Memeorandum points me to an article in, of all places, People magazine titled “Donald Trump Is Banned from 37 Countries as Convicted Felon, Including Major Allies Like Canada and U.K.“
Donald Trump may face travel restrictions with his newfound felon status, potentially complicating his presidency if he were to win another term in office.
Thirty-eight nations, counting the United States, bar felons from entry, according to World Population Review. Those bans stand regardless of whether someone is allowed to retain their passport after conviction.
Countries that turn felons away include several of the United States’ strongest allies, like the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada — the final of which will host the G7 summit of world leaders in 2025. The list also includes a number of nations at the center of pressing foreign policy issues, such as China, Israel and Mexico.
International governments can, and in some cases would, choose to make an exception for Trump if he requested special permission as president to make a visit.
A quick scan of the World Population Review article in question reveals this to be mostly nonsense. Australia, for example, won’t allow felons to immigrate. Canada “reserves the right to refuse entrance to any would-be visitors who have a criminal history. This includes those who have committed felonies, primarily if the offense resulted in a 10-year prison sentence.” The UK doesn’t even require those with an American passport to have a visa. For those in countries requiring a visa, a background check will be conducted and the “The permit may be declined if the officials reviewing the application believe that the person intends to commit harm while in the UK.”
But the article highlights a problem with the general discourse around convicted felons. When we hear the term “felon,” most of us think of crimes like murder, rape, robbery, arson, and the like. But relatively minor crimes, theoretically punishable with a year or more in prison, are also included under that rubric.
In the Commonwealth of Virginia, where I live, there are six classes of felonies:
(a) For Class 1 felonies, death, if the person so convicted was 18 years of age or older at the time of the offense and is not determined to be mentally retarded pursuant to § 19.2-264.3:1.1, or imprisonment for life and, subject to subdivision (g), a fine of not more than $100,000. If the person was under 18 years of age at the time of the offense or is determined to be mentally retarded pursuant to § 19.2-264.3:1.1, the punishment shall be imprisonment for life and, subject to subdivision (g), a fine of not more than $100,000.
(b) For Class 2 felonies, imprisonment for life or for any term not less than 20 years and, subject to subdivision (g), a fine of not more than $100,000.
(c) For Class 3 felonies, a term of imprisonment of not less than five years nor more than 20 years and, subject to subdivision (g), a fine of not more than $100,000.
(d) For Class 4 felonies, a term of imprisonment of not less than two years nor more than 10 years and, subject to subdivision (g), a fine of not more than $100,000.
(e) For Class 5 felonies, a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than 10 years, or in the discretion of the jury or the court trying the case without a jury, confinement in jail for not more than 12 months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.
(f) For Class 6 felonies, a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five years, or in the discretion of the jury or the court trying the case without a jury, confinement in jail for not more than 12 months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.
Yet, we apply the term “felon” to those convicted of any of those crimes and, quite often, impose rather harsh consequences, including the removal of the right to vote and difficulty in being hired for jobs, to even Class 6 felons. We should almost certainly rethink that.
I find it amusing to label Trump a “convicted felon,” but he’s been convicted of what strike me as relatively minor offenses. Were he an ordinary citizen, I would find it absurd if his right to travel or vote were restricted beyond the term of whatever sentence he’s required to serve. Given that he’s vying for our vote to be, among other things, our chief law enforcement officer, I find permanently disqualifying him for that job prudent.
