(no subject)
Feb. 28th, 2004 10:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
randomnessAustralasians have this factoid they toss around about Americans. "Only twenty percent of Americans," they say in a shocked tone, "have a passport!"
Now, I personally think everyone should have a passport, but this misses an important detail that so far no Australasian I have heard say this has known:
Americans can probably go to twenty countries or political units without a passport.
I pointed this out to one of them and it really took the wind out of their sails. I encourage anyone who gets this factoid tossed at them to provide this list, which I compiled by looking at the Foreign Entry Requirements list, June 2003.
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, ARUBA, BAHAMAS, BARBADOS, BERMUDA, CANADA, DOMINICA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, GRENADA, JAMAICA, MEXICO, MICRONESIA, NETHERLANDS ANTILLES, PALAU, PANAMA, SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, ST. PIERRE, SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES, VIRGIN ISLANDS, British, WEST INDIES, British, WEST INDIES, French.
I was wrong. It's 22. To make the comparison meaningful to an Australasian, let them imagine the following as an analogy: they wouldn't need a passport to go to most of the South Pacific islands (Tonga, Samoa, French Polynesia, etc.), Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, and possibly Thailand.
I still think everyone should get a passport, but the "only 20% of Americans have a passport" factoid is a cheap shot, lacking an understanding of just how many places (North America, most of the Caribbean, and parts of the Pacific) Americans can go with no more than photo ID and proof of citizenship.
Now, I personally think everyone should have a passport, but this misses an important detail that so far no Australasian I have heard say this has known:
Americans can probably go to twenty countries or political units without a passport.
I pointed this out to one of them and it really took the wind out of their sails. I encourage anyone who gets this factoid tossed at them to provide this list, which I compiled by looking at the Foreign Entry Requirements list, June 2003.
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, ARUBA, BAHAMAS, BARBADOS, BERMUDA, CANADA, DOMINICA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, GRENADA, JAMAICA, MEXICO, MICRONESIA, NETHERLANDS ANTILLES, PALAU, PANAMA, SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, ST. PIERRE, SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES, VIRGIN ISLANDS, British, WEST INDIES, British, WEST INDIES, French.
I was wrong. It's 22. To make the comparison meaningful to an Australasian, let them imagine the following as an analogy: they wouldn't need a passport to go to most of the South Pacific islands (Tonga, Samoa, French Polynesia, etc.), Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, and possibly Thailand.
I still think everyone should get a passport, but the "only 20% of Americans have a passport" factoid is a cheap shot, lacking an understanding of just how many places (North America, most of the Caribbean, and parts of the Pacific) Americans can go with no more than photo ID and proof of citizenship.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-28 02:06 am (UTC)Yeah, people clearly don't pull this one on me. And if they did, I'd switch to Mandarin. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-28 05:33 am (UTC)I studied Spanish in high school and German in college. If I lived in London, it'd be a $30-$50, one-hour plane ride to go to either country. I might actually get to practice them. More to the point, if I wanted to go more than a couple hundred miles in any direction, I'd need to learn a new language. From my home in DC, I can go 3000 miles and hit nothing but English speakers.
Again, not defending monolingual...ism(?) or insularity; just putting it in perspective.