- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
The UN has to move all of its activities outside of America and somewhere with a written guarantee of not interfering in its mission.
We can’t let them learn the secrets of our $4.99 rotisserie chickens!
Can they at least get the hotdogs?
The movements of Iranian diplomats are severely limited in New York, but one proposal being floated would bar them from shopping at big, members-only wholesale stores like Costco and Sam’s Club without first receiving the express permission of the State Department.
So, still insane but a lot less than the article title implies.
still insane but a lot less than the article title implies.
I mean . . .
They want to stop people from coming into our country and buying products we sell here… Of course that’s insane. That’s exactly what any country should want if they believe in capitalism/global markets. Money coming into your economy is like the entire point of these tarrifs MAGA believes in. The only way they make sense is if you ignore logic and just say we want our money spent here and limit how much of our wealth gets spread to other countries. Within a global market for one country to be rich, others must be poor really. Exports > Imports = country getting richer. This limits exports, “because we don’t like them.”. It really shows they don’t give a fuck about the companies making money either, hate Trump’s all.
Granted it’s just a tiny impact because there are so few of them.
None of this is about logic or even common sense. It’s all petty vindictiveness.
It’s extremely normal for host countries to impose restrictions on the activity of diplomats - hostile or no. US diplomats basically require an escort just to leave the embassy in Russia, for example, and all countries restrict potentially contentious visits (like some diplomats visiting war memorials, as has happened recently in Korea/Japanese politics). But this is an absurd escalation of that privilege for no other reason than trump’s ego.
Idk, your examples are the Korean/Japanese relationship and the Russia/non-Russia relationship. Those don’t seem to be good standards for international diplomatic practices.
Those were examples with a similar degree of ‘political baggage’ as the USA/Iran political situation, hence why I chose them. It’s a very complex topic that I encourage you to look into if you’re curious about the specifics beyond what I presented in a two sentence lemmy comment.
Okay but you said “this is normal” and “hostile or not”. Then you go on to list examples of nations with strained relations where, I think, it’s less surprising if they don’t fully trust each other’s diplomats - instead of an example where traditionally friendly nations do the same. I’m not sure what point you’re making.
It’s extremely normal for host countries to impose restrictions on the activity of diplomats
That claim is independent of the examples I’ve already presented, that’s pretty explicit. I never claimed to be trying to present the whole of the spectrum of diplomatic visa processes with those examples. But sure, if you want specific but less relevant examples of what these restrictions look like, I can do that:
- Restrictions on driving (must have an escort when driving)
- No ability to obtain general government ID issued by a host-country (Cannot get a UK passport or endorsed ID as a non-naturalized foreign consulate worker)
- Restrictions on property ownership
- Requirement to notify for changes in address or marital status (famously a bit of a sticky one…)
- Requirement to behave “in a manner befitting a representative of state” (don’t get caught with your dick out
too many times) - Disclosure requirements for monetary transactions over a given value
- A lack of access to public funds or services (no foodstamps, in the UK’s case free treatment from the NHS is negotiated)
- Lack of ability to apply for permanent resident / green card / meet immigration residency requirements due to time accrued living in a country as part of a diplomatic visa
- Exemptions to degrees of criminal prosecution (diplomatic immunity)
Etc.
It’s pretty boring though, and really doesn’t factor in to what’s going on in the above. The entire objective of my comment was just to clarify that trump is not considering a ban on shopping at costco for all Iranians (which would be stupid even for this administration) but a change to the diplomatic visa agreement between the US and Iran to include retail restrictions for their diplomatic staff, which is dumb but a lot less dumb than the title of the article implies.
(edit: clarity)
Fair, but they just wanted to buy a twelve pack of socks for $7.99. That’s nothing like getting a government-issued ID or anything else on the list. Nothing like it.
It’s just small-minded, tiny-handed fuckery from a pitiful incompetent deranged administration.
Welcome to Costco, I love you if you don’t come from Iran
Idiocracy is the best
You know it’s not Costco banning them right?
What I would love Costco to do is to fill up several of their trucks filled with a portion of their inventory and drive it within walking distance to the UN so that Iranian diplomats can shop in the truck.
But I fear that a large truck driving up to the UN might cause the wrong reaction.
deleted by creator
