Timeline for Are people born in a foreign embassy on US soil american citizens?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 6, 2020 at 5:28 | comment | added | phoog | In fact, looking again at Raya, I see that it states explicitly that "the plaintiff was born on October 9, 1981 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.," so not in an embassy. Also, the case of a child born to an American citizen in an Indian embassy is not particularly interesting, since that child would be an American citizen even if born in a hospital in Bangalore (or anywhere). The interesting case is that of a non-diplomat foreigner, whether Indian or otherwise. | |
| Jul 2, 2018 at 21:55 | comment | added | ohwilleke | I think you are correct in your analysis. Foreign embassies in the U.S. have special treatment, but aren't actually foreign territory in law, they are U.S. territory subject to special limitations that depend to a great extent on individual status. | |
| Jul 2, 2018 at 4:38 | vote | accept | Nick S | ||
| Jul 1, 2018 at 12:31 | comment | added | phoog | The children in Raya and Nikoi were not alleged to have been born in embassies, and they probably were not. Most births in modern times occur in hospitals. | |
| Jul 1, 2018 at 5:05 | comment | added | phoog | @Obie2.0 it's a longstanding custom in English law that carried over to US law. I'll look at the statute, but it's certainly something you see mentioned in judicial opinions. In any event, the laws governing an occupying force have no power to grant their children US citizenship, nor are those laws likely to have any such provision. | |
| Jul 1, 2018 at 4:56 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | @phoog - Does US law explicitly provide that enemy occupiers not be subject to US jurisdiction? If so, why? That would seem a practical matter more than a legal one; or, alternately, subject to the laws of the occupying country on the matter.... | |
| Jul 1, 2018 at 4:41 | comment | added | phoog | I've read somewhere, perhaps in the Foreign Affairs Manual, a policy statement to the effect that those born on US embassy grounds are not afforded jus soli citizenship of the United States, so it only makes sense that those born in foreign embassies in the US would have the same right to such citizenship as if they had been born anywhere else in the US. But the quotation is outdated: "citizens or subjects of foreign nations" are mostly subject to US jurisdiction when in the US (except diplomats of certain rank and enemy occupiers), and their children born there are US citizens. | |
| Jul 1, 2018 at 3:53 | history | answered | bdb484 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |