen isn't equal to EU, it isn't even a subset of it, there are non-EU countries included, and some EU states aren't members (Great Britain). But there isn't any common policy, both EU and schengen-wide.)
There are only some old EU15 members listed, but not a single country from the 2004 extension, nor Bulgaria and Romania. I live in the Czech republic, which has some kind of non-visa agreement with the USA (ESTA?), something much simpler and easier than regular visas, but you still need some kind of stamp. In fact, there was a discussion about this and how should be our EU membership leveraged in order to get a better position, but there weren't much of a agreement. I believe that old EU states (Great Britain first) weren't happy about the fact that there should be some common policy.
(Indeed, Schengen isn't equal to EU, it isn't even a subset of it, there are non-EU countries included, and some EU states aren't members (Great Britain). But there isn't any common policy, both EU and schengen-wide.)
Denmark is a member of Schengen, but we also have deals with Sweden and Norway that doesn't even require passports to get there, and I don't imagine I would need a passport to go visit Iceland either.
denmark, sweden, norway, and iceland are all members of the schengen...
Don't forget Greenland or the Faroe Islands
Both of which are actually parts of Denmark, having some level of autonomy.
I don't think there's anything stopping Schengen countries negotiating better travel conditions for their citizens. It's the Visa situation for travelling to visit the entire Schengen area that's homogenised. Working visas etc. are yet another matter.
It's a measurement of how likely it is that a citizen in a country want to become an illegal immigrant elsewhere. The small, "nice", western european welfare states have always scored very high on this for a long time.
It's almost impossible for someone with a decent job in Afghanistan (or a similar country) to get a tourist visa to the US or to Europe. The first problem is to afford the flight ticket. The second an more important problem is to get a tourist visa. They always assume you want to stay and work.
I remember when I first crossed German-French border without even a passport check. There was just a flag post. That was a great moment.
Anyway, I wonder how Switzerland would rate on this list!
Anyway, I wonder how Switzerland would rate on this list!
Switzerland has 156 countries (rank 10)
The full list is at http://www.henleyglobal.com/citizenship/visa-restrictions/
The full list is at http://www.henleyglobal.com/citizenship/visa-restrictions/
Switzerland is fairly obnoxious towards immigrants tho' (e.g. it is pretty much impossible to naturalize as Swiss). It should be rights be difficult for Swiss to travel anywhere. I expect their private banking industry is what opens the doors...
Exactly what about the swiss naturalization process makes it "pretty much impossible" and what is obnoxious about it? There is a residency requirement, a language fluency requirement, and you have to show that you have integrated in swiss society. It's not an easy process compared to many other countries, but also not impossible.
It depends greatly on the area, but some parts of Switzerland have a requirement that all new citizenships must be approved by a local referendum. I'm not aware of many other countries where to get citizenship, the municipality you live in has to approve it in a popular vote.
I fail to see what traveling has to do with immigration. They're different things.
Was that back in 39?
Its great that Britons can travel the world hassle free - must be the remnants of the empire. However, what really matters to people is the opportunity to work and live in a foreign country. I am a Briton living in the US and the difficulty it takes to come to the US is astounding. I had a relatively easy ride but for some the road is long.
Malaysia is right up there! I am Malaysian and I am surprised. In 1993 I had to apply for a visa to visit France, which gave me the impression that it's difficult for Malaysians to travel. (I've only been to China since then.)
it's not only the countries you travel visa-free to, it's also how they treat you once you're there... i once traveled through italy with an american friend and was surprised at the hassle they made of the border crossing of a nighttrain simply due to his passport... i was able to sleep on and he had to answer questions this was back in 2000. at the same time consider countries like syria where an american passport might not be as nice as an EU one.
I was hoping this was going to be a measure of how easy it was to obtain a work visa in these countries, in which case I would expect the US to rank near the bottom...
[deleted]
damn, why Denmark?? quite surprising...
You're surprised that people from a rich European country can travel with relatively little hassle?
I'm surprised that you're surprised.
I'm surprised that you're surprised.
If you check the actual tables you'll see that a lot of countries share the same spots, that graph was just a selection of countries.
They are white and they are rich as with most other top ranked countries on that list.
http://www.henleyglobal.com/citizenship/visa-restrictions/