So you disagree with the way it works.
Thanks for letting us know, but that IS the way it works and has for quite a long time now.
I’m not talking about ambassadors (who are, as you seem to be suggesting, often given those roles for political reasons, and are often not career diplomats). I’m talking about the actual members of the diplomatic corps, who have, in fact, pursued such a job as their career.
Do they all have diplomatic immunity that same as an ambassador? (really asking)
No…the question was about discouraging diplomats from the job.
I don’t think any ambassador sought the job because they wanted to serve. They did so because it is a prestigious job.
Maybe the ambassador to Burkina Faso is a career diplomat.
Short answer: yes, though the lower down in the hierarchy, the less that may be covered by it (note that Anne Sacoolas, the woman who was being discussed upthread, is apparently the wife of a diplomat, not an ambassador). Most “career diplomats” are very likely going to fall into the first category described below (link to the cite is at the bottom of this post):
Moderator Note
This is all off-topic for this thread.
How you think things should work or "what-if"s belong in IMHO or GD.
How and why ambassadors got their job is not a part of this topic.
Please stick to the topic and keep the discussion factual.
The “how and why” aside as instructed, the fact remains that diplomatic staff up to and including ambassadors do often take their families (spouses and minor children) with them as the postings are often for years. This now also includes same-sex married couples, by the way.
Yes, it is normally the case that the ambassador to a low-profile country such as Burkina Faso is a career diplomat who has worked her way up through the diplomatic service.
For high-profile countries such as China, the ambassador is normally a political appointee, while all other diplomats are career Foreign Service Officers.
Wiklipedia has a handy-dandy list of all ambassadors of the U.S. and helpfully lists whether they’re career diplomats or political appointees.
There are by far more career diplomats than political appointees, if only because the world has a lot more countries like Burkina Faso than France.
AFAIK diplomatic immunity applies to someone entering the country on a diplomatic passport. Generally, unless passing through, the diplomat would have their accreditations accepted by the state department of the receiving country. The sending country cannot just send anyone it feels like and leave the host country unable to deal with them - the host country can refuse to accept a diplomat, and/or ask them to leave at any time.
But as repeated above ad nauseum, the diplomat is NOT subject to the laws (jurisdiction) of the local country. This is what produces the answer to your question, why the constitution and laws exclude their children born in the USA from citizenship.
They cannot be prosecuted locally. However, often the country they are from will deal with them instead, if the charge is serious. My brother had a liaison post with an American agency for a few years and lived near Washington. He mentioned that the Canadian External Affairs warned him seriously that he (or his immediate family, if he’d had one with him) would be exempt from local laws, but should the government find out about any legal problems whatsoever he would likely be on the first flight home with a serious re-examination of his career.
Good examples:
This guy probably wished Moscow had waived immunity - a Canadian jail is probably a better place.
There’s also this:
These kids found the hard way, while the consul (not an ambassador) has diplomatic immunity, family of a consul apparently don’t necessarily enjoy the same immunity privileges as ambassadors’ families.
An issue nobody has raised - so presumably, if an ambassador’s teenage daughter has a child while living in the USA, presumably that child too is not an American by birth (jus soli) as the mother is outside jurisdiction? then does the child inherit immunity?
To be fair to the American being chased by the British - I have driven in places like Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. You would be amazed how easy it is to be on automatic pilot and forget to drive on the other side of the road. The easiest clue that oops, you are on the wrong side of the road is oncoming traffic. The one or two oops I’ve had (none serious) were on deserted country roads and in unmarked parking lots. I almost blew the tires out approaching the security gate as soon as I picked up a car at Heathrow headed out on the wrong side of the entry booth. (Then it took a minute or two to figure out where reverse was.)
Apparently, she was leaving a facility in the countryside, late at night, and she came around a corner head-on with a motorcycle so no time to adjust. When I was on the road near Ayers Rock, I saw the bus coming half a mile away and corrected my driving.
That is an interesting question. If the father is American then the kid is American. But what if the father is someone on the embassy staff? Just how far would “inherited immunity” go, if there is such a thing?
In addition to what was already said:
Many — I think more than have diplomatic immunity — are exempt from some U.S. taxes. This is another way in which an embassy or consulate employee or dependent may not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
NM, just saw the mod note.
<< deleted by poster >>
So, it is not automatic citizenship but seems a foreign diplomat CAN register their newborn as a US citizen if they want to if it is born in the US. If one parent is a US citizen then the child is automatically a citizen if born in the US.
The child of a foreign diplomatic officer accredited by the U.S. Department of State who is born in the United States may voluntarily register for lawful permanent residence.
Foreign diplomats enjoy certain immunities under international law. The spouse and child of a diplomat generally enjoy similar immunities. Children born in the United States to accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” [2] DHS regulations, however, have long allowed these children to choose to be considered lawful permanent residents (LPRs) from the time of birth. [3]
Registration as a permanent resident under this provision is entirely voluntary, but it does involve an application process.
This registration process is necessary and available only if both parents were foreign diplomats when the child was born. If one parent was an accredited diplomat, but the other was a U.S. citizen or non-citizen U.S. national, then the child was “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” and is a citizen.
Note: As @kenobi_65 noted below this is not citizenship but permanent residence.
(emphasis mine)
Just to note that a “lawful permanent resident” of the U.S. is a different thing from being a U.S. citizen. Your cite shows that foreign diplomats can register their U.S.-born children to be permanent residents; it doesn’t say that they can register them as U.S. citizens.
Good point.
Please excuse the hijack, it’s been a long while since high school law class, I seem to recall that treaties signed and ratified by the US supersede or modify the US constitution or have to be written in such a way as to not conflict with the constitution. (Seriously, it was high school, a single semester long class and 30 years ago). Please correct me if wrong and refine if not “wrong” per sé?
Ahem. Diplomatic “spawn” here, thank you very much. And I know that I’m not the only one on the board with this type of background.
Regarding the immunity issue, the way it was explained to me when growing up was that it was to protect diplomats from possible harassment from the country in which they were serving in the event that relations went sour. It wasn’t meant to be a “get out of jail free” card, even though that’s what it’s become in some cases.
Sure, that’s the intent. But the get out of jail free aspect of it is the inevitable result. Home countries can waive immunity, or prosecute the individual on their own soil. But effectively the host country’s hands are tied with respect to prosecuting misbehaving diplomats or diplomatic spawn.