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.
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.
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.
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.
Pretty sure diplomatic immunity is a thing that would come into play.
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.
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.
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.
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.