9 ms·

If people from Hawaii were overstaying in Japan, the US wouldn't be fine with Japan requiring visas for residents of Hawaii. Part of the purpose of the EU is t

If people from Hawaii were overstaying in Japan, the US wouldn't be fine with Japan requiring visas for residents of Hawaii. Part of the purpose of the EU is to present a united front when dealing with other countries. Collective bargaining doesn't work if you don't act collectively. >If US travelers are overstaying in any particular EU countries. The only way to do this would be to require Visas to the whole EU because of the lack of internal border controls (for most of the EU).

SllX 8y ago
Hawaii isn’t a sovereign nation with its own foreign service.
- r00fus 8y ago
  It’s an analogy as Hawaii is one of the 50 United States. The EU Schengen zone is similar to the US as there is free travel between countries within the zone.
  - tialaramex 8y ago
    And even beyond that the EU states all (by EU regulation) willingly stand in for each other when it comes to their citizens in foreign countries. If you're from a big country like France or Germany, you don't notice, but if you're from a smaller country like Portugal this means when you realise your country does not even have consular facilities in the random place you're visiting, you don't worry, the French or Germans do and you're an EU citizen, so they'll sub for your own consular officials as needed.
    - lisper 8y ago
      The difference is that U.S. passports don't distinguish which state you are a citizen of. Hawaii does not have its own representative in the United Nations. Hawaii does not have its own ambassadors and consulates. EU passports do distinguish which country you are a citizen of. Each EU country has its own representative in the U.N. and its own ambassadors and consulates [1]. Free travel is not the feature that is legally indicative of a nation. [1] Yes, I know that EU consulates can be shared by other EU citizens. Nonetheless, legally there is no such thing as "an EU consulate" or "an ambassador from the EU" or a generic EU passport. It really is a radically different model from the EU. (The most notable difference is that countries can unilaterally withdraw from the EU without triggering a civil war within the EU. States can't.)
  - SllX 8y ago
    I know but it doesn’t work. Every single EU member state is a sovereign nation with its own foreign policy, military, standing to sign treaties, seat in the UN General Assembly, international recognition beyond the UN, and a couple of them even have permanent seats in the Security Council. And most, but not all are parties to the Schengan Area, and most, but not all, are members of NATO. The ones that are not landlocked even get to set their own maritime boundaries, whereas past a certain point in the US, the maritime boundaries here are Federal territory. EU member states still maintain formal diplomatic relations among themselves and with other nations, and issue passports and visas. They might have standardized their passports, sure, but they are still issued by the member states. Hawaii has none of that, it is a US State. Once you’re a US State, you don’t stop being one, ever, and we fought a civil war over this. That clearly isn’t the case with the EU, as demonstrated by Brexit. In short, the analogy doesn’t work because it isn’t analogous. The EU wants to be treated like the US in some cases and like separate nations in other cases. The US is just the US as far as other nations have to be concerned, and there isn’t a Hawaiian or Californian or Texan passport that other nations can granularly accept or reject, just American ones. If you want something more analogous to the Japanese hypothetically rejecting Hawaiians, it would be like the US allowing Visa-free entry from all of Germany except people from Brandenburg, or all of Australia except people from Victoria, or all of Japan except people from Okinawa. As far as the 4 EU States without Visa-free access to the US are concerned, they have normal diplomatic channels available to them. EDIT: Edited for grammar and clarity. Sorry about that, quite a few interruptions in the last few minutes.
    - mpweiher 8y ago
      What you are missing is that you seem to think that because the US is organised in a particular fashion, that is the only valid organisational structure. The EU is organised differently, and it and its member countries are perfectly within their rights to organise themselves in this fashion. If you find that difficult, just rephrase "the EU has" into "the EU member states have". So: the EU member states have decided on collective visa measures. Collective response is something states do. See NATO Article 5.
      - mal808 8y ago
erentz 8y ago
In that case there should be no such thing as a Croatian passport or a Polish passport. Or Croatian citizenship (etc.). Feels like there’s a fair bit of eating cake and having it too going on here.
- TomVDB 8y ago
  Replace “passport” by “driving license” and things are almost equivalent: a piece of paper that pins you down a particular plot of land.
  - erentz 8y ago
    You’re not getting the point. The USA is a single country. All of its citizens are to be treated equally. And all of its foreign affairs are handled by the one federal government. The EU is a very complicated collection of many individual countries that all have their own citizens, and all represent themselves individually in foreign affairs except where it’s convenient to represent themselves as a group. Free movement in the EU doesn’t even extend to all member countries. There is no reasonable way Japan could refuse entry to a US citizens who are suspected of residing in a state without effectively denying all US citizens because there is only one type of US citizen. (Which they are free to do, but obviously won’t.) On the other hand residents of the EU have it in the reverse. There are 28 (?) different types of citizens, each with different passports, each from countries with different immigration departments, different foreign affairs ministers, etc. It’s asking a lot for other countries to just blanket accept all of these types of citizens from very different countries, and more to just accept them from any new country that may be added. Turkey is a dictatorship and came damn close to being in the EU. It’s entirely feasible some member country like Hungry (to pick on one) begins to behave badly or becomes a dictatorship or starts persecuting people and the expectation is still we must accept their passports the same as a French one? Absurd. Of course not. The EU is a long way from being a single country.
    - benj111 8y ago
      "The USA is a single country. All of its citizens are to be treated equally" Yes because the US has decided they should be, the EU has decided they want their citizens treating the same also. I understand your point that you can't differentiate Americans by passport, unlike Europeans, but that's a subtly different argument. "Turkey is a dictatorship and came damn close to being in the EU" If by damn close you mean informal talks. Theres a list of things nations need to sign up to, be become EU members. Not being a dictatorship is probably in there somewhere.

SllX 8y ago

Hawaii isn’t a sovereign nation with its own foreign service.

r00fus 8y ago
It’s an analogy as Hawaii is one of the 50 United States. The EU Schengen zone is similar to the US as there is free travel between countries within the zone.
- tialaramex 8y ago
  And even beyond that the EU states all (by EU regulation) willingly stand in for each other when it comes to their citizens in foreign countries. If you're from a big country like France or Germany, you don't notice, but if you're from a smaller country like Portugal this means when you realise your country does not even have consular facilities in the random place you're visiting, you don't worry, the French or Germans do and you're an EU citizen, so they'll sub for your own consular officials as needed.
  - lisper 8y ago
    The difference is that U.S. passports don't distinguish which state you are a citizen of. Hawaii does not have its own representative in the United Nations. Hawaii does not have its own ambassadors and consulates. EU passports do distinguish which country you are a citizen of. Each EU country has its own representative in the U.N. and its own ambassadors and consulates [1]. Free travel is not the feature that is legally indicative of a nation. [1] Yes, I know that EU consulates can be shared by other EU citizens. Nonetheless, legally there is no such thing as "an EU consulate" or "an ambassador from the EU" or a generic EU passport. It really is a radically different model from the EU. (The most notable difference is that countries can unilaterally withdraw from the EU without triggering a civil war within the EU. States can't.)
- SllX 8y ago
  I know but it doesn’t work. Every single EU member state is a sovereign nation with its own foreign policy, military, standing to sign treaties, seat in the UN General Assembly, international recognition beyond the UN, and a couple of them even have permanent seats in the Security Council. And most, but not all are parties to the Schengan Area, and most, but not all, are members of NATO. The ones that are not landlocked even get to set their own maritime boundaries, whereas past a certain point in the US, the maritime boundaries here are Federal territory. EU member states still maintain formal diplomatic relations among themselves and with other nations, and issue passports and visas. They might have standardized their passports, sure, but they are still issued by the member states. Hawaii has none of that, it is a US State. Once you’re a US State, you don’t stop being one, ever, and we fought a civil war over this. That clearly isn’t the case with the EU, as demonstrated by Brexit. In short, the analogy doesn’t work because it isn’t analogous. The EU wants to be treated like the US in some cases and like separate nations in other cases. The US is just the US as far as other nations have to be concerned, and there isn’t a Hawaiian or Californian or Texan passport that other nations can granularly accept or reject, just American ones. If you want something more analogous to the Japanese hypothetically rejecting Hawaiians, it would be like the US allowing Visa-free entry from all of Germany except people from Brandenburg, or all of Australia except people from Victoria, or all of Japan except people from Okinawa. As far as the 4 EU States without Visa-free access to the US are concerned, they have normal diplomatic channels available to them. EDIT: Edited for grammar and clarity. Sorry about that, quite a few interruptions in the last few minutes.
  - mpweiher 8y ago
    What you are missing is that you seem to think that because the US is organised in a particular fashion, that is the only valid organisational structure. The EU is organised differently, and it and its member countries are perfectly within their rights to organise themselves in this fashion. If you find that difficult, just rephrase "the EU has" into "the EU member states have". So: the EU member states have decided on collective visa measures. Collective response is something states do. See NATO Article 5.
    - mal808 8y ago

erentz 8y ago

In that case there should be no such thing as a Croatian passport or a Polish passport. Or Croatian citizenship (etc.). Feels like there’s a fair bit of eating cake and having it too going on here.

TomVDB 8y ago
Replace “passport” by “driving license” and things are almost equivalent: a piece of paper that pins you down a particular plot of land.
- erentz 8y ago
  You’re not getting the point. The USA is a single country. All of its citizens are to be treated equally. And all of its foreign affairs are handled by the one federal government. The EU is a very complicated collection of many individual countries that all have their own citizens, and all represent themselves individually in foreign affairs except where it’s convenient to represent themselves as a group. Free movement in the EU doesn’t even extend to all member countries. There is no reasonable way Japan could refuse entry to a US citizens who are suspected of residing in a state without effectively denying all US citizens because there is only one type of US citizen. (Which they are free to do, but obviously won’t.) On the other hand residents of the EU have it in the reverse. There are 28 (?) different types of citizens, each with different passports, each from countries with different immigration departments, different foreign affairs ministers, etc. It’s asking a lot for other countries to just blanket accept all of these types of citizens from very different countries, and more to just accept them from any new country that may be added. Turkey is a dictatorship and came damn close to being in the EU. It’s entirely feasible some member country like Hungry (to pick on one) begins to behave badly or becomes a dictatorship or starts persecuting people and the expectation is still we must accept their passports the same as a French one? Absurd. Of course not. The EU is a long way from being a single country.
  - benj111 8y ago
    "The USA is a single country. All of its citizens are to be treated equally" Yes because the US has decided they should be, the EU has decided they want their citizens treating the same also. I understand your point that you can't differentiate Americans by passport, unlike Europeans, but that's a subtly different argument. "Turkey is a dictatorship and came damn close to being in the EU" If by damn close you mean informal talks. Theres a list of things nations need to sign up to, be become EU members. Not being a dictatorship is probably in there somewhere.