The Trump administration has already denied visas for Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and his large delegation to attend the U.N. General Assembly later this month.
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.
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.
Okay, and that’s why I didn’t write that list initially: it’s not useful to my initial point. I instead provided two examples of diplomatic restrictions from situations that are similar in political outlook, then called what trump is currently doing “an absurd escalation of that privilege for no other reason than trump’s ego.”
He is not considering restricting all Iranians from shopping at costco (or “bulk goods / warehouse stores” to borrow what passes for their exact language), he is considering restricting the Iranian diplomatic visa holders from doing that. Since the title, while technically accurate, could be easily said to claim the former, I clarified. I don’t disagree at all that this is fucking absurd, just less so than it could have been interpreted to be.
(A peace offering: consulate or embassy staff in the US often buy goods that cannot be supplied by their home country (food, linens, etc.) at these warehouse stores for safety reasons (this is how the whitehouse kitchen operates, too). Given the sales volume, the direct control the customer has over the product from the moment of selection and the sheer quantity of the stores that are available in a given urban area, it makes it infeasible for a product to have been tampered with prior to it reaching the diplomatic staff. By restricting access, Trump would create a massive logistical complication and threat vector for the Iranians)
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:
too many times)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.
Okay, and that’s why I didn’t write that list initially: it’s not useful to my initial point. I instead provided two examples of diplomatic restrictions from situations that are similar in political outlook, then called what trump is currently doing “an absurd escalation of that privilege for no other reason than trump’s ego.”
He is not considering restricting all Iranians from shopping at costco (or “bulk goods / warehouse stores” to borrow what passes for their exact language), he is considering restricting the Iranian diplomatic visa holders from doing that. Since the title, while technically accurate, could be easily said to claim the former, I clarified. I don’t disagree at all that this is fucking absurd, just less so than it could have been interpreted to be.
(A peace offering: consulate or embassy staff in the US often buy goods that cannot be supplied by their home country (food, linens, etc.) at these warehouse stores for safety reasons (this is how the whitehouse kitchen operates, too). Given the sales volume, the direct control the customer has over the product from the moment of selection and the sheer quantity of the stores that are available in a given urban area, it makes it infeasible for a product to have been tampered with prior to it reaching the diplomatic staff. By restricting access, Trump would create a massive logistical complication and threat vector for the Iranians)