3 ms·
Not entirely sure what you're asking, but yes: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-o-chapter-3 https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-
by magicalist 1y ago
Not entirely sure what you're asking, but yes:
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-o-chapter-3 https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-o-chapter-...
> 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.”
(page is substantially unchanged since the last administration)
- FireBeyond 1y agoI stand corrected. My understanding of diplomatic immunity was that it didn't extend to the families of diplomats or consular employees (but looking at the WP page, it does for diplomatic families, but not consular employees or their families, or is a lot more limited, rather). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#In_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#In_the_Uni...
- Izkata 1y agoI don't think that's quite right... It sounds to me like clarification of a specific example, rather than anything to do with diplomatic immunity. I don't like going to dictionaries for arguments, but look at "subject" adjective definition 1 here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subject https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subject > owing obedience or allegiance to the power or dominion of another Merriam-Webster orders their dictionary "oldest known meaning first", and as I understand it the "allegiance" part of this definition is what's been forgotten about, but is what the citizenship argument is about. The first noun definition has a similar mix of meanings. Think of it more like a kingly "these are my subjects (and not someone else's)" rather than a simple "they must obey the law because they're here".