There is a widely-held belief that passports are central to control the population of a country. The issue, however, is by no means straightforward, and arguments can also be made against this stipulation. I think using passports could be beneficial if used just for very critical matters.
On the one hand, there are some good reasons for requiring passports. To start with, governments' policies are often formulated based on the number of citizens, and this means there should be strict control through passports. Basic healthcare and education, for instance, which are the essential services in almost every country, may well be provided as long as policy makers have an official statistic regarding the population. Furthermore, passport controls are crucial to minimizing the risk of terrorism and crime on the grounds that those with criminal records may be spotted and hence denied admission.
On the other hand, others call for the abolition of passports, contending that there should not be any limitation on travel. They point to the fact that it is eliminating passports that can promote equality in the world. It would not be fair if some travelers are deprived of traveling to some countries just because of their nationality or religion, and examples of this can be observed for Muslims who are not able to go to America. They argue, moreover, that scrapping passports would open doors to tourism and consequently result in a boost in the economy of those counties whose passport dynamics used to impede this industry.
With both advantages and disadvantages with the abolition of passports, I am of the opinion that the best course of action for policy makers is to reserve passports for very specific cases such as combating terrorism and crime, providing better service to citizens and so on.
There is a
widely
-held belief that
passports
are central to control the population of a country. The issue,
however
, is by no means straightforward, and arguments can
also
be made
against this stipulation. I
think
using
passports
could be beneficial if
used
just
for
very
critical matters.
On the one hand, there are
some
good
reasons for requiring
passports
. To
start
with,
governments
' policies are
often
formulated based on the number of citizens, and this means there should be strict control through
passports
. Basic healthcare and education,
for instance
, which are the essential services in almost every country, may well
be provided
as long as
policy makers
have an official statistic regarding the population.
Furthermore
,
passport
controls are crucial to minimizing the
risk
of terrorism and crime on the grounds that those with criminal records may
be spotted
and
hence
denied admission.
On the other hand
, others call for the abolition of
passports
, contending that there should not be any limitation on travel. They point to the fact that it is eliminating
passports
that can promote equality in the world. It would not be
fair
if
some
travelers
are deprived
of traveling to
some
countries
just
because
of their nationality or religion, and examples of this can
be observed
for Muslims who are not able to go to America. They argue,
moreover
, that scrapping
passports
would open doors to tourism and
consequently
result in a boost in the economy of those counties whose
passport
dynamics
used
to impede this industry.
With both advantages and disadvantages with the abolition of
passports
, I am of the opinion that the best course of action for
policy makers
is to reserve
passports
for
very
specific cases such as combating terrorism and crime, providing better service to citizens and
so
on.