Borders, Passports, and the Price of Security

"Just 140 years ago, no visa was required to enter any country."

When this line appeared on the screen at the end of a movie I was watching, I had to sit bolt upright.

It made me think of all the migration laws being debated in parliaments today and the anti-immigration protests taking place in different parts of the world.

Photo by Nataliya Vaitkevich from Pexels

Are passports, visas, and strict border controls, so recent?

Apparently, that is the truth.

For centuries, people crossed borders freely to live, work and trade. Neither Megasthenes nor Xuanzang, neither Marco Polo nor Ibn Battuta, neither Columbus nor Vasco da Gama needed permission to enter new lands. 

Rulers generally welcomed travellers, recognising the value they brought through knowledge, culture and, above all, commerce. The problems that sometimes accompanied such exchanges are another story for another day.

The passport and visa systems we know today are largely products of the post-First World War world. Following the 'Treaty of Versailles' and the creation of the 'League of Nations', governments sought greater control over the movement of people.

A landmark ruling came in October 1920, when the League of Nations convened the Paris Conference on Passports, Customs Formalities and Through Tickets. It introduced much-needed standardisation. Passports became uniform booklets with prescribed dimensions, and further refinements to visa regulations followed at a subsequent conference in 1926.

The reasons were understandable. Countries emerging from a devastating war were concerned about national security, espionage, economic protection, employment and the management of refugees. 

Empires were collapsing, nationalism was rising, new nations were emerging, and advances in technology had made warfare more destructive than ever before. Governments wanted to know who was entering their borders and why.

That is why, although the idea of a travel permit is ancient, the modern, standardised visa is a surprisingly recent invention.

The Bible records that around 450 BCE, the Persian King Artaxerxes I gave his Jewish cupbearer, Nehemiah, letters of safe passage as he travelled from present-day Iran to Jerusalem. 

Some historians credit King Henry V of England in the fifteenth century with introducing what resembles the first English passport. The oldest surviving passport is believed to be a handwritten document signed by King Charles I in 1641, granting safe passage to an English nobleman travelling overseas.

Interestingly, it was on this very day, 8 July 1796, that the U.S. Department of State issued its first passport to the American diplomat David Humphreys.

While these may be good historical examples, it was only in the twentieth century that passports and visas truly became standard requirements for international travel.

History reminds us that immigration laws have never stood still. They have continually evolved in response to political realities, economic pressures and security concerns. That process continues today. 

In the 2023 Bollywood movie, Dunki – which I had been watching, and which is based on a 'donkey route' of illegal migration - the character Hardy (played by Shah Rukh Khan) argues that borders are designed only for the poor, highlighting the unfairness of immigration laws. 

He says that while the wealthy can easily buy their way into a country, it is really the poor working-class migrants who are treated as criminals for seeking a better life.

Take the Golden Visa programs, for example. According to an article by a group of investigative journalists of OCCRP,  rules may vary from country to country and most governments try to keep the details under wraps, but "the underlying premise is simple: For a sizeable investment, wealthy people can zip to the front of the immigration line for a growing list of attractive countries, including some in the European Union and the United States".

We all agree that every government has a legitimate duty to protect its borders, safeguard national security and ensure opportunities for its own citizens.  

But, at the same time, nations cannot afford to become so inward-looking that they exclude the very people whose knowledge, skills and enterprise can strengthen their economies and enrich their societies.

That is the enduring challenge. Immigration is not simply about deciding who may enter a country.

It is about striking the right balance between protection and openness. Judging by history, that has never been an easy task—and it probably never will be.

***

250 Years: The US Experiment

One of the best things I did last month, I suppose, was booking a walking tour.

While in Washington D.C., although for a different reason, I decided I would spend one full morning touring the U.S. Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, and, in particular, the Capitol building, including its crypt and the rotunda.

Thanks to Jobert, our main tour guide, I now have a clear insider’s view of the Capitol which is, arguably, the world’s most powerful government building.

Its grand and imposing neoclassical architecture, its role as the active legislative heart of a global superpower, and its function as a universal, globally-recognized, symbol of representative democracy, makes it unique.

Its construction began on September 18, 1793, when George Washington laid the cornerstone. Sadly, however, he did not live to see the opening of this awe-inspiring building in the then-brand-new city named after him.

Rebuilt after the British burned it down in 1814, the current, heavily modified, Capitol building incorporates parts of the original structure. The earlier dome was wooden, while the current one is cast-iron. 

The birth of the United States, however, was not in Washington D.C. It was in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

When, 250 years ago, the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, at the Pennsylvania State House—now known as Independence Hall—in Philadelphia, not all 56 signatories were present, but they eventually signed.

The United States Constitution then came into force in 1789, and remains the world's oldest written national constitution still in operation. The Bill of Rights, comprising the first ten amendments to the Constitution, was ratified by 1791 and still serves as a moral compass for law-makers.

US Supreme Court

While this constitution drew inspiration from earlier documents such as England's Magna Carta of 1215, it broke new ground by creating a durable framework built on federalism, checks and balances, and an independent judiciary.

The nation's founders deliberately turned to the ideals of the ancient Roman Republic when designing their new capital and its institutions. As the US Senate itself notes, they sought architecture that reflected the dignity of a republic in a world dominated by monarchies. The Capitol, with its sweeping columns and majestic dome, was intended to symbolize constitutional government and not imperial power.

 

The Capitol Building. The 'Statue of Freedom' on top of the dome is 19 feet tall, though it looks small here

History, however, offers a cautionary tale. Rome remained a republic for nearly five centuries before gradually giving way to empire. France, after its revolution, oscillated between republics, empires and monarchies before eventually settling into a stable republican system. 

Constitutions alone do not preserve democracies. Institutions endure only when citizens and leaders remain committed to them.

 

The Declaration of Independence. John Trumbull's famous painting in the Capitol's Rotunda

Dozens of countries have borrowed elements of the American constitutional model showing us that ‘written constitution’ matters. But even more important are the ‘values’ it seeks to protect: the rule of law, the separation of powers, accountability, and government by the consent of the governed.

Whether today's United States administration reflects the vision of the Founding Fathers depends largely on one's interpretation of current events. Some see a government adapting to twenty-first century realities. Others argue that expanding executive authority, growing bureaucracy, and increasing political polarization have taken the republic further from the founders’ original intent.

 

Library of Congress

The question is not whether politicians claim the founders’ legacy, but whether they preserve the principles on which the republic is founded. Every generation inherits the same constitutional experiment. Every administration is merely its temporary steward.

As we concluded our tour, Jobert said something profound: "These buildings do not make the country great. It's the people inside them."

He was right. Marble columns, magnificent domes and historic chambers cannot defend democracy on their own. That responsibility rests with the lawyers and judges who interpret the law, the senators and representatives who debate and legislate, the presidents who exercise restraint, and ultimately the citizens who hold them all to account.

Great republics are not sustained by architecture. They are sustained by character.

***

PDF, Daily Tribune, 4 July 2018 
(from 7 years ago)

PDF, Daily Tribune, Wed, 1 July 2026

Web, Daily Tribune, Sat, 4 July 2026

Some other pictures:

One Chief Justice and eight associate justices (total, nine justices) must be on the Supreme Court. Every book on this shelf here is by, or on, one of them. Currently, four women are serving on the United States Supreme Court

With Jobert

FIFA 2026: A Goal for Growth

The excitement of young men and women in yellow and green jerseys, as I saw them descend the escalator at the airport, made me feel good.

Emblazoned across their jerseys was just one word: Brazil.

When I asked whether they were American fans of the Brazilian football team, or Brazilians who had come to watch the matches, a beaming young man exclaimed in a heavy Portuguese accent, “We Brazil. We come to watch match. Here. Tomorrow.”

It was 12 June, and I had arrived at New York’s JFK Airport. I did not know then that, on the following day, Brazil would play Morocco in the 2026 FIFA World Cup at a nearby stadium.

I realised these fans would soon go to MetLife Stadium, officially designated as the New York New Jersey Stadium, in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

One could sense that football mania had gripped the region, not just through the giant posters, billboards, full-page newspaper ads, or colourful merchandise, but through the very pulse of the city. The infectious excitement was unmistakably in the air.

FIFA 2026 features 104 matches spread across 16 host cities in 3 countries: the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

The stadium hosting the most matches is Dallas Stadium in Arlington, Texas, with nine games. Close behind it, hosting eight games each, are the New York New Jersey Stadium, Los Angeles Stadium, Atlanta Stadium, Miami Stadium, and BC Place Vancouver.

Metlife--NewYork_NewJersey_Stadium

As we drove past the New York New Jersey Stadium, I could not help but admire the massive signboards and preparations for a month-long football fiesta that will culminate in the World Cup Final at the same venue.

The Brazil–Morocco match -- the only Brazil match held so far -- may have ended in a 1–1 draw, but Brazil will always remain one of football’s most celebrated nations. No country has won the FIFA World Cup a record five times, as it has done. Whether they will lift the trophy again is a question only time can answer.

Yet beyond the goals, trophies, and celebrations lies a bigger story. The FIFA World Cup is also a powerful economic engine.

Major tournaments attract millions of visitors and generate billions of dollars in economic activity. Hotels fill up, restaurants welcome new customers, local transportation systems see increased usage, and small businesses benefit from the influx of visitors. From construction workers and hospitality staff to security personnel and event managers, thousands of jobs are created directly and indirectly.

Host nations also use the World Cup as a catalyst for long-term development. Stadiums are upgraded, airports expanded, roads improved, and public transportation strengthened. While football may last only a few weeks, the infrastructure investments often serve communities for decades afterward.

The benefits are not merely financial. The World Cup brings together people from different languages, cultures, religions, and political systems. For a few weeks, billions of people focus on a common passion. Rivalries remain on the pitch, while friendships are built in the stands, airports, restaurants, and city streets.

Consider the United States and Iran, both participants in FIFA 2026. Politics may place nations on opposite sides, and even at war, but sport creates opportunities for respect, dialogue, and shared experiences. Football cannot solve every conflict, but it can remind us of our common humanity.

That may be the World Cup’s greatest achievement. It does not simply crown a champion. It stimulates economies, accelerates development, showcases nations, and unites people across borders. 

In a world too often divided by conflict and uncertainty, FIFA 2026 offers something refreshingly different: a celebration where competition inspires progress, and where everyone, in some way, emerges a winner.

********

For a critical look on the "Fifa Economics" - on how FIFA earns, and how host nations might lose, check out this YouTube video: 

Rules of War: Does Anyone Care?

Despite the popular adage—that we often use without much thought—all is not fair. Neither in love nor in war.

So, are there really ‘rules of war’?

Yes, absolutely, says Amnesty International. Today, we know the codification of these rules as ‘International Humanitarian Law,’ which includes the Geneva Conventions recognized by 196 countries, according to its website. Applicable in armed conflicts, the rules are intended to be universal and neutral.

The main objective is to reduce human suffering caused by war. But we can see that it is largely going unheeded.

The fundamental principles of the rules of war—humanity, military necessity, distinction, proportionality, and precaution—are often ignored, if not totally violated.

The principle of ‘humanity’ forbids unnecessary suffering, injury, and destruction, while ‘military necessity’ permits only the force required to achieve legitimate military objectives.

And while the ‘distinction’ principle requires parties to differentiate between civilians and combatants, allowing attacks only on military targets and never intentionally on civilians, ‘proportionality’ prohibits attacks on military targets if the expected civilian harm would be excessive compared to the anticipated military advantage. 

The fifth principle, ‘precaution,’ obliges constant care to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects.

Together, these principles form the core framework guiding conduct in war. But how do they translate into practical obligations?

Practical Obligations

First, civilians must be protected at all times. Even when attacking legitimate military targets, all parties are required to take every possible precaution to avoid or minimize harm to civilians and damage to civilian property. This includes careful targeting and restraint in the use of force.

Second, anyone who falls into the hands of a party to the conflict must be treated humanely. This applies to prisoners of war, detainees, and the wounded or sick, regardless of which side they belong to.

Third, victims of war must be protected through the delivery of humanitarian aid such as food, water, and medicine. Parties must allow and facilitate such assistance.

Finally, these rules must be applied without discrimination—no one should be treated differently based on race, religion, nationality, or political beliefs.

Modern Framework

In modern times, for this framework, we must acknowledge the work of at least four individuals or entities—Henri Dunant, Francis Lieber, the ICRC, and Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens. They turned moral concern into legal norms.

Henri Dunant, moved by the suffering after the Battle of Solferino, wrote A Memory of Solferino. His work led to the founding of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863 and to the first Geneva Convention in 1864.

Meanwhile, Francis Lieber drafted the Lieber Code (1863) during the American Civil War under Abraham Lincoln, marking the first comprehensive codification of wartime conduct.

The ICRC, since 1864, has been guiding the development of international humanitarian law, linking humanitarian ideals with state adoption of treaties.

Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens further strengthened this framework through the Martens Clause at the Hague Peace Conference, affirming that even without specific laws, all remain protected by principles of humanity and public conscience.

Geneva Conventions

The most remarkable outcomes from their work are the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, adopted in response to the inhumanities of World War II. They mainly updated and added to previous Geneva Conventions (1864, 1906, 1929).

Today, these four Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols, as international treaties, protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick, and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war). 

Implementation matters

Yes. This law exists—but without enforcement, it is hollow. 

War may be complex, but humanity is not negotiable. These rules must be upheld, and those who violate them must be held accountable—firmly and without exception.

Countries which say that they targeted a wrong place and unfortunately killed innocents, because they relied on old data, or countries which say that, oh, well, civilians die, it's collateral damage, should be all put to trial.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) in Hague, for instance, must not only try such careless leaders for war crimes, but after trial, even put them in prison, if convicted, as an example to other.

Nations must be questioned and punished, where needed.

Law is no law if it cannot be effectively implemented.

Reporters of War: Digital Media Challenges

Wartime journalism demands a particular kind of discipline. It requires restraint, verification, and a deep commitment to accuracy—qualities that are often neglected when events unfold rapidly and emotions run high.

Today’s media environment makes that discipline harder than ever to maintain.

In an era of round-the-clock connectivity and 24×7 news channels, editors and journalists feel relentless pressure to stay ahead of the curve. The fear of being left behind drives many to share information as it happens, in real time.

However, when reporting becomes a race, speed is eagerly pursued, and verification is often neglected. And when verification is neglected, truth becomes the casualty.

The modern digital networks have made the challenge even greater. Images and videos now emerge from every corner of the world within seconds of an event. Cyberspace quickly fills with countless visuals, many captured on high-definition mobile phones by ordinary people who happen to be at the scene.

For journalists competing not only with rival news outlets but also with social media algorithms, the temptation to publish immediately is enormous. News must appear before it becomes stale—before platforms push it down users’ feeds and user attention starts to shift elsewhere.

This urgency often leads to serious mistakes.

Since the start of the latest war in West Asia on February 28, 2026, troubling examples have already emerged. A senior news editor shared videos on social media that were entirely incorrect: buildings in Bahrain were presented as buildings in Dubai, and an old video of a drone strike in Kyiv, Ukraine, in 2024 was circulated as a new attack in Manama, Bahrain, in 2026.

In another instance, a well-known television news anchor announced arrests that had never actually taken place. The information, apparently received from unnamed sources, was later debunked and quietly retracted.

At the same time, AI-generated images of drones and missiles have circulated online as though they depict real events.

What makes these incidents particularly concerning is that this misinformation did not originate from some anonymous social media users. It was shared by professional journalists and established news outlets—the very institutions we rely upon to verify facts before broadcasting them to the public.

Too often, sensationalism and speed appear to take precedence over accuracy. News is forwarded and amplified before its authenticity is confirmed.

In our digitally connected world, the consequences are serious. False information spreads at extraordinary speed. Before journalists have time to correct themselves, misleading posts may already have been shared thousands of times.

By then, the damage is done, and, even if corrected, the truth may never travel as far as the falsehood.

If journalists must really be respected as purveyors of truth, especially in times of war, they must exercise discipline and caution. 

The responsibility of journalism is not merely to be first, but to be right.

News organizations may feel pressure to compete with rival channels, and to satisfy the relentless demands of the digital news cycle. Yet their highest responsibility is not to power, nor to algorithms, but to the public they serve.

In moments of conflict, when fear and uncertainty run high, misinformation can inflame tensions, deepen divisions, and distort reality.

Truth, verification, and restraint must remain the core principles of journalism. Speed may win attention for a moment, but credibility is what sustains trust over time. And in the end, it is credibility—not immediacy—that defines the true value of journalism.

----- ----- ----