I thought the same thing, didn't even have to click on it to know that was swiss. The Vatican passport is pretty nice too, with only the gold emblem on black.
Swiss graphic design is very well known all over the world (at least by Graphic Designers). Words often used to descrbe it are: modern, clean, minimal, unfussy, neutral, rational. (People who dislike the style might also sometimes describe it as cold or even bland.)
I personally found looking at the visual design of the passport covers to be much more interesting than the 'power ranking'.
It would be interesting to know what each passport image depicts or represents. I really like Sweden's passport cover. Maybe it's partly because the passport image isn't centred that makes it a bit less stuffy and official.
Others I liked: UK, Malta, Mauritius - all old-fashioned but still quite nice. In fact, all of the passports look old-fashioned with their historic emblems (although El Salvador has an outline of the country, rather than an emblem). The Swiss one is the only one that looks modern in this regard.
I would think that a Passport Power Index would include more than just where you can go visa-free. Things like availability of embassies and consular services would also factor in. Is your government going to intervene if you get into trouble abroad? If so, how effective are they at doing so? Can you buy property outside your own country? If so, how many countries allow it and are there any restrictions?
I think your link takes a very narrow definition into its rankings. I'm not sure how broad the index in the story is, but it seems to take into account more than just visa requirements.
Additionally, it would be helpful if you could select your passports, and then it would suggest on a per-country which passport to use for entry, based on visa restrictions, costs, etc. There are a number of websites that offer the information listed in the post, but nothing that provides the details I just described.
This seems to only consider the number of countries one can travel to without a visa as a tourist. So it doesn't consider the ability to move to or work/study at another country.
Or indeed the countries that flat out ban you from visiting them if you travel on certain passports, which is going to be much more of a problem for Israelis than, say, Brazilians, even if this index indicates other countries are less strict on visa terms for Israelis than Brazilians.
It's really an exception if you can work/study at another country without a visa/residence permit. A more relevant question is whether you can make a business trip, or act as a journalist, without a visa. For instance, ESTA for a tourist in the USA is an easy thing, but if the same person wants to come for a few weeks and work as a journalist, e.g. make interviews, then the visa process is very very different. The USA does not offer that much freedom for foreign press, really.
A zone of visa-free exceptions has been created in the Schengen area, but even there you'll need to apply for a work permit for longer stints (and the host country is obliged to give it to citizens of other Schengen countries, with some exceptions).
While the whole Schengen area may not allow you to work everywhere, the core EU area pretty much does[1]. Of course you may have to do some paper work, but, generally, if you have a job offer from another EU country, you will be able to take it without having to worry about getting a visa.
Nordic countries also have their own passport union, so a Finnish passport, for example, will let you go and work in Iceland or Norway pretty freely.
I would imagine there are be some other regions that have similiar agreements. I think that the Commonwealth at least used to have some benefits for its citizens, but I'm not sure how much of those remain.
Yes, the work permit is practically automatic within Schengen, and not even needed between Nordic countries, but it is not an absolute right: persons from another Schengen country may legally be barred from entering (typically, this is outcome of repeated/aggravated criminal convictions).
This is possible even between Nordic countries (consider Juha Valjakkala / Nikita Fouganthine who we get to keep in Finland as Sweden understandably does not wish him to enter).
Doesn't take much into consideration. E.G, look at where the UAE passport is ranked. A fresh graduate working in Abu Dhabi earns 60k+ a year, gets a free piece of land and a $400,000 loan interest free to build a house on that piece of land.
Not particularly interesting, but now I'm curious what one country makes the difference between South Korea, Germany and France, at 145, and Italy and Sweden at 144.
There are some important considerations here that haven't been taken into account. For example, the United States is the only major country in the world that taxes non-resident citizens on their worldwide income, which makes it one of the most inconvenient passports to hold. Additionally, holding an EU passport allows one to work, study, etc. in any EU country, rather than simply visit it.
Once you factor in the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion and Foreign Tax Credit, it is the filing requirement that is onerous, not the taxation.
The first $100,000 of income can be excluded. On income above that, the US demands the difference if the taxes in the foreign country are less than US taxes. I think you acknowledge all this quite well when you call it inconvenient, but I think people don't need to be horribly outraged about it (I think the policy likely does close a path of tax avoidance that would be well used, but I'm pretty ambivalent about whether it is reasonable).
but this also applies to those dual nationals who have no relsionship with the USA - I doubt that Boris Johnson found it fun to have to file another tax return when dealing with his late mothers estate.
BTW for non uk people Boris is going to be the next Leader of the Tory's and possibly PM within 5 years
I guess that is what I mean when I say I am ambivalent; I agree that the situation you point out is absurd, but on the other side of it I actually don't care that the US demanded taxes from the wealthy mayor of London.
Can you imagine the shitstorm that would happen if it was the other way around say a very high profile US politician being hit with a demand from HMRC - Fox news would go ballistic and demand that you invade Canada again.
Yeah, I think I can imagine it, but think I still wouldn't care about it.
If Canada sent Ted Cruz a tax bill, I'd be amused. And I'd expect him to pay it (because he probably would like to visit there without hassle in the future).
Which doesn't mean I think it is good policy (from the replies I got you'd think I was loudly praising the United States of the IRS), but I can also estimate how much I am actually personally going to do about it over the next several decades.
Are you talking about taxing expats? Or my example, which I meant to take place in a hypothetical world where Canada has a law taxing non resident citizens?
(Cruz really was a dual citizen of the US and Canada until last year...)
The Earned Income Exclusion, as its name applies, only applies to "earned" income. It doesn't apply to capital gains or dividends. Having reviewed the form in detail, I also believe that self-employed US citizens working abroad with US-sourced self-employment income (i.e., digital nomads) also need to play the ~15% self-employment tax, even if you're able to get out of the "normal" income tax with the Foreign Income Exclusion.
I think it is much more likely that digital nomads are operating unlicensed businesses in foreign countries than it is that they are earning "US sourced self-employment income".
It could well be easy to import the earnings into some country while characterizing it as US sourced self employment income. That doesn't mean it is actually compliant with the regulations of that country.
1. It's a huge hassle - banking in the countries becomes crazy, filing all the taxes is hard - you can't use turbo tax.
2. The amount of money raised by this is paltry.
3. It gives people a reason to renounce their citizenship - who don't want to.
> Additionally, holding an EU passport allows one to work, study, etc. in any EU country, rather than simply visit it.
I don't think you even need a passport, just a proof of nationality (e.g. a national ID card from your country of origin, that's usually free or much cheaper than a passport)
Only 5 countries in the EEA (3 also being in the EU) don't have national ID cards: Denmark, Iceland (which does actually have one, but it doesn't state nationality so it can't be used as ID outside of the nordic union), Ireland, Norway and the UK (abolished in 2010 following their 2006 introduction). Those do have to use passports for free movement (and to enter countries like Albania which offer general entry on the sole basis of EEA citizenship).
Both Ireland and Norway have decided to start issuing national ID cards soon (2015 and 2017 respectively).
> For example, the United States is the only major country in the world that taxes non-resident citizens on their worldwide income, which makes it one of the most inconvenient passports to hold.
Soooo if your US passport expires you no longer have this tax?
I would have thought it was based on US citizenship not travelling on a US passport.
It is an absolute disgrace that people are limited in their ability to travel where they want to simply because they happened to be born in a certain place. If you look at that and don't see how this is basically a prison system, you are just endlessly ignorant.
Yes. Many things in the world exist because the majority thinks it's a good idea. Doesn't mean it is. 200 years ago the majority thought slavery was ok. I'm still yet to see anyone who'd convince me why is it that I need to get a permission from a bureaucrat just to see my friend, when my friend doesn't approve of that policy and never voted for anything like that to be instituted.
Me not visiting my friend more often doesn't protect a single soul. All the while, criminals with legalized money buy residencies and citizenship left and right. Tell me more about how that protects anyone even remotely.
laws exist to cover for the majority of use cases, not individual, well reasoned exceptions. start with hammurabi and read on, the worl of bureaucracy has a lot more background and sense than you imagine.
I do not approve of collectivism, not even in law and order. When you say "laws exist" who are you to decide why they exist? I for one think they exist (in the current, monopolized form) to control the general population while elites are practically exempt. Prove me wrong and please use logic and evidence, not some theory that justifies bureaucracy.
Who are we, as voters in democratic countries, to decide why they exist? We are to decide, by the very definition of democracy.
The visa requirements are not so much for the elites in rich countries; it's more for the general population - particularly in welfare states, the situation is that you can have open borders, or you can have universal welfare benefits for population, but you cannot have both.
Often it seems that it is actually the political and economical elite that wants to do away with immigration controls (to get cheap labor, for instance).
it comes down to trust. if i were to guess you lock the door to your house. why would you do something which limits the movement of people who want to be in your house. but at the same time you do not have problem giving access to your house to specific people (people you trust). it is same with countries just more complicated as now you are dealing with bunch of people rather than an individual.
visa free travel exists before countries agreed to trust each other for whatever the reason may be (economic/social/etc.). other countries can workout ways for travel but they do not think of it as a priority.
Assuming your friend lives in a democracy, and assuming your friend wants you randomly visiting, then if as you say your friend didn't vote on the immigration laws, tell them to be more active.
Have them write to their politi-critters. Get the law revisited. If enough of your friend's friends also agitate and your neighbors generally agree or at least don't oppose, the law will be revised -- problem solved.
If, on the other hand your friend is in the minority, and you being able to visit without immigration permition is still that important to them, they are welcome to emigrate to somewhere visits without visas are open to you.
You fail to understand the insult because you don't value liberty and individualism. When you say "it's their country" it is misleading. It's as much theirs as it is the other's person who lives next to them and thinks visas and passports are bullshit. My country doesn't belong to me any more than the other person. Why should I and not the other person decide who can visit?
Judging from your suite of comments here, and your downvoting those who engage with you (misuse of down vote), seems you are confused about how both communities and voting are generally agreed to work.
You're also either confused or disingenuous about the motives and beliefs of those trying to talk with you here, mine included. Good way to stay cocooned in a closed-minded point of view.
I almost never downvote anyone, actually, and I would be happy if that information could be made public somehow. People downvoting you were others and I have absolutely no idea who they are. I don't know how can you "judge" that I downvote by looking at my comment history.
I will tell you exactly how the world works. You have poor people in poor countries working crazy hours in slave-like conditions. Then the rich countries and businesses come out and say "oh, but they are better off because at least thanks to our money they have jobs". And western consumers get cheap products and then get to bitch about minimum wage and equality.
If you really cared for equality, you'd open borders for the poor people to come and compete in a truly open and free market. Otherwise it's all just hypocrisy and exploitation.
all it leads to is catastrophe, as witnessed over and over. a well regulated market, taking into account externalities like the environment, population density, cultural barriers, etc. is in the best interest of humanity.
it was the capitalists that brought in massive immigration into europe, without asking the native population. with no plan for integration, balance. super results.
This is a clear example of tyrrany of the majority.
The majority of people might not want to move state, which is fine, but they prevent other people from exercising their right to freedom of movement.
But this ends up being bad for everyone - if we are agreed that competition is good, this prevents competition between sovereign states for labour and population.
As an individual, I am stuck with whatever citizenship I was born into - and I have practically no opportunity to revoke my citizenship or try to claim a different or better citizenship. This is absolutely a derogation of a basic human right. I see it as no different morally than, for example, a caste system.
Like it or not, human relationships and trust are related to distance, geographical and cultural. Broadly speaking, family > neighborhood > city > state > country > continent > rest of the world. So yes, as an individual you are "stuck" with whatever citizenship you are born into just like you are stuck with whatever parents you are born from.
If you think that a country giving privileges to its own citizens compared to foreigners is morally equivalent to a caste system, you might as well claim the same about parents caring more about their own children than other people's children. Good luck with that.
> If you think that a country giving privileges to its own citizens
My argument is the opposite: countries take away privileges from their citizens by restricting movement. The fact that this is done by states' mutual agreement does not mean people are gaining privilege.
Human beings are supposed to migrate - that's why we are all over the world.
The information onthat site seems wrong. Austria's passport has visa free access to more than 170 countries and there are passports that have more than that. Yet it shows the UK with less than 150.
Something is wrong with the site. I'm fairly certain that when I first viewed the US and UK it said 174 (only fairly certain because I am prone to flipping digits and the second time it said 147). Now it doesn't show any number for the US.
Edit: and now it does show 147 again. If I remember correctly, other entries also lost ~30 from their totals.
The number of countries that you can enter without a visa might not be the best metric.
For example, if you have a US or Signapore passport, you might be able to enter a lot of countries without a visa, but Brazil is not one of them. Brazil is obviously a hugely important country, so that seems like a notable disadvantage. EU citizens can enter Brazil without a visa.
Additionally, there are several countries that have special (higher) visa fees for processing US passports.
Having a Schengen passport is also pretty sweet if you want to move to a different Schengen country.
Finally, if you get kidnapped for a random, you don't want to have to rely on a US passport! (Then again, if you get kidnapped by North Korea, Bill Clinton might personally fly over to negotiate your release.)
China, Russia, India, Indonesia (With VOA) also require visas for Americans, often with retaliatory fees for the visa (they charge us what we charge them). I was surprised that I need a visa to go to austrailia, out of all places, though at least we can do it online...
Considering the ANZUS treaty, it is odd that US tourists need a visa to visit Australia. Especially since Gillard said, "Australia does not forget" in reference to Coral Sea.
It's also odd that Australians need a 'visa' to visit the US for the same reasons. Yet we still need ESTAs (which are essentially the same as the electronic visas Americans require).
In case you were unaware, nobody (other than US citizens and Canadians) can get into the United States without a 'visa' of some kind. Even if you're from the United Kingdom for example, you still need an ESTA, which although it isn't called a 'visa', is required prior to travel like a visa and costs a fee like a visa.
The Australia Electronic Travel Authority is relatively painless, cheap and instant, compared to the ordeal of leaving your passport at an embassy for days and paying them hundreds of dollars to get a visa pasted in, as I have experienced with other countries.
Oh, I'm sure. It was just weird that I can fly to Europe or even next door Bali (since Indonesia has VOA) on a whim, but not Australia. I totally get that the US requires this also, and it is all probably retaliatory.
Passport goodwill is also another metric that's often overlooked. Would you rather have to apply for a visa to enter a few obscure countries on the planet, or regularly have to deal with scorn from border guards because your country bombed theirs within living memory?
As an aside you're misinformed about what Schengen is. Having a passport from a country in Schengen has nothing to do with being able to move to a different Schengen country per-se. You're thinking of the European Economic Area. Schengen is a passport-control free zone, whereas the EEA guarantees your freedom of movement between any EEA countries, regardless of whether or not you have to show your passport on arrival.
Brazil has been less and less of a hugely important country over the past few years than it was a decade ago. China gobbling up commodities brought Brazil back on to the world stage. Now that commodities like oil and steel have crashed and are predicted to go sideways for a decade or more, Brazil seems relegated to irrelevance for a while. That is, unless you run a Target or Walmart in south Florida.
> The number of countries that you can enter without a visa might not be the best metric.
I will lol, and assume you have no Arab friends, specifically Lebanese.
The Lebanese passport, as my numerous Lebanese friends joke about, is usually ranked in the top ten worst worldwide "top 10" comedy lists. But seriously, it is on par with this metric for Somalia and other failed African states. You try going with the employed ones on business outside of the UAE, and you will see how much fun this metric can be for you.
Can confirm. I was recently traveling back to (well, in her case through) the US from overseas with a Lebanese friend. When we got to the point in the customs/immigration process where they decide whose knickers to rifle through, and who merely gets a "Welcome to America", guess which of us got which.
This is her normal. She's missed connecting flights, plural, because of the increased scrutiny.
I'm expecting to be subject to all kinds of extra scrutiny myself, after I visit there later this year. I'm sure having a Lebanese entry stamp on my passport will raise plenty of eyebrows going forward.
> Additionally, there are several countries that have special (higher) visa fees for processing US passports.
That's true, but a lot of it is because they mirror how much the US charges their citizens. So a US tourist visa is $160 for 1 to 10 years (and between 1 and multiple stays up to six months).
So if US citizens think it is "unfair" that they have to pay more to apply for visas abroad, then ask your own government to reduce visa application fees.
I've always thought this kind of comparison wasn't as meaningful as "how many square km of the planet does your passport grant you access to? Countries vary in size too much.
How is that more meaningful, unless you value every square kilometer of Siberia, for instance?
Or you could argue that having access to all of the seas without a passport means that the per-km2 value of a passport is actually relatively small? :)
Suppose your passport only granted you access to 4 countries.
Mine gets me to Russia, Canada, the U.S. and China.
Yours gets you to Grenada, Malta, Maldives and Saint Kitts and Nevis (ignoring the EU for a moment).
Which one is "more powerful"? Obviously mine is since I get to enjoy most of the landmass of the Northern Hemisphere while yours gets you access to a handful of minor island nations.
Is there a way to get any information beyond the magic numbers on that site? e.g. a US passport allows entry to 147 countries, but can I list which ones? Or which ones it doesn't allow access to? Or what the difference is between two passports?
Another possible index would be a reverse lookup per-country, showing how many other countries can visit it without a visa. Something like a 'country freedom index' or somesuch.
More interesting would be to rank citizenship by price. For example, you can directly get Maltese citizenship for $150k. Indirectly you can get a green card for $500k. Maybe someone could sort through all these direct and indirect rules to classify citizenships by value.
I need to start investigating the entrance requirements for myself into pretty much every country in Africa, and I have not found a convenient way to do so yet.
I have two passports, so I need to figure out which one is best in each country.
I'm interested in doing some graph analytics for each country's VISA policy. Where can I find the full list of each country's visa free countries list?
115 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 175 ms ] threadhttp://www.quora.com/What-does-the-inside-of-todays-Vatican-...
It would be interesting to know what each passport image depicts or represents. I really like Sweden's passport cover. Maybe it's partly because the passport image isn't centred that makes it a bit less stuffy and official.
Others I liked: UK, Malta, Mauritius - all old-fashioned but still quite nice. In fact, all of the passports look old-fashioned with their historic emblems (although El Salvador has an outline of the country, rather than an emblem). The Swiss one is the only one that looks modern in this regard.
It lists the US as a number 1 country there (with 174 visa free countries), I guess they omit it on the free list to gather email addresses.
I think your link takes a very narrow definition into its rankings. I'm not sure how broad the index in the story is, but it seems to take into account more than just visa requirements.
A zone of visa-free exceptions has been created in the Schengen area, but even there you'll need to apply for a work permit for longer stints (and the host country is obliged to give it to citizens of other Schengen countries, with some exceptions).
Nordic countries also have their own passport union, so a Finnish passport, for example, will let you go and work in Iceland or Norway pretty freely.
I would imagine there are be some other regions that have similiar agreements. I think that the Commonwealth at least used to have some benefits for its citizens, but I'm not sure how much of those remain.
[1] http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_a...
This is possible even between Nordic countries (consider Juha Valjakkala / Nikita Fouganthine who we get to keep in Finland as Sweden understandably does not wish him to enter).
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_French_c... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_South_Ko...
The first $100,000 of income can be excluded. On income above that, the US demands the difference if the taxes in the foreign country are less than US taxes. I think you acknowledge all this quite well when you call it inconvenient, but I think people don't need to be horribly outraged about it (I think the policy likely does close a path of tax avoidance that would be well used, but I'm pretty ambivalent about whether it is reasonable).
BTW for non uk people Boris is going to be the next Leader of the Tory's and possibly PM within 5 years
If Canada sent Ted Cruz a tax bill, I'd be amused. And I'd expect him to pay it (because he probably would like to visit there without hassle in the future).
Which doesn't mean I think it is good policy (from the replies I got you'd think I was loudly praising the United States of the IRS), but I can also estimate how much I am actually personally going to do about it over the next several decades.
You seriously don't think the principle of equality before the law is worth fighting for?
(Cruz really was a dual citizen of the US and Canada until last year...)
Its about the fact that dual nationals get taxed by the IRS
It could well be easy to import the earnings into some country while characterizing it as US sourced self employment income. That doesn't mean it is actually compliant with the regulations of that country.
I don't think you even need a passport, just a proof of nationality (e.g. a national ID card from your country of origin, that's usually free or much cheaper than a passport)
Both Ireland and Norway have decided to start issuing national ID cards soon (2015 and 2017 respectively).
Soooo if your US passport expires you no longer have this tax?
I would have thought it was based on US citizenship not travelling on a US passport.
the world is a bit more complicated than your comment implies.
Me not visiting my friend more often doesn't protect a single soul. All the while, criminals with legalized money buy residencies and citizenship left and right. Tell me more about how that protects anyone even remotely.
The visa requirements are not so much for the elites in rich countries; it's more for the general population - particularly in welfare states, the situation is that you can have open borders, or you can have universal welfare benefits for population, but you cannot have both.
Often it seems that it is actually the political and economical elite that wants to do away with immigration controls (to get cheap labor, for instance).
visa free travel exists before countries agreed to trust each other for whatever the reason may be (economic/social/etc.). other countries can workout ways for travel but they do not think of it as a priority.
Have them write to their politi-critters. Get the law revisited. If enough of your friend's friends also agitate and your neighbors generally agree or at least don't oppose, the law will be revised -- problem solved.
If, on the other hand your friend is in the minority, and you being able to visit without immigration permition is still that important to them, they are welcome to emigrate to somewhere visits without visas are open to you.
If you were told you should tell your friends to vote better next time just so they can see you, I'd love to know how that would make you feel.
I've lived all over the world, and also work with many offshore teams in places that don't just take my passport.
I've had to get plenty visas. It's their country, I'm a guest. I fail to understand the insult.
You're also either confused or disingenuous about the motives and beliefs of those trying to talk with you here, mine included. Good way to stay cocooned in a closed-minded point of view.
And who are you to decide what's good or not?
If you really cared for equality, you'd open borders for the poor people to come and compete in a truly open and free market. Otherwise it's all just hypocrisy and exploitation.
all it leads to is catastrophe, as witnessed over and over. a well regulated market, taking into account externalities like the environment, population density, cultural barriers, etc. is in the best interest of humanity.
it was the capitalists that brought in massive immigration into europe, without asking the native population. with no plan for integration, balance. super results.
The majority of people might not want to move state, which is fine, but they prevent other people from exercising their right to freedom of movement.
But this ends up being bad for everyone - if we are agreed that competition is good, this prevents competition between sovereign states for labour and population.
As an individual, I am stuck with whatever citizenship I was born into - and I have practically no opportunity to revoke my citizenship or try to claim a different or better citizenship. This is absolutely a derogation of a basic human right. I see it as no different morally than, for example, a caste system.
If you think that a country giving privileges to its own citizens compared to foreigners is morally equivalent to a caste system, you might as well claim the same about parents caring more about their own children than other people's children. Good luck with that.
My argument is the opposite: countries take away privileges from their citizens by restricting movement. The fact that this is done by states' mutual agreement does not mean people are gaining privilege.
Human beings are supposed to migrate - that's why we are all over the world.
Edit: and now it does show 147 again. If I remember correctly, other entries also lost ~30 from their totals.
Other things not taken into account:
* Passport weight index (how hefty is your passport? is it any good as a baton? Page count and binding are important here)
* Passport prettiness index (how dull or interesting are the blank pages in your passport)?
* Passport value index (what's the black market price for each country's passport?)
* etc etc
1/10 site woefully incomplete.
For example, if you have a US or Signapore passport, you might be able to enter a lot of countries without a visa, but Brazil is not one of them. Brazil is obviously a hugely important country, so that seems like a notable disadvantage. EU citizens can enter Brazil without a visa.
Additionally, there are several countries that have special (higher) visa fees for processing US passports.
Having a Schengen passport is also pretty sweet if you want to move to a different Schengen country.
Finally, if you get kidnapped for a random, you don't want to have to rely on a US passport! (Then again, if you get kidnapped by North Korea, Bill Clinton might personally fly over to negotiate your release.)
Why?
As an aside you're misinformed about what Schengen is. Having a passport from a country in Schengen has nothing to do with being able to move to a different Schengen country per-se. You're thinking of the European Economic Area. Schengen is a passport-control free zone, whereas the EEA guarantees your freedom of movement between any EEA countries, regardless of whether or not you have to show your passport on arrival.
I will lol, and assume you have no Arab friends, specifically Lebanese.
The Lebanese passport, as my numerous Lebanese friends joke about, is usually ranked in the top ten worst worldwide "top 10" comedy lists. But seriously, it is on par with this metric for Somalia and other failed African states. You try going with the employed ones on business outside of the UAE, and you will see how much fun this metric can be for you.
This is her normal. She's missed connecting flights, plural, because of the increased scrutiny.
I'm expecting to be subject to all kinds of extra scrutiny myself, after I visit there later this year. I'm sure having a Lebanese entry stamp on my passport will raise plenty of eyebrows going forward.
That's true, but a lot of it is because they mirror how much the US charges their citizens. So a US tourist visa is $160 for 1 to 10 years (and between 1 and multiple stays up to six months).
So if US citizens think it is "unfair" that they have to pay more to apply for visas abroad, then ask your own government to reduce visa application fees.
Or you could argue that having access to all of the seas without a passport means that the per-km2 value of a passport is actually relatively small? :)
Mine gets me to Russia, Canada, the U.S. and China.
Yours gets you to Grenada, Malta, Maldives and Saint Kitts and Nevis (ignoring the EU for a moment).
Which one is "more powerful"? Obviously mine is since I get to enjoy most of the landmass of the Northern Hemisphere while yours gets you access to a handful of minor island nations.
lists both land area and population rankings, also inverse rankings based on who can enter the country: http://www.doyouneedvisa.com/rank/border/
Another possible index would be a reverse lookup per-country, showing how many other countries can visit it without a visa. Something like a 'country freedom index' or somesuch.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Visa_req...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Visa_req...
http://i.imgur.com/QdCdb8r.pnghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_%28document%29#Visa_polici...
States that get the most give the least.
It also gives you information about which passports a country allows:
Where can a US passport take you: http://www.doyouneedvisa.com/passport/United%20States
Citizens of which countries are allowed to enter the US without a visa: http://www.doyouneedvisa.com/border/United%20States
It's also fascinating to see the cultural divides like 'Western world', 'Muslim world', etc based on the passport and border information.
Another interesting thing is where the Israeli passport can take you: http://www.doyouneedvisa.com/passport/israel
The border of India is surprisingly restricted: http://www.doyouneedvisa.com/border/india looks like only citizens of Nepal and Bhutan are allowed without a visa.
I need to start investigating the entrance requirements for myself into pretty much every country in Africa, and I have not found a convenient way to do so yet.
I have two passports, so I need to figure out which one is best in each country.
http://www.iatatravelcentre.com/
It isn't really very convenient for the use you propose (it returns info based on one passport-destination pair at a time).