So, Clair, what’s the Right Answer?
(according what I presume is a Western democracy you were being examined in)
Unfortunately, there’s no right answer. The point of the question was “Theorizing is great, but in real life situations, your job isn’t to write an essay”.
And unfortunately too, from a political point of view, the most likely appropriate action is “don’t let him in!”.
Some countries’ diplomats in NYC (UN) and Washington DC have millions of dollars in outstanding parking tickets and there is nothing NYC or DC can do about it. The Russians were one of the worst offenders, IIRC.
The notion that the embassy grounds “is part of the other country” is widespread but quite wrong. By agreement it may enjoy certain immunities but it is not totally outside the jurisdiction of the host country but only to the extent agreed. The immunity is not unlimited. Very probably the occupants cannot say “we’ve decided to unilaterally tear down the two story building and erect a 50 story tower”. The immunities are limited and based on treaty and custom.
Recent cases were North Korean people who made it into several embasies of western countries in Peking, China. China always returns refugees to North Korea and did not want to give in to demands of those embasies so, as a face-saving measure they were allowed the fiction of “returning to North Korea via a third country”. Then, once outside China, the matter was dropped. IIRC Chinese police did enter one embassy to retrieve some refugees and there was a spat with the Chinese government claiming the police were summoned inside by the occupants. I forget the details. the fact is they dragged the refugees out of the embassy. Maybe someone can fill in the details.
After those incidents foreign embassies in Peking are very tightly guarded by Chinese police to prevent this type of thing.
What an interesting thread this has turned out to be. but back to the questions:
The first question has more or less been beaten to death.
Yes, diplomats can pretty much tell cops to shove it. Note that there are dozens of stories each year about Russian UN diplomats running up parking tickets in NYC to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, and NYC has been unable to find a way to make them pay. At some point, this was elevated to a State Dept-Foreign Ministry issue, IIRC.
Diplomats have to receive special visas to be entitled to diplomatic immunity. A country could willy-nilly sell diplomatic passports to rich people, but the passports would be meaningless without US approval for those individuals to enter our country as an official representative of another country.
Last I heard, the N.Y. cops were getting their revenge by parking in spaces reserved for Russian diplomats … “No, I’m not going to move my cruiser so you can park here … . No, I’m not going to give myself a ticket or have myself towed away, either.”
In 1980, I met Nelson Skalbania, under amusing circumstances beyond the scope of this thread. Lets just say a motorcycle was involved. Over dinner the next night, he mentioned that he had officially been appointed a Consul to Chile (IIRC), which allowed him to keep driving his collection of cars. (He’d been telling stories of how he’d obtained various cars, as well as his driving escapades, so not being familiar Canadian legal terminology it isn’t clear to me, almost a quarter century later, whether his license or the cars’ registrations had been at risk.)
Mr. Skalbania was a financier/ real estate / sports magnate and deal broker in the late 70s/early 80s. According to Google, a book was later written about him called “The Prince of Deals” so I suppose it might not be too much of a stretch to call him “Canada’s Donald Trump” for that era. (I’d never heard of him before meeting him, but his name may be known to sports fans: he’d owned several big league US and Canadian sports franchises. Perhaps “partly owned”? I know as little about the management of professional sports franchises as I do about Canadian vehicle law)
There was one thing he wasn’t: Chilean by any stretch. He was a son of Polish immigrants, born and raised in Vancouver, and had had no prior relationship with Chile. Apparently his duties were limited to occassionally hosting receptions in his mansions and otherwise schmoozing visiting VIPs.
Or so he said - and over the years I’ve stumbled across reliable confirmation of many other details he recounted that evening, so I believe him. I couldn’t Google up any proof of that one claim today, though – perhaps it was some other South American nation. Can any Canadian or sports fan confirm this story?
So it seems that your scenario isn’t so far-fetched – though I imagine that his own influence with Canadian business and government probably significantly assisted the official recognition of his diplomatic credentials, I’m not sure that Trump could swing the same deal in the US. (I’ll bet Trump knows, though) I wonder if “flouting minor laws” be worth as much to Trump as the ensuing bad publicity? In NYC, the ultrarich have evolved many ways to work around them. Parking isn’t much of an issue when you have a fleet of chauffered limos, and the reasons you don’t park your helicopter “anywhere you want” mostly have to do with the safety of the copter (and perhaps as an afterthought, the Teeming Masses. Even if you couldn’t be prosecuted for landing on the apex of the Empire State Building, it’d probably be a mistake you wouldn’t repeat twice.
Former carrier of a black passport here. The issuance and possession of a diplomatic passport does not automatically confer diplomatic status. The only person who has true and total diplomatic immunity is generally the ambassador to the country. Others may enjoy some immunities and privileges, but not necessarily from prosecution for commission of crimes.
There is a difference between being a “substantive officer” and “admin and support staff”. Both carry dip passports, both do NOT have the same immunities.
The comments about protecting Foreign Service personnel from harassment is accurate, but it is a reciprocal agreement, as others have pointed out. “Tit-for-tat” is alive and well, and in fact there exists an ‘office of retribution’ (for lack of a better term) in WDC that administers paybacks to diplomats from countries that harass our diplomats. Your tax dollars at work.
Traveling with a dip passport generally meant that you didn’t get hassled by airport security people. They weren’t supposed to search your bags, but certainly could if they wanted to, since your personal luggage is not considered a diplomatic pouch without the appropriate paperwork.
Some airports even had a diplomat line to expedite you on your way. In the case of Moscow airport (in the bad old days of evildoers), the diplomat line was so they could photograph you and delay your entry just to annoy you. You were followed by a KGB agent from the minute you left the airport.
This kind of honorary consuls, native of the host country rather than of the country they represent is relatively common. Generally, they’re people with good connections (which was obviously the case here) and some familiarity with / interest in the country they are honorary consuls of. They’re generally posted in small cities, and have few of the duties a regular consul has. They handle simple matters for the local expatriates and are expected to make use of their connections to promote the country they represent or its interests.
P.S. : I’m not sure of the word “honorary”, but I believe they’re called this way in english.
I’d like to think that a slightly unhinged but morally upright cop would take him in after a long and drawn out series of confrontations, and of course not before handing in his badge.
Here is a pretty good summary of who gets what sort of DI.
What an idea for a movie! But what, praytell what, would we call it? How about…“Dangerous Handgun”?
Honorary consuls in the U.S. are often natives of the country they represent who are now naturalized U.S. citizens. (There are a couple of Latvians who spring to mind here.)
Here’s an example:
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/021697/georgian.htm
George Makaradze got drunk and crashed into another vehicle, killing a 16-year old girl. After an enormous stink Georgia withdrew his diplomatic immunity and he was prosecuted in the US.
I think it’s entirely appropriate for the home country to withdraw immunity in some cases, especially when the act is pretty heinous and it’s a crime in both the host country and the home country.
Isn’t the preferred word reciprocity ?
I was gonna post a link to that same story too.
Who knew that people from Georgia got diplomatic immunity? Is Alabama the same? 
Is this even an interesting hijack? They’re both equality valid words. My dictionary lists them both separately with similar but not identical meanings. There is no indication of preference. “Reciprocation” puts more emphasis on the act of reciprocating on the part of the parties involved. “Reciprocity” puts more emphasis on the state of being.
ChefGuy:
Its snappy and to the point. I like it :).