Former president and convicted felon Trump could have difficulty entering nations including the U.K., Ukraine and China.
  • @dan@upvote.au
    147•24 days ago

    I’m amused at the fact that Australia doesn’t allow convicted felons to enter.

    Also doesn’t Trump say that USA is #1? Why would he ever want to leave?

      • Nougat
        41•24 days ago

        Russia is notably not one of the countries which would disallow a convicted felon from entering.

        • @neidu2@feddit.nl
          14•24 days ago

          They’ll take anyone these day, especially if they join the three day special military operation. I’m sure Ukranians would love to find him in a trench.

    • @tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      13•24 days ago

      I don’t know about Australia, but before Australia was the destination for penal transportation from the UK, the American colonies were.

      I recall reading that one of the factors that contributed to the American Revolution was that a lot of Americans wanted to be able to have some say in selecting immigrants, and didn’t really want the UK dumping criminals there.

      I’d imagine that Australia might have some similar ideas.

      kagis

      This sounds like it.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convicts_in_Australia

      With increasing numbers of free settlers entering New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania) by the mid-1830s, opposition to the transportation of felons into the colonies grew. The most influential spokesmen were newspaper proprietors who were also members of the Independent Congregational Church such as John Fairfax in Sydney and the Reverend John West in Launceston, who argued against convicts both as competition to honest free labourers and as the source of crime and vice within the colony. Bishop Bernard Ullathorne, a Catholic prelate who had been in Australia since 1832 returned for a visit to England in 1835. While there he was called upon by the government to give evidence before a Parliamentary Commission on the evils of transportation, and at their request wrote and submitted a tract on the subject. His views in conjunction with others in the end prevailed. The anti-transportation movement was seldom concerned with the inhumanity of the system, but rather the “hated stain” it was believed to inflict on the free (non-emancipist) middle classes.

      Transportation to New South Wales temporarily ended 1840 under the Order-in-Council of 22 May 1840,[28] by which time some 150,000 convicts had been sent to the colonies. The sending of convicts to Brisbane in its Moreton Bay district had ceased the previous year, and administration of Norfolk Island was later transferred to Van Diemen’s Land.

      Opposition to transportation was not unanimous; wealthy landowner, Benjamin Boyd, for reasons of economic self-interest, wanted to use transported convicts from Van Diemen’s Land as a source of free or low-cost labour in New South Wales, particularly as shepherds.[29][30] The final transport of convicts to New South Wales occurred in 1850, with some 1,400 convicts transported between the Order-in-Council and that date.[28]

      The continuation of transportation to Van Diemen’s Land saw the rise of a well-coordinated anti-transportation movement, especially following a severe economic depression in the early 1840s. Transportation was temporarily suspended in 1846 but soon revived with overcrowding of British gaols and clamour for the availability of transportation as a deterrent. By the late 1840s most convicts being sent to Van Diemen’s Land (plus those to Victoria) were designated as “exiles” and were free to work for pay while under sentence. In 1850 the Australasian Anti-Transportation League was formed to lobby for the permanent cessation of transportation, its aims being furthered by the commencement of the Australian gold rushes the following year. The last convict ship to be sent from England, the St. Vincent, arrived in 1853, and on 10 August Jubilee festivals in Hobart and Launceston celebrated 50 years of European settlement with the official end of transportation.

      • ArtieShaw
        5•24 days ago

        Exactly. After the American revolution started, England needed a new place to send convicts.

  • @Professorozone@lemmy.world
    84•23 days ago

    You’ve got to love the irony here. He complained for years that people entering at the southern border were criminals and shouldn’t be allowed in and now essentially other countries are saying the same thing about him.

  • @Letstakealook@lemm.ee
    79•24 days ago

    Damn, a former president is banned from entering more countries than I am. That’s fucking wild and make me feel slightly better about some of the places I’ll never see again.

    • yukichigai
      20•24 days ago

      Which ones and why?

      I sense a fun story and I’m here for it.

      • @Letstakealook@lemm.ee
        37•24 days ago

        Not funny at all, actually. I got a DUI a month after turning 21. Fortunately, nothing terrible happened. There are many countries that either consider a DUI a felony (Canada) or just don’t want you endangering their populace (Japan). There’s quite a list, but it’s less than 37, lol.

        • @MystikIncarnate@lemmy.caEnglish
          16•24 days ago

          On behalf of my country, I’m sorry.

          I honestly have no idea why Canada sees this as enough of a problem to prohibit you from visiting.

          It’s not like we don’t have people here, who live here, who have DUIs. We do. Lots of them.

          Honestly, while it’s bad, it’s not like you’re coming over the border while driving under the influence. It just feels like something that should, at the very least, fall off, after a few years. Like, you get a DUI in 2020, you can’t visit until 2025 or something like that… As long as you don’t get another DUI or other felony, sure, why not?

          IDK. I’m just some guy, eh?

          • @Letstakealook@lemm.ee
            12•24 days ago

            I spent six years there as a kid and experienced quite a bit. I really wanted to revisit as an adult, but that’s not in the cards now. I will always cherish the memories of my time spent there, and I’m glad my parents made a point to see as much of the country, people, and culture as possible.

    • @Wogi@lemmy.world
      36•23 days ago

      Best I can do is a historic number of people voting for him a 3rd time, still losing the popular vote and standing a decent chance at winning anyway

      • @theangryseal@lemmy.world
        7•23 days ago

        I’m signed up to his mailing list for fun. He described it as the darkest day in American history. I’d say roughly half of the country agrees with that assessment.

        Saaaad.

    • @JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
      7•23 days ago

      Unfortunately it’s incredibly difficult to get people to leave cults.

      Voting for him is voting against your own self interest… it’s like some oddly bastardized form of the Heaven’s Gate mass suicide, but slower and more political.

      Now that I think about it…That comparison does feel insulting to Heavens Gate. Their leader believed in what he was preaching and he actually seemed more competent and less malicious since he killed himself too. So I guess a cult that performs a mass suicide is less harmful than trump at this point. I hate this reality so much.

  • مهما طال الليل
    55•23 days ago

    Based on data from the World Population Review, here is a list of countries that do not allow convicted felons to enter:

    1. Argentina
    2. Australia
    3. Canada
    4. China
    5. Cuba
    6. India
    7. Iran
    8. Israel
    9. Japan
    10. Kenya
    11. Macau
    12. New Zealand
    13. South Africa
    14. Taiwan
    15. United Kingdom
    16. United States

    The good news for Trump, is that the UAE is not on the list.

    • @SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
      38•24 days ago

      I’m pretty sure it’s accepted pretty universally that countries must accept citizens back. Reason being, if they don’t, the rejected person becomes another country’s problem, and that is bad for relations.

      • @kungen@feddit.nu
        26•24 days ago

        It’s unconstitutional to deny a US citizen entry to the US. It’s the same in most other countries. But it still happens in many countries; Sweden for example has had a lot of problems deporting convicted criminals to their homelands, because their homeland refuses to accept them back.

          • @ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            26•23 days ago

            What citizenship? I never saw his long-form birth certificate. Clearly, he’s hiding the truth that he was born on the moon. Musk should pilot Starship to take him back on a one-way trip.

            • Flying Squid
              8•23 days ago

              Remember when Trump said he sent investigators to Hawaii and told us “you wouldn’t believe” what they were finding? And then, I guess, decided that was literally true since he never told us what he decided they had found?

              • @SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                3•23 days ago

                Obviously Trump was worried that if he said something people wouldn’t believe it would hurt his credibility.

    • Patapon Enjoyer
      8•23 days ago

      I hope because of some weird loophole he has to live in an airport like Tom Hanks

  • @Gerudo@lemm.ee
    46•24 days ago

    So, for arguments sake, he wins election. He can’t enter those countries as a nations leader?

    Dear God it’ll be like Kristi Noem who can’t enter half her state because the Indian tribes said so.

      • nfhEnglish
        12•23 days ago

        Diplomatic immunity is the inability for someone visiting as a diplomat, which would include a US president visiting another country, to be held to a crime or civil penalty, with countries welcome to expel them for abusing this. I don’t think that applies.

        But a US president who is also a felon could technically be denied correctly by immigration officials, but could reach out to the prime minister to get this fixed, probably in advance.

      • @Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        4•23 days ago

        Diplomatic Immunity is granted by a host country and by the country the diplomat came from. It’s not automatically extended. The US historically automatically grants a President diplomat authority but a country can refuse even the highest ranked ambassador if they so choose.

        I might be mistaken but whether or not Trump would be admitted to a country with one of these policies it would likely go to a individual vote or decision making authority of whatever governing body runs the country whether or not to grant him a personal exemption due to his political position.

        It is also worth mentioning that Trump made some really petty and genuinely awful political decisions that created a lot of hardship for some of the countries on this list. A lot of his wheeling and dealing has been picked apart in courts and actually caused the US some issues since in international trade courts. It may be entirely possible that a country with a grudge would disallow a US president entry which could be quite the setback for the US in multinational bargaining and soft diplomacy.

    • @reddit_sux@lemmy.world
      16•23 days ago

      His ban status will change if he wins. Indian Prime Minister Modi was banned from traveling to US but that changed the moment he was elected as PM.

    • ASeriesOfPoorChoices
      12•23 days ago

      yep. a great example is the current president of the Philippines.

      Wanted by interpol for millions (billions?) in theft and such, has international arrest warrants out for him, but they couldn’t touch him when he visited New York.

      His mother didn’t join him though, because his immunity doesn’t extend that far.

  • @toasteecup@lemmy.worldEnglish
    44•23 days ago

    Wait we don’t allow people with felonies to enter? Quick! Get trump to leave the country!

    I know it doesn’t work that way but God would it be funny.

    • Tar_Alcaran
      26•24 days ago

      Wait, are criminals not allowed to vote in the US?

      Jesus fucking hell, that is not ok.

    • Cosmo
      14•24 days ago

      Apparently he will be able to vote as long as he doesn’t go to prison. That’s the state law of NY, and Florida’s law is the defer to the state where the crime is.

    • @tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      6•24 days ago

      I think his state of residence is Florida.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residences_of_Donald_Trump

      From his birth in 1946 until 2019, Trump listed his primary state of residence as New York; in September 2019, Donald and Melania moved their primary residence to Mar-a-Lago in Florida.[2][3] On January 20, 2021, Trump moved out of the White House preceding the inauguration of Joe Biden.[4]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_the_United_States

      Florida is listed as temporarily disenfranchising felons:

      Felons are enfranchised immediately following the full completion of sentences – involving imprisonment and/or parole or probation.

      I don’t know when that starts, but I assume not until sentencing.

      So, in theory, I guess if he’s sentenced to any of those things and the sentence extends across the election, then no, he can’t vote. If he gets probation in New York, then it sounds like he can’t vote.

      But after any sentence is done, he can vote.

      I don’t know for sure whether, if someone is serving time in prison in New York, whether their state of residence is changed to New York, though, or whether it just is treated as their last state of residence (which is what happens if you leave the US and vote from abroad – you vote as if a resident of the state that you last resided in). If he winds up serving time in a New York prison, which I would not expect, and if that changes his state of residence to New York, then New York law would potentially apply.

    • lettruthoutEnglish
      6•24 days ago

      Headlines are saying “yes”, as long as he’s not in jail on election day.

  • @perviouslyiner@lemmy.world
    12•24 days ago

    Not sure why the UK is included here - the travel ban is:

    • has been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or overseas for which they have received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more
    • is a persistent offender who shows a particular disregard for the law
    • has committed a criminal offence, or offences, which caused serious harm

    Two of those look like something for the Home Secretary to decide, and good luck expecting the Home Secretary to make any sense.

    • @DBT@lemmy.world
      2•22 days ago

      I am a convicted felon who has visited the UK. I was never questioned about it. I entered just like everyone else without it ever being brought up.

      I’m sure it’s different everywhere. I once looked into visiting Canada and recall having to fill out a form or something, but never actually went.