• tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months 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.

    • Cosmos7349@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months 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.

  • dan@upvote.au
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months 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?

    • Balthazar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Australia has received too many convicted felons already, after they entered about 200 years ago.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

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

        • neidu2@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months 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.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months 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@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

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

  • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months 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.

      • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months 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.

          • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months 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.

        • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months 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?

  • Balthazar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Donald Trump faces travel ban to 37 countries

    That’s 3 more countries than his 34 felony counts!

  • uebquauntbez@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Russia, maybe he goes to Russia. Putin and Trump now have the same enemy. Free western democratic justice system.

  • مهما طال الليل@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months 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.

  • toasteecup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months 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.

  • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Huh. Argentina. Lots of his kind from the fatherland down there. And now he can’t join them.

    • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months 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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

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

  • Professorozone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months 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.