Originally Posted by FWAAA
What purpose is accomplished by artificially shaving several months off the passport's validity (by requiring it be valid for several months or no entry, even when the visit is for a weekend)??
So a 10 year passport is really only good for 9.5 years. What immigration objective is served by such foolishness?
Amongst other things, if you overstay your "weekend" and they catch up with you, it's legally easier to send you home on a still-valid passport.
That said, few countries that I've visited recently have had a 6-month requirement. The thing that prompted me to apply for a new passport a few weeks earlier than I would normally have done was a NZ requirement for
one month's additional validity. That's how close I managed to get to the wire on that passport.
Although part of me was quite relieved to be able to retire it as by then it had stamps from all seven continents in the same document, which had become one of my travel goals.
[Edited to add:] Incidentally, I've been reminded that the one month rule for NZ is only for passports from countries that have consular representation in NZ able to renew or issue passports. Otherwise the requirement is three months. Thus underlining the rationales mentioned by me and others.