Keiran King: Should passports be free?

Keiran King

Online Columnist

In the Old Testament, Nehemiah convinces the Persian ruler Artaxerxes
to let him rebuild Jerusalem. But to get from Persepolis to Judah, he asks the king
to write letters “to the governors beyond the river, that they must permit me to
pass through”.

In the 2,400 years since Nehemiah’s journey, passports haven’t changed
much. Printed in bold blue letters on the inside of mine is a decree no more sophisticated
than that of Artaxerxes: ‘The Minister of Foreign Affairs requests and requires,
in the name of the Government of Jamaica, all those whom it may concern to allow
the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such
assistance and protection as may be necessary.’

At least I don’t have to petition the minister directly. Anyone can
travel under the full protection of the Government, so long as she can afford snapshots,
a visit to a justice of the peace, an hour in Half-Way Tree, and J$4,500.

While that’s a mere inconvenience for me, it puts a passport beyond the reach of
one in six Jamaicans href="http://www.pioj.gov.jm/Portals/0/Social_Sector/IOM-MigrationinJamaica2010_FINAL_311012.pdf">who
lives below the poverty line, and effectively excludes many more who live payday
to payday.

Still, to paraphrase the New Testament, the poor will always be with
us (and unlikely to get a foreign posting), so what’s the real problem?

Forty years ago, href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights#Parties_to_the_covenant">Jamaica
signed a United Nations treaty, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which insists ‘everyone shall be free to leave any country, including
his own, [except for] restrictions ... provided by law’.

Put plainly, unless you’re a criminal, no one should hold you anywhere. The treaty
effectively codified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_Nations_Declaration">freedom
of movement, into binding international law. Has the Jamaican Government, among
others, violated our right to travel by charging for passports?

It might seem like a moot debate, since the cost of a plane ticket dwarfs the passport
fee. If you can afford one, you can get the other. But that doesn't answer the question
in principle. If a peanut vendor wins a free round trip to Trinidad,
should he be denied the opportunity because he only makes, well, peanuts? Should
refugees have to find money just to get permission to leave? Jamaican documents
are still relatively cheap, but that may change — US and UK passports are href="http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/passports/information/costs.html">three
times as expensive, and Turkey and Lebanon href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_passport">twice as costly again, driven,
in part, by the ongoing arms race in biometric data. By contrast, Europeans can
walk from Portugal to Estonia href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area">without showing papers, lowering
their practical cost to zero.

It’s also worth distinguishing between visas and passports. Visas are about entry.
In the Caribbean, we’re used to being denied access to North America, blue book
or no blue book. Though it might be unfair and absurd, governments are free to discriminate
who they grant admittance — America is skittish about West Indians, href="http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20130308/news/news5.html">Barbados about
Jamaicans, href="http://www.antiguaobserver.com/jamaica-immigration-haitian-refugees-sent-back-home/">Jamaica
about Haitians. That's life.

Passports, however, are really about exiting — most airports and seaports require
them regardless of destination. Armed with passports, even the most rejected individuals
in the world, like href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/09/westminster-may-have-to-concede-edward-snowden-had-a-point">information
liberator Edward Snowden, can find refuge
somewhere — after all, there are 200 nations. But without them, your poorest
citizens are imprisoned within the ghetto of your borders, especially on an island
like Jamaica.

It wasn't always thus. Passports became universally mandatory as an
outgrowth of World War I mistrust. Before the 20th century, most people crossed
borders freely, if at their own risk. It's this philosophy — that as a citizen of
the Earth, you deserve to traverse it — that the International Covenant seeks to
uphold.

So let’s say, in a fit of democratic zeal, we want to abolish the
application fee for Jamaican blue books. In fact, let’s get rid of all the upfront
costs. Just show up, and the Passport, Immigration and Citizenship Authority (PICA)
will snap your photo, check your records, and send you on your way. But no matter
the process, PICA has to cover its operational costs. Where should the money come
from?

General taxation would be worse than the current payment system, which
at least burdens only travellers, who as a group are wealthier than non-travellers.

Better would be a levy that siphons money from frequent flyers and the well-off
— for example, href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Departure_tax">a departure tax on business-class
seats or First World destinations. Best of all would be a worldwide subsidy for
border documents (The Nehemiah Project?), funded by the UN itself. Developing countries
could draw large portions if they agree to being monitored. In that way, the humble
passport — now accessible to all — could finally realise its potential, and put
the mobility back into social mobility.

Keiran King is a writer and producer. His column appears every Wednesday. Find
him on Twitter @keiranwking. Email feedback to href="mailto:columns@gleanerjm.com">columns@gleanerjm.com and href="mailto:yell@keiranking.com">yell@keiranking.com.