Nothing you said relates to the law. It relates to politics.
If you ran over someone you would be sent back to face charges.
If you were the SO of someone politically connected and fled the country you’re likely to be fine…just never go back to that country.
The issue here is what the law says and, I think, this is a great example of how vague it can be. Especially if you are well connected.
That was really fun to write too.
Again, it isn’t about being “politically connected,” it’s about being granted diplomatic immunity, which is well-established in international treaties.
The law isn’t nearly as vague as you feel it is.
I believe the diplomat’s immediate family living with them abroad. As for more technical details like what if their child is over 18 or if their dependent mother is living with them also gets immunity, I just don’t know.
How far does that immunity extend to family?
Kids?
Aunts?
Grandma?
This has already been answered several times in response to your questions here. It extends to the diplomat’s spouse, and children under the age of 21 (under the age of 23 if they are full-time college students and an actual member of the parent’s household). No aunties, no grandmas, etc., etc.
Do you know how badly I want the Queen of the UK (not privy council, QE2 herself) ask the Queen of Canada (not the GG, QE2 herself) to waive diplomatic immunity and be denied personally by the Queen of Canada? That seems so very British to me.
That is incorrect. As a matter of law Her Majesty’s Government could not bring charges against me unless Her Majesty’s Government waived my immunity. What’s politics is that given the nature of the relationship between the UK and Canada I’d likely end up being thrown under the bus by my own government (and rightfully so.)
We are getting a little far afield of the thread topic. Diplomatic Immunity exists, people who are granted DI are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. They answer to their home country.
Their home country could shield them, or throw them to the wolves, but it is the home country’s decision.
This is well travelled ground, and nobody who has traveled it thinks that diplomat babies should be American Citizens.
This was already answered in a prior post:
Or two:
Closing thread until an FQ mod can respond to the huge number of flags.
Please do not add any more flags to this thread.
Moderator Warning
I was going to lump this in with a bunch of other mod notes, but you have a long history of doing this sort of thing and repeated notes and warnings are not getting through to you. So here is another warning, along with a reminder that if you keep engaging in this behavior, your posting privileges here will come under review.
This is an official warning for insulting/attacking another user outside of the Pit.
Moderator Note
We received a lot of flags on this thread, so this is going to be a bunch of mod notes all in one post.
If someone attacks or insults you, do not respond in kind, or you may also receive a warning. Do not do this again.
This is way out of bounds for FQ. Whack-a-Mole was asking how far immunity extends. “I thought (x)” is simply expressing their current understanding, which in this context clearly is asking for clarification and understanding.
This is off-topic for this thread.
The discussion here is, factually, about a diplomat’s child and their citizenship. The implications of the parent being a diplomat and the child’s citizenship are obvious follow-ups to that, so we’re allowing a bit of a hijack into those related topics, but what happens to someone who is not a diplomat is not relevant at all. Might be a good GD topic though, especially if you want to get into what should happen.
GENERAL NOTE
FQ is for Factual Questions, and is, more than other forums, about fighting ignorance (since 1973…). People are allowed to ask questions, even multiple questions, and are allowed to post their current understanding of things in an attempt for clarification or understanding or to try to sort out the differences between their understanding and what they may have read elsewhere and what is being posted here. We do not want to stifle that in any way.
NOTE TO ALL
Let’s all try to keep things relevant to the OP, and keep the discussion factual.
That said, this is re-opened.
Think about the whole purpose of diplomatic immunity. You have two countries that for many reasons would like to be able to communicate with each other before a misunderstanding and a war starts. So they send diplomats to each others countries. After a while, probably because of sputtering starts, the countries realized that diplomacy didn’t work if you took the other country’s diplomats hostage, imprisoned, or killed them. It would put a damper on diplomacy. So they come up with a system that the worst that will happen to a diplomat is that we eject them and send them home.
Now, with that purpose in mind, wouldn’t that extend to a spouse and children? The same problems arise if, instead of imprisoning the diplomat, you do the same to his wife and kids. Familial immunity would almost have to be a part of it to make it work.
Anecdotal:
I consider the mess I was as a teen and I am not sure immunity from the law would be a good idea.
As a country I can see not letting them hold family as a hostage but as a country I am giving YOU a diplomat’s status and not your kids/spouse (I can see staff having some protection).
When you were a teen, were you the child of a diplomat in a foreign country? It’s a special circumstance, one likely brought about by thousands of years of diplomacy. And if you think about it, how could it work otherwise? If you make an exception for violation of local law, then the country who would imprison the diplomat simply makes up a crime, say, he was drunk and disorderly in public, or he stole something, or pin a murder on him.
The only way to do it is give immunity to the diplomat and his family.
Maybe leave your kids in the home country. Such is the price of service.
I can see it depending on the country you are in and its relationship with your country. Some I am sure would be fine. Others, you might worry.
On the other hand, if a country were to not extend DI to a diplomat’s family, you’d wind up discouraging many otherwise highly-qualified members of the diplomatic corps from entering the field (or staying in it once they have a family).
How many ambassadors can you name who got their job because they were highly qualified diplomats with a lifetime of experience and chose that job out of a zeal for service to their country?