Technically, no. People have been turned away for DUI’s from decades earlier. But, as the other reply said, Trumpitler has “immunity.”
So it’s like he’s been vaccinated.
Also like Alberta’s premier would slobber all over that carrot.
Quite the visual
They’re allowed if they fill up the right paperwork and it’s approved by the Canadian border service agency, it’s not about immunity, it’s a process that exists for anyone with a criminal record, the difference is that Trump will be approved automatically just like Bush was 20 years ago.
Removed by mod
I*
I’m curious about what this had said.
No u
Diplomatic immunity, technically felon trump isn’t stepping into the country, there is a bubble of “USA” around him.
Physically he is there, but whatever country’s jurisdiction doesn’t apply to him. Or any diplomat for that matter. 😓
Edit: To clarify, it doesn’t mean he has the right to enter any country. A country can still declare a person “persona non grata” and ban people from entering including head of states, although I doubt any country is gonna deny the leader of the most powerful country (in terms of military strength) from a official visit because his convicted felon status.
Diplomatic immunity is just gonna be the excuse a country uses to bypass any law in a country that may prevent a foreigner from entering.
That’s not how diplomatic immunity works, it’s for crimes committed inside the host country, the host country can refuse entry to anyone, even diplomats or presidents. Just because you’re the president of the US it doesn’t mean you can just show up in any country.
Just like Bush for his DUI, Trump will need to have the paperwork necessary to be granted access to Canada as a person with a criminal record.
My comment has been edited to clarify what I meant.
And your comment is still wrong. Diplomatic immunity has nothing to do with the process any foreigner with a criminal record can go through to visit Canada. It’s paperwork and it’s the same thing Bush was doing to visit Canada while he was president 20 years ago.
https://ircc.canada.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=142&top=8
Again, diplomatic immunity is about things the person does while inside the host country if they’re acting as a representative of their country and it only protects certain people, not anyone sent by a country and in Canada it doesn’t even apply to presidents/premiers/kings of foreign nations.
there is a bubble of “USA” around him.
I like this visual. It’s like a force field.
More like a fart cloud
That’s not how diplomatic immunity works. A nation is welcome to ban entry to any foreign national.
Diplomatic immunity is for crimes commited within a foreign nation. It’s also worth notting that the immunity can be revoked as well by the nation that said foreign national is from, there by allowing them to be arrested and tried under the local justice system.
How does it work when the diplomat / head of state has been sentenced by an international court for war crimes or crimes against humanity?
The host country can recognize it and arrest them… or not. Technically Mongolia should have arrested Putin when he visited not too long ago, they didn’t because that would have been political suicide.
The international court is a completely different beast from a national court.
Until he’s sentenced, he’s free to walk around. His sentencing hearing is scheduled for November 26.
However, if he appeals, expect him to continue to walk around free until the entire appeals process is completed.
Now a convicted felon can forget about traveling to Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland. They share the U.S.'s felony database.
You can still visit 99% of the rest of the world, though. Just need to not apply for any visas or ever fill out any customs paperwork admitting to it.
Every country that says ‘Visa not required’ or ‘Visa on demand’, should be good to go. That includes Japan.
Now, If a country has an ‘eVisa’, ‘ETA (Electronic Travel Authority)’ or ‘Visa required’, he’d probably won’t travel to those
For the fifth time, he just needs to fill up some paperwork and the Canadian border service agency decides to allow him in or not, the same right is given to any person with a criminal record visiting Canada.
George W. Bush has a record for DUI and the same process was necessary whenever he visited Canada, they never prevented him from entering the country, just like they’ll never prevent Trump from entering Canada.
Big difference between letting in someone with a DUI and someone who is a convicted rapist
Doesn’t matter, the process to ask to be allowed in is the same.
Also, in this specific case, the rape accusations were in civil court so they’re not accusations that would prevent him from entering Canada. The charges that made him a felon are the ones related to the hush money.
Yeah I read your comment after and didn’t knew how to redirect to it from mine. Thanks for clarifying
You can be free to walk around but that doesn’t mean Canada has to let you through immigration.
Is commander in chief an active military position?
Pretty sure that’s a bit of a loophole, he rides on Airforce One.
Is commander in chief an active military position?
I think it’s specifically not a military position. The president being a civilian is how in theory the military must operate under civilian control.
deleted by creator
Trump will be granted access the same way Bush was (he has a DUI), there’s paperwork necessary that wouldn’t be if he didn’t have a record and that anyone can fill up in the same situation, entry will be granted by default for Trump, that’s the main difference.
This may be offtopic, but what do the third and forth flags next to the name of the creator of the post whose screenshot is being posted here mean?
Georgia and Moldova.
3rd is Georgia (the country, not the state). 4th is Moldova.
I know the countries, i was asking why they were next to the name
Georgia and Moldova both are struggling against Russian influences in their elections.
he’s building a list of all the countries he’s been to or wants to go to
He can pardon himself of it
Well, do they give the answer in the article? Kananaskis?
