No, the topic is diplomatic immunity. You and your AC cohorts are trying to change it to permission, which is irrelevant.

A country can refuse entry-permission to a diplomat, with possible consequences. But once they're allowed to enter, they have diplomatic immunity. Including immunity from inspection.

The OP Hey_Jude_Jesus mentioned inspection at the beginning and I replied with the point that Trump, as a head of state, is diplomatically immune from that kind of inspection -- at least while he's in office. And here we are now, with you and your friends continually trying (and failing) to change the subject to permission.

I introduced the subject of diplomatic immunity near the beginning of this thread. Others who responded brought up the red herring of permission to enter a country.

So no, I'm not changing the subject. Others are, and I keep bringing it back.

I never said it worked like that. Again, the subject is diplomatic immunity -- not permission to enter a country.

And with this, I'm done responding to AC trolls in this thread.

It's reciprocal. Country A grants diplomatic immunity to diplomats from country B, because country A has diplomats in country B who need immunity. You start denying immunity and there are consequences for the side doing the denying.

When a diplomat commits a crime, generally one of two things can happen: (1) the host country asks the diplomat's country to waive immunity so that the diplomat can be charged in the host country; or (2) the diplomat is declared persona non grata and must leave the host country, presumably to face trial for the crime in his/her native country. If the diplomat gets off without a trial, then that further enflames the diplomatic relationship between the two countries, and may have consequences.

Once again, I'm not MAGA. Far from it.

And I'm not wrong. My interlocutor talked about the ability to enter a country. I didn't: my point was that diplomats have immunity when they enter, irrespective of how they obtained permission to enter.

"Explicitly?" Where?

Simply living in a democratic society, whether you vote or you don't, is implicit consent to be governed by whoever wins an election. But this consent is not the same as a vote for whoever won.

I wonder whether you are hallucinating that all of the non-votes are actually "votes" for whoever won. Good luck with that fever dream.

I'm not MAGA. (Far from it.) And Trump is nobody's king. He just has diplomatic immunity while he's in office.

I did not assert that a foreign diplomat can "just come" to the UN without permission. I said they have diplomatic immunity when they come to the UN.

Putin has an arrest warrant for war crimes from the ICC over his head. War crimes are grave international crimes, and could be "just cause" for a country to arrest him. The foreign minister of Brazil has warned Putin he would be arrested if he went there.

Nothing you said contradicts what I said.

No. As a head of state, he has diplomatic immunity when he travels to a foreign country. If he were arrested, it would violate customary international law, and perhaps also treaties. The immunity is not absolute, but damn near.

I suppose a foreign country could try to do it, but without just cause (e.g., for grave international crimes) the consequences could be significant. They could include at least commensurate retaliatory action (expelling diplomats, etc.)

This principle applies, for example, when foreign diplomats come to the USA to address the UN, even from countries the USA is not all that fond of.

But once he's out of office, he no longer has immunity.

In a democracy, we all agree to accept the outcome whether we vote or we don't, and no matter who we voted for if we did.

Look, I get that people don't vote for many reasons:

- didn't have time;
- couldn't get babysitters;
- unable to reach the polls before closing after waiting in a long line;
- wrongly removed from the list of registered voters;
- wanting to make a statement by not voting;
- and so on.

But it still comes down to this: not voting is not voting. It is not some different kind of vote. I think we agree on that.

The only case I can think of where voting and not voting might be blurred is when someone spoils their ballot. If it's intentional, then it's the same as not voting, but with the added statement of counting among the spoiled ballots -- kind of a "none of the above" vote, but not really. And if it's unintentional, then it's a vote, but cast carelessly and not counted.

Well ... you can't. You simply assert what you know to be the truth, and if USCIS believes you, then you're fine. Presumably they'd check to see whether anyone with your name has an Instagram account, and if they find a match, question you about it.

If they don't believe you, then they may refuse you entry. They can do that. They can refuse you entry for pretty much any tenable reason, if you don't have status.

On the other hand, if you lie, and USCIS finds out, then you can be banned entry to the USA for up to 5 years.

There is such a thing as voting.
There is such a thing as not voting.
The two are not the same.

Equating opposites is lethal to epistemology.

Thanks for the improvement.

President Donald Trump has immunity from that kind of inspection.

While he's in office.

If you get diverted to secondary inspection at a US border crossing, USCIS can, and just might, scan your electronic devices. They may demand to know your passwords -- to your devices and your online accounts. If you refuse to give them, then they may refuse you entry, or confiscate the device for more detailed inspection, and (eventually) return it to you.

This can even happen to citizens, except that they cannot be denied entry. Green-card holders cannot be denied entry either, unless they have committed a crime or have overstayed outside the USA before returning.

Wrong. Trump/Vance obtained a plurality of the popular vote, but not over 50% of it.

It follows therefore that they did not get 50% of the voting public either. The voting public being the citizenry who are eligible to vote, but may or may not have done so.