A diplomat's child is not a citizen of their country?

What treaty do you think violates the constitution? The terminology about whether children born of foreign diplomats on US soil comes directly from the 14 Amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The treaties say they are not under the jurisdiction of the US. The 14 Amendment as interpreted by the Executive branch and the courts says that means they are not US citizens by birth.

OK, it seems like a really interesting premise for a Law & Order SVU script. Teen father sues for custody/visitation. Daughter of diplomat asserts she cannot be held to US court orders… much hilarity follows.

Recall during the last election, the extreme [description withheld under board rules and basic politeness] tried to claim that Kamala Harris was not eligible to run for Vice-President, since she would not be eligible to be president. Both her parents were in the USA on student visas when she was born and the tenuous and erroneous argument was that: being temporarily admitted rather than permanent residents technically put them in the category of “not subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. A rather far-fetched legal argument among many that we saw in 2020. Obviously a student on a student visa is subject to all the laws a citizen is subject to. Both students and permanent residents, IIRC, can even have their residency revoked and be deported, an additional “subject to” right that is not enjoyed by citizens.

It’s clearly spelled out in the law quoted by the OP. A child born in America to foreign diplomats is not a US Citizen.

In US law nothing supersedes the US Constitution. It is the highest law in the country. Treaties are basically federal law.

Article VI of the US constitution says (in part…known as the Supremacy Clause):

- This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The US Constitution can only be modified or added to by amendment. A much, much more difficult process.

OK. It’s clearly spelled out in the constitution that a child born in the USA to diplomats (which is what not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means) is not. So the question is - which takes precedence? That was the 14th amendment.

Just so we know what we are talking about:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The first sentence is the entire thread in a nutshell. Not sure what the difficulty is. Very simply - anyone born here are citizens except those exempt from US laws - i.e. diplomats and their jurisdiction-exempt families, including those born to diplomats who therefore when born in the USA inherit their exemption from the jurisdiction thereof and so fail to qualify for citizenship.

For a document subject to remarkable nuances of interpretation in other aspects, this particular sentence is stunningly clear.

What is the argument about?

And further, the constitution says about the president:

The president and vice president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States

Which at the time was designed to prevent exactly what happened in Mexico in the 1860’s, the European proclivity of dumping a foreign and often under-age monarch as ruler on a conquered country.

That is actually a common misconception. The host nation may not enter the embassy without the consent of the head of the mission. Here is one article which explains it, and quotes the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961

Included in the article was an example of a local pregnant woman who happened to give birth inside a US embassy but was told that her baby would not be given US citizenship as it was not US soil.

Back to the question of diplomat’s children, my wife’s college classmate is a Taiwanese career foreign service officer, and his son was a baby when they were posted to New York. I asked him and he confirmed that children of diplomats are not eligible for US citizenship.

As has been stated multiple times in this thread, the 14th Amendment spells out the exception to the jus soli rule. It has been reviewed by the legislature and the courts as being the correct interpretation of that wording. This isn’t especially controversial.

I think @Whack-a-Mole was discussing the side point of whether a treaty could override the Constitution, not whether diplomat’s newborns are citizens.

My impression from the OP was that they mistakenly thought that diplomat’s newborns are not citizens of their own country or something. The original FQ was answered by post 4, I think.

I can’t find the case (I believe it was a migratory bird treaty with Canada) but IIRC SCOTUS ruled that a treaty cannot in effect amend or contradict the Constitution.

Moderator Action

Since the OP has been factually answered and this thread is just becoming a flag magnet, we’re done.

Thread closed.