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