Lets keep alienating the rest of the world...

Alex · 03-17-2005, 09:32 AM

I have no way of knowing that. Just that passports aren't a good way of tracking a concept like insularity (the passport thing is used a lot to show this).

The most likely foreign country to be visited by the English (I would assume) is France. Until a few years ago this required a passport. The most likely foreign countries to be visited by Americans are Canada and Mexico, neither of which would require a passport (though after 9/11 it certainly eases the crossing). I've done 9,000+ mile road trips without needing a passport or papers of any type beyond a drivers license

The other end is a place like Singapore where I'm sure passport possession is near 100% (if not mandated by the government) since you can't leave town without needing a passport.

The difference in geography has a lot to do with prevalance of foreign travel. When I was in Singapore the closest mall had five different package travel companies set up in those walkway wagons hawking $200 weekend travel packages to any of a dozen countries. That's because Singapore is close to any of a dozen countries. For Americans getting to the same countries is going to cost hundreds of dollars just for airfare. In Singapore the local commuter train goes through three countries.

Just getting to Singapore meant 24 hours of travel on either end of the leg, combine this with the fact that vacations longer than two weeks are practically unheard of (and generally only a week) and I don't think you have a nation of people who are less interested in international travel but a nation of people with different geographic, financial, and social limiters on travel.

I've never heard a person say "I love America more than any other country, so I'm not going to go to Europe" but I always hear "I'd love to go, but it is too expensive" or "it isn't worth all the travel time to just stay for five days."

03-17-2005, 09:32 AM	#12
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I have no way of knowing that. Just that passports aren't a good way of tracking a concept like insularity (the passport thing is used a lot to show this). The most likely foreign country to be visited by the English (I would assume) is France. Until a few years ago this required a passport. The most likely foreign countries to be visited by Americans are Canada and Mexico, neither of which would require a passport (though after 9/11 it certainly eases the crossing). I've done 9,000+ mile road trips without needing a passport or papers of any type beyond a drivers license The other end is a place like Singapore where I'm sure passport possession is near 100% (if not mandated by the government) since you can't leave town without needing a passport. The difference in geography has a lot to do with prevalance of foreign travel. When I was in Singapore the closest mall had five different package travel companies set up in those walkway wagons hawking $200 weekend travel packages to any of a dozen countries. That's because Singapore is close to any of a dozen countries. For Americans getting to the same countries is going to cost hundreds of dollars just for airfare. In Singapore the local commuter train goes through three countries. Just getting to Singapore meant 24 hours of travel on either end of the leg, combine this with the fact that vacations longer than two weeks are practically unheard of (and generally only a week) and I don't think you have a nation of people who are less interested in international travel but a nation of people with different geographic, financial, and social limiters on travel. I've never heard a person say "I love America more than any other country, so I'm not going to go to Europe" but I always hear "I'd love to go, but it is too expensive" or "it isn't worth all the travel time to just stay for five days."
	Submit to Quotes