World’s Most Powerful Passports in 2021

tdf7187

I thought this was interesting (see link below).

While most people aren't needing their passports in current times, it seems that the Irish passport is among the most internationally recognised, meaning that an Irish passport will get you a visa to enter most countries without undue difficulty. I would guess that during the Troubles, the Irish passport didn't hold such sway but I assume surveys of this type were not conducted back then.

I would imagine that us being part of the EU gives us an advantage. The EU is viewed as an oasis of relative stability internationally.

Thoughts?

https://www.novinite.com/articles/207503/World%E2%80%99s+Most+Powerful+Passports+in+2021

rossie1977

Now we ask what are the 5 countries that don't accept an Irish passport but do a Japanese one

Helmet

rossie1977 wrote: »

Now we ask what are the 5 countries that don't accept an Irish passport but do a Japanese one

In 2004 I was travelling from Malaysia to Bali. I was using a battered old Lonely Planet to get around. According to the LP you didn't need a visa for Indonesia if you had an EU passport. I wound up being turned back at the airport. It turned out that after the Bali bombing in 2002 any country that was seen as harbouring a paramilitary group needed to apply for a visa. I wound up staying an extra week in Kuala Lumpur while the visa was being processed. I've no idea if it's still like that?

Witchie

Helmet wrote: »

In 2004 I was travelling from Malaysia to Bali. I was using a battered old Lonely Planet to get around. According to the LP you didn't need a visa for Indonesia if you had an EU passport. I wound up being turned back at the airport. It turned out that after the Bali bombing in 2002 any country that was seen as harbouring a paramilitary group needed to apply for a visa. I wound up staying an extra week in Kuala Lumpur while the visa was being processed. I've no idea if it's still like that?

Absolutely not. I live most of the year in KL and go to Bali usually once a year, missed last year for obvious reasons, but I just get a visa on arrival.

Same with most places or have to apply for a esta style online one for Vietnam and India and a few other places.

I am entitled to a British passport too and am thinking of applying for it as a back up as some countries, such as India have longer stay times or easier rules for British passports. Not that I ever intend to go to India again. Hate the place with a passion.

TheValeyard

Did we not have this exact same thread yesterday or am I having deja vu?

The J Stands for Jay

Helmet wrote: »

In 2004 I was travelling from Malaysia to Bali. I was using a battered old Lonely Planet to get around. According to the LP you didn't need a visa for Indonesia if you had an EU passport. I wound up being turned back at the airport. It turned out that after the Bali bombing in 2002 any country that was seen as harbouring a paramilitary group needed to apply for a visa. I wound up staying an extra week in Kuala Lumpur while the visa was being processed. I've no idea if it's still like that?

Was 8t an Irish or a UK passport? There's probably loads of EU countries that could be said to harbour paramilitaries.

joseywhales

Bizarre that the former axis powers are some of the highest ranked. Like if I was korean or Chinese, would I ever want to see another japanese person again after ww2, comfort women/ live biological weapon testing/ treatment of prisoners etc.

HBC08

joseywhales wrote: »

Bizarre that the former axis powers are some of the highest ranked. Like if I was korean or Chinese, would I ever want to see another japanese person again after ww2, comfort women/ live biological weapon testing/ treatment of prisoners etc.

The Koreans dislike the Japanese the same way Irish people might dislike the brits.The comfort women is the biggest issue over all the rest,it's a really sensitive subject over there.

Helmet

McGaggs wrote: »

Was 8t an Irish or a UK passport? There's probably loads of EU countries that could be said to harbour paramilitaries.

Irish. I remember being told at the time that it was basically ourselves, Spain and Israel?

Quantum Erasure

TheValeyard wrote: »

Did we not have this exact same thread yesterday or am I having deja vu?

The only people who love Irish passport more than Irish people are the Israel's :<

theguzman

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

The only people who love Irish passport more than Irish people are the Israel's :<

Why is this anti-Semitism allowed?

Hamsterchops

The Israeli's, why so?

tdf7187

theguzman wrote: »

Why is this anti-Semitism allowed?

It's certainly a bit strange that some posters' first reaction is to bring up the issue of Israeli spies (occasionally) travelling on Irish passports. (this also happened in the closed thread).

Gregor Samsa

rossie1977 wrote: »

Now we ask what are the 5 countries that don't accept an Irish passport but do a Japanese one

It's not a straight 5 country difference - there's some countries you can get into Visa free with an Irish passport, but not a Japanese one.

You can see the lists of visa free and visa required access for any country's passport here:

https://www.henleypassportindex.com/passport

Strumms

Prior to the peace process and a couple of years after an Irish passport could be a hindrance especially going to the UK and returning...twice it enabled me to getting taken aside for 10 minutes for ‘a chat’..

titan18

Imo, we also get better treatment than a lot of other nationalities when travelling. We're not really hated anywhere like as people mentioned Japanese are in some countries, or Americans would be in lots of areas.

ohnonotgmail

Hamsterchops wrote: »

The Israeli's, why so?

an israeli hit team traveled on stolen Irish passports.

beachhead

Helmet wrote: »

In 2004 I was travelling from Malaysia to Bali. I was using a battered old Lonely Planet to get around. According to the LP you didn't need a visa for Indonesia if you had an EU passport. I wound up being turned back at the airport. It turned out that after the Bali bombing in 2002 any country that was seen as harbouring a paramilitary group needed to apply for a visa. I wound up staying an extra week in Kuala Lumpur while the visa was being processed. I've no idea if it's still like that?

A UK(when it was EU)passport gets you into Indonesia no problem currently

beachhead

theguzman wrote: »

Why is this anti-Semitism allowed?

I like your name guzman

beachhead

Strumms wrote: »

Prior to the peace process and a couple of years after an Irish passport could be a hindrance especially going to the UK and returning...twice it enabled me to getting taken aside for 10 minutes for ‘a chat’..

Get off a plane from a third country and you would not be asked to have a hat.Don't think for a minute that the chatter didn't know exactly who you were and the purpose of travel

rapul

tdf7187 wrote: »

It's certainly a bit strange that some posters' first reaction is to bring up the issue of Israeli spies (occasionally) travelling on Irish passports. (this also happened in the closed thread).

Not anti semitism if its true, can't use that card anymore calling out the truth about Israel

ohnonotgmail

tdf7187 wrote: »

It's certainly a bit strange that some posters' first reaction is to bring up the issue of Israeli spies (occasionally) travelling on Irish passports. (this also happened in the closed thread).

Nothing strange. It was big news at the time and it has stuck in peoples minds.

I was born and raised in London when plane hijacking was all the rage.

Not a hope that my parents would let me or my siblings have a British passport. If any or all of us were on a plane together and the hijackers asked all the passengers for their passports, the British and Americans would be taken to one side. The Irish would be given a wink and released first

AndyBoBandy

I know that now in Europe, an Irish passport is the most powerful to have in that it allows the holder unfettered access to live and work in any EU country as well as the U.K.

(I manage various teams of engineers, and I'm currently looking at a 4-8 week lead time to get some UK guys a Work Permit to go to Greece to do a 2-3 day job!!)

AnTarbh

theguzman wrote: »

Why is this anti-Semitism allowed?

What anti-semitism?

Peregrinus

rapul wrote: »

Not anti semitism if its true, can't use that card anymore calling out the truth about Israel

Exactly the same is true of the US - they used stolen Irish passports to get their own agents into Iran. But if someone mentions the Israeli use every bloody time passports are ever discussed, but never brings up the US use and either isn't aware of it or has simply forgotten it, I'm struggling to think of an explantion that doesn't start with "anti-" and end with "-semitism".

(The use of Irish passports to travel without attracting hostile scrutiny is itself testament to the relatively high value of an Irish passport as a widely accepted and welcomed travel document.)

timmyntc

theguzman wrote: »

Why is this anti-Semitism allowed?

Criticism of Israel != Anti-Semitism.

Also its a fact that Mossad "hit-squads" were travelling on (forged?) Irish passports

timmyntc

Peregrinus wrote: »

Exactly the same is true of the US - they used stolen Irish passports to get their own agents into Iran. But if someone mentions the Israeli use every bloody time passports are ever discussed, but never brings up the US use and either isn't aware of it or has simply forgotten it, I'm struggling to think of an explantion that doesn't start with "anti-" and end with "-semitism".

(The use of Irish passports to travel without attracting hostile scrutiny is itself testament to the relatively high value of an Irish passport as a widely accepted and welcomed travel document.)

I certainly was never aware of it - when was this? Was it a big news story?

Peregrinus

timmyntc wrote: »

I certainly was never aware of it - when was this? Was it a big news story?

It was Colonel Oliver North, no less, who used a (fake) Irish passport to enter Iran. Younger readers may wish to google "Oliver North" but, be assured, he was a very, very big story at one time.

The fact that he had used an Irish passport didn't emerge until some time after the rest of the Iran-Contra story broke, and it was a relatively small detail of a very large and sensational story.

Real Life

Peregrinus wrote: »

Exactly the same is true of the US - they used stolen Irish passports to get their own agents into Iran. But if someone mentions the Israeli use every bloody time passports are ever discussed, but never brings up the US use and either isn't aware of it or has simply forgotten it, I'm struggling to think of an explantion that doesn't start with "anti-" and end with "-semitism".

(The use of Irish passports to travel without attracting hostile scrutiny is itself testament to the relatively high value of an Irish passport as a widely accepted and welcomed travel document.)

How about criticising a country, particularly their government and how they run things has nothing to do with religion and all to do with how they do things?

Somebody earlier in the thread said they hayed India, they must be anti Hindu?

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

Exactly the same is true of the US - they used stolen Irish passports to get their own agents into Iran. But if someone mentions the Israeli use every bloody time passports are ever discussed, but never brings up the US use and either isn't aware of it or has simply forgotten it, I'm struggling to think of an explantion that doesn't start with "anti-" and end with "-semitism".

(The use of Irish passports to travel without attracting hostile scrutiny is itself testament to the relatively high value of an Irish passport as a widely accepted and welcomed travel document.)

I'd consider myself quite well up on the news and I wasn't aware that the americans had used Irish passports to enter Iran. was it on the news? I know it was on the news for a few days when the Israelies did it and it wasn't that long ago. So maybe that is the more likely reason that people remember it than just jumping to anti-semitism.

JasonStatham

All the muslim ones are down the bottom.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

It was Colonel Oliver North, no less, who used a (fake) Irish passport to enter Iran. Younger readers may wish to google "Oliver North" but, be assured, he was a very, very big story at one time.

The fact that he had used an Irish passport didn't emerge until some time after the rest of the Iran-Contra story broke, and it was a relatively small detail of a very large and sensational story.

Oliver north was a big story at the time. The detail of his passport not so much. Is it any wonder people dont remember it?

Peregrinus

Real Life wrote: »

How about criticising a country, particularly their government and how they run things has nothing to do with religion and all to do with how they do things?

Somebody earlier in the thread said they hayed India, they must be anti Hindu?

You're missing my point. If you persistently and at every opportunity criticise Israel for doing X, while systematically ignoring another state that is equally guilty of X, it doesn't appear to be a distaste for X that is motivating you.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're missing my point. If you persistently and at every opportunity criticise Israel for doing X, while systematically ignoring another state that is equally guilty of X, it doesn't appear to be a distaste for X that is motivating you.

that is assuming they know that the US did it. As you said yourself it was a very small detail on a massive story. It was a central part of the Israeli assassination story.

timmyntc

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're missing my point. If you persistently and at every opportunity criticise Israel for doing X, while systematically ignoring another state that is equally guilty of X, it doesn't appear to be a distaste for X that is motivating you.

Yes but in fairness there are a myriad of reasons not to like Israel that have nothing to do with the state religion there - namely their treatment of Palestinians, land stealing, etc

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Oliver north was a big story at the time. The detail of his passport not so much. Is it any wonder people dont remember it?

The question is, why are the details of his passport not a big story, and for some the exact same details, as they relate to Israeli agents' passports, are a big story?

I'm not suggesting that people who know about the Israeli incident but not about the US incident are themselves antisemites; not at all. But it might be worth their while asking themselve how it comes to be that they are aware of, and exercised about, the Israeli incident but completely ignorant of the US incident? Why does the Israeli incident provoke heat and light that the equally offensive US incident does not?

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

The question is, why are the details of his passport not a big story, and for some the exact same details, as they relate to Israeli agents' passports, are a big story?

I'm not suggesting that people who know about the Israeli incident but not about the US incident are themselves antisemites; not at all. But it might be worth their while asking themselve how it comes to be that they are aware of, and exercised about, the Israeli incident but completely ignorant of the US incident? Why does the Israeli incident provoke heat and light that the equally offensive US incident does not?

already explained to you. The oliver north story ran for months. the passport was a detail that I didn't pick up on. in the israeli story their passports were part of the headline. is it any wonder that one is remembered better than the other? the immediate shouts of anti-semitism any time anything concerning israel is criticised is tiresome.

timmyntc

Peregrinus wrote: »

The question is, why are the details of his passport not a big story, and for some the exact same details, as they relate to Israeli agents' passports, are a big story?

I'm not suggesting that people who know about the Israeli incident but not about the US incident are themselves antisemites; not at all. But it might be worth their while asking themselve how it comes to be that they are aware of, and exercised about, the Israeli incident but completely ignorant of the US incident? Why does the Israeli incident provoke heat and light that the equally offensive US incident does not?

Perhaps when the story broke North's use of an Irish passport wasn't even known? It was the 80s and it was classified information.

The Israeli hit squad used Irish passports to commit murder in another country, and news came out quite soon after.

Iran-Contra was a huge affair, use of an Irish passport is just a footnote in that. And they were trading arms, not committing state sanctioned murder. One is most definitely worse than the other.

In Iran, military leaders did not think they were buying arms from the Irish - whereas the Israeli hit squad travelled under the pretense of being Irish to aid their assassination attempts.

rapul

Well aware of Oliver North and the whole Iran Contra situation Peregrinus , dont know why that was brought up in defense of what I said, Israel and Irish passports was being talked about not something 50 odd years ago

And the above post is good.

Peregrinus

timmyntc wrote: »

Perhaps when the story broke North's use of an Irish passport wasn't even known? It was the 80s and it was classified information.

The Israeli hit squad used Irish passports to commit murder in another country, and news came out quite soon after.

Iran-Contra was a huge affair, use of an Irish passport is just a footnote in that. And they were trading arms, not committing state sanctioned murder. One is most definitely worse than the other.

In Iran, military leaders did not think they were buying arms from the Irish - whereas the Israeli hit squad travelled under the pretense of being Irish to aid their assassination attempts.

The assassination of Al-Mahbouh was also a huge affair (for the reason you point out yourself — it was an egregious act by any state). And the use of Irish passports was just a footnote — barely noticed outside Ireland.

I think there's two differences in the cases. One is the fact that the use Irish passports emerged longer after the event in the US case. But from the perspective of now, when both cases are years old, that's not a difference of any importance, and anyone who is offended by other governments using faked Irish passports should be equally upset about both cases. The other is that Ireland had more diplomatic heft in 2010 than it had in 1986, and was able to protest more assertively and effectively. But, again, for anyone concerned about the faking of Irish passports, it's hardly a vindication of the US to say that they abused a smaller and weaker country than the Israelis did.

At this point, a decade after the Al-Mahbouh assassination, the main reason why people are aware of Israel's use of Irish passportsbut ignorant of the US use is that there are people devoted to keeping alive the memory of Israeli offences but who are unbothered by similar offences by other governments.

timmyntc

Peregrinus wrote: »

The assassination of Al-Mahbouh was also a huge affair (for the reason you point out yourself — it was an egregious act by any state). And the use of Irish passports was just a footnote — barely noticed outside Ireland.

I think there's two differences in the cases. One is the fact that the use Irish passports emerged longer after the event in the US case. But from the perspective of now, when both cases are years old, that's not a difference of any importance, and anyone who is offended by other governments using faked Irish passports should be equally upset about both cases. The other is that Ireland had more diplomatic heft in 2010 than it had in 1986, and was able to protest more assertively and effectively. But, again, for anyone concerned about the faking of Irish passports, it's hardly a vindication of the US to say that they abused a smaller and weaker country than the Israelis did.

At this point, a decade after the Al-Mahbouh assassination, the main reason why people are aware of Israel's use of Irish passportsbut ignorant of the US use is that there are people devoted to keeping alive the memory of Israeli offences but who are unbothered by similar offences by other governments.

One major difference between the cases, as I stated in my last post, was that one was using an Irish passport for state sanctioned murder, the other was using it to enter Iran to sell arms to the Iranian army - who knew that they were negotiating with Americans.

If you can't see the difference between these two cases, then you are the one with the agenda. Israeli use of an Irish passport was definitively worse, and is far more offensive.

Peregrinus

rapul wrote: »

Well aware of Oliver North and the whole Iran Contra situation Peregrinus , dont know why that was brought up in defense of what I said, Israel and Irish passports was being talked about not something 50 odd years ago

To be fair, if you think the Iran-Contra affair was "50 odd years ago", your awareness of it is not extensive.

And your comment that "Israel and Irish passports was being talked about" is kind of the point. The thread is about Irish passports. People enter the thread to make (justified) comments about Israel's use of forged Irish passports but are silent about the United States' (longer) history of doing exactly the same thing. And, while I'm at it, the Russians have also used fake Irish passports for intellegence purposes - Ireland expelled a Russian diplomat over this a year after expelling an Israeli diplomat; nobody seems to be aware of this, or to remember or, or to consider it worth mentioning. So it's not unreasonable to ask why Israel gets singled out for mention here.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

The assassination of Al-Mahbouh was also a huge affair (for the reason you point out yourself — it was an egregious act by any state). And the use of Irish passports was just a footnote — barely noticed outside Ireland.

I'm not sure if you have noticed but most of us here are in Ireland. It was a big deal. you can't dismiss that so easily

Peregrinus

timmyntc wrote: »

One major difference between the cases, as I stated in my last post, was that one was using an Irish passport for state sanctioned murder, the other was using it to enter Iran to sell arms to the Iranian army - who knew that they were negotiating with Americans.

If you can't see the difference between these two cases, then you are the one with the agenda. Israeli use of an Irish passport was definitively worse, and is far more offensive.

I can see the difference between the two cases, but I don't think its relevant here. Israel was engaged directly in murder; the US merely in funding and equipping terrorists who would then engage in murders and other outrages from which the US could plausibly distance itself. But so what? Both cases equally illustrate the value of the Irish passport as a travel document which is widely accepted and does not attract hostile or critical attention to the carrier, which is the point of this thread. And both are equally offensive as an infringement of Irish sovereignty.

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm not sure if you have noticed but most of us here are in Ireland. It was a big deal. you can't dismiss that so easily

The fact that most of us are here in Ireland surely make abuse of Irish passports equally offensive regardless of whether the abuse was perpetrated by Israel or by the US?

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

The fact that most of us are here in Ireland surely make abuse of Irish passports equally offensive regardless of whether the abuse was perpetrated by Israel or by the US?

good job on ignoring everything I have said. You are not arguing in good faith.

rapul

To be fair I know enough thanks very much Peregrinus, I'm just not bothered to argue with someone who has an agenda on anyone passing a true and fair comment on Israel and is deflecting to any other country that has used fake or forged passports, I'm out no time for people like you!

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

good job on ignoring everything I have said. You are not arguing in good faith.

I think you're overlooking the fact that it was timmyntc who made the "footnote" argument when he said that . . .

timmyntc wrote: »

Iran-Contra was a huge affair, use of an Irish passport is just a footnote in that.

My point is that, if that was true of the US case, it was equally true of the Israeli case. What Israel did that outraged the world was not to use fake Irish passports; it was to send a hit squad into the territory of another country to murder someone they didn't like. That would have been outrageous no matter what fake passport was used. We may have been bothered — and justifiably so — by the fact that the fake passports were Irish but, to everyone else, this was not a particular cause of offence. Just as, when it emerged in that fake Irish passports had been used in the Iran-Contra affair, that concerned us but for most other people it was not the salient point.

I don't think you can have this both ways. If you think that the Irishness of the fake passports was a footnote in the US case, then the factors which lead you to that conclusion — that there were bigger offences than fake passport use being commmitted, basically — must inevitably lead to the same conclusion in the Israel case.

The J Stands for Jay

Helmet wrote: »

Irish. I remember being told at the time that it was basically ourselves, Spain and Israel?

The UK harbour terrorists, are there still some in Germany, or did that end in the 1980s? Quick Google says I must be misremembering.

timmyntc

Peregrinus wrote: »

I can see the difference between the two cases, but I don't think its relevant here. Israel was engaged directly in murder; the US merely in funding and equipping terrorists who would then engage in murders and other outrages from which the US could plausibly distance itself. But so what? Both cases equally illustrate the value of the Irish passport as a travel document which is widely accepted and does not attract hostile or critical attention to the carrier, which is the point of this thread. And both are equally offensive as an infringement of Irish sovereignty.

Both are not equally offensive.

One case was travelling on a forged Irish passport to commit state sanctioned murder. The other was travelling on a forged Irish passport to sell arms (in exchange for release of hostages I believe?).

The crap about "funding terrorists who would then engage in murders" is exactly that, a load of crap. The two are in no way comparable.

Anyways, the thread is dragging way off topic here - so we can agree to disagree, because it seems you are intent on engaging in whataboutery to deflect from legitimate criticisms of Israeli foreign policy.