A State GL would not recognize a foreign PHA GL not in amity with its own State GL counterpart because of that lack of recognition.
I can think of a couple of jurisdictions that deserve to have their sovereignty violated in this fashion. But that's a tough sell to be worked on in future years.
It has nothing to do with UGLE. Utah extended recognition to PHA NC before any UGLE action. It only required amity between GLNC and PHANC.
In Texas it would appear that the MWPHGLofTX asked for local recognition in order to get recognized by UGLE. Very surface view of getting recognition without visitation and then not bothering to correct the situation for 7 years. MWPHGLofOK has local recognition in Oklahoma but is not listed by UGLE. I don't know if they declined to make the request or if UGLE declined to act. So the situation with UGLE is not the complete view.
That said, the foreign grand lodges section of the UGLE web page is the best starting point to decide about visits. Being listed there 100% means the jurisdiction is considered regular, though there are regular jurisdictions not on the list. Being listed there 100% means there is local recognition, though there are recognized jurisdictions not on the list. That only leaves local agreements that don't include visitation. To a visitor from the outside, local agreements don't apply 100% of the time. I visited MWPHGLofTX and GLofTX lodges when I first moved to the state because my jurisdictions at the time didn't have the restriction. So looking at the UGLE web site gives 95%+ accuracy on the first look and any brother is supposed to know their own jurisdiction's tighter restrictions.
Another topic would be a GL matter. If a jurisdiction is on the UGLE list not not on your jurisdiction's list, why not? Time to contact the committee and ask them, then push the issue if the excuse they give is as lame as it has to be.
Yeah, Minnesota allows visitation to and from any PHA Grand Lodge that is in amity with its corresponding state Grand Lodge, regardless of whether there is a formal recognition between Minnesota and the PHA GL in question.
If that happens automatically because it is a pre-approved policy the term for it is blanket recognition. If that happens because the committee on recognition/relations is proactive I call it a rubber stamp process - It gets included in the committee's report and it happens when the report is approved without a separate vote per jurisdiction.
California has an informal rubber stamp policy but when I read their list and went over it in detail two states fell through the cracks. Last year I contacted the committee. This year I go through the legislation process - I have until May, tick tick tick. It's not over for me until all of my jurisdictions recognize and exchange visitation privilege everywhere. It's not over in general until that's true of all US jurisdictions.
However, it would probably create serious problems in Masonry if any Grand Lodge decided to recognize a PHA GL without the agreement of the corresponding state Grand Lodge.
Many of you remember when Minnesota extended recognition to the Grand Lodge of France in addition to the French National Grand Lodge, without GLNF agreeing to it. Several state Grand Lodges withdrew recognition of Minnesota until Minnesota withdrew recognition of GLdF.
I ask the brethren to ponder this at leisure. Jurisdictions are sovereign. They get to make their own decisions including ones that are bad for the fraternity as a whole. In most cases the only recourse is to pull recognition. In most cases the only real consequence is foreign visitations stop.
Perhaps with PHA we have a less extreme measure available to us. Should we start pulling recognition of states that refuse to recognize? Might be too extreme an act and besides at least one southern state did that in the late 1980s when PHA recognition started and they were laughed at and thanked for have an unMasonic jurisdiction exit the field of discourse. But if some of our jurisdictions gradually start recognizing PHA in spite of lack of local recognition that's both an act of generosity and a violation of sovereignty. If the the jurisdiction is out of control for other reasons it might be whispering good counsel in a less heavy handed way than pulling recognition.
A year ago the MWGL of the WMPHGLofAR issued a proclamation recognizing every state that has recognition, whether that recognition is returned or not. It takes the moral high ground. Given the chronic problems with GLofAR on other fronts they'd be a jurisdiction I don't value their sovereignty as much as they think I should. Just saying ...