I'm not sure what to make of that news. Customs/airport laws/regulations are bad or a Norway politician should be above the law just because of his social class, so holding him is scandalous because the law shouldn't apply to him?
http://www.corpsdiplomatique.cd/VIENNA_CONVENTION_1961_ON_DI...
Article 29
The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He
shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The
receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall
take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his
person, freedom or dignity.
I half-agree with the GP, that he shouldn't be above the law just because he was PM, but also, the purpose of detaining and questioning people for entry is to determine whether they pose a risk (even though I think that's dumb). A former PM is probably very low on that list.
It should be enough when they found that I have a
diplomatic passport, [that I’m a] former prime minister.
“It should be enough when they found that I have a diplomatic passport, [that I’m a] former prime minister. That should be enough for them to understand that I don’t represent any problem or threat to this country and [to] let me go immediately, but they didn’t.”
And:
“I was surprised, and I was provoked,” he said. “What will the reputation of the US be if this happens not only to me, but also to other international leaders?”
So he doesn't really care about the "brown person" paranoia, all he cares about is "diplomats shouldn't be treated like Arabs", which I personally find distasteful.
He had a diplomatic passport.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport#Diplomatic_passport
E.g. here in Germany the law explicitly adds the possibility to issue them to people travelling "in the special interest of Germany", which a former PM traveling to an important event he was invited to because of his status (which the National Prayer Breakfast seems to be) would fit. (There even are exceptions where no representative role at all is required, although I doubt they are used much)
Either way, it sounds like situations like these used to be handled a little more smoothly/amicably. If two nations are friendly to each other, and one fucks up, what's the use in antagonism?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/state-depart...
Do retired small city mayors travel in first class on diplomatic passports and expect to be free from customs and immigration rules that apply to everyone else? They do not.
He isn't a fairytale prince. When he loses his post, he can travel on legitimate documents like the rest of us.
us peons would be treated worse. it's a canary in the coal-mine when a former Norwegian PM, a politician of one of the larger NATO ally nations, is delayed and questioned at the US border.
This demonstrates that the current administration (it didn't ever HAPPEN under prior administrations) is pursuing a course of non-diplomacy which will result in the global isolation of the USA and the loss of friends and political capital abroad.
There's nothing to defend in such behavior, as it's a harbinger of bad things, not good things. Period.
A public figure being held does make it easier for partisans to shriek about Trump's executive order, though.