This is so sweet.

*They’re all shithole countries anyway. -T

Asylum in Russia.

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.

Quick, remind me which country Trump's Aberdeenshire Golf course is in again?

As a brit I don't see this being enforced in the UK. The gov would be too scared that trump or an ally would come to power and we can't risk effecting the special welationship 👉👈

Which ones and why?

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

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

Unfortunately there are too many stupid Americans, sorry.

Unfortunately the verdict will do nothing to sway his supporters away from him.

Australia? I thought it was a requirement!

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.

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

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.

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

Jesus fucking hell, that is not ok.

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.

• is a persistent offender who shows a particular disregard for the law

Yup that one right there. Textbook example