No it doesn't. They are not subjects to our jurisdiction. That is a fact proven by the easy to understand words and the words of the people who wrote the fourteenth amendment. Which has the force of law but truthfully was never lawfully ratified.

If you play the game of legislative history, you will sink into the quicksand of the Left.

The states ratified language, not legislative history. The Congress ratified language, not the opinions of individual legislators.

Our law is, and ought to be, based on the language ratified, not based on the opinion of some individual in Congress as to what he wanted the language to mean. Congress didn't ratify him, and neither did they states. Only the language.

The disaster in what you're doing here you don't realize, because you're not a lawyer and have not studied it. The LEFT, not the Right, has used the appeal to legislative history as the basis to make so many of the decisions that you hate. The Right has clamored for years to apply the text as written.

It has been the Left wing judges who have pulled down the Congressional record and found the various things that this liberal Congressman or that liberal Senator said in a speech or wrote and had entered into the record, and clamored just as you are: "SEE, Congress INTENDED thus and so."

Democratic Congressman lard up the Congressional record with statetments and speeches and notes that state their OPINION about the law, and those MERE OPINIONS are then cited by Left wing justices to override the clear language of statutes and allow the Left wing justices to make whatever law they please, because "legislative history" shows the "intent" of Congress.

But it DOESN'T. It shows the OPINION of ONE MAN whose opinion was recorded. Congress didn't vote on that man's opinion, it voted only on the language that it passed. And we all know that Representatives and Senators vote on each bill for their own reasons.

It's a tactic of the LEFT to record opinions of individual legislators, and then have judges pull out those opinions and claim that those individual opinions were the intent of Congress.

The Right has always resisted that, insisting that what the statute says is the law.

Now, to try to get an easy win on immigration (that you will not get, because the Supreme Court will never agree with that horse-shit argument), you're ready to throw away 80 years of principles conservative resistance to allowing the opinions of individual politicians to be used by liberal judges to steamroller the language of statutes.

It's a terrible tactical choice, because it will not prevail before the justices of the Supreme Court.

Strategically, it's a disaster, because it concedes that the Left was always right in taking the opinions of some politicians, rammed into the record, and making that what the Constitution "means".

"Subject to jurisdiction" means: can the courts try you. Diplomats? No immune. So their kids aren't citizens. Indians on reservation? No. Illegals? Yes. Their kids are citizens.

If you've got to do Pickett's Charge into the guns, the Charge of the Light Brigade, just remember how that ended up for Pickett's Divison and the Light Brigade.

With the Light Brigade, the only reason any of them survived was because a French battery of guns on an adjacent hill saw what was happening and disobeyed orders to engage the Russians in direct counterbattery fire, giving the surviving Brits the chance to escape with their lives.

That's me: the French battery on the hill watching this disaster unfold, and trying to give you the cover to get out before you charge into the guns to your doom.

You cannot win this fight on this grounds. It won't work. And if it DOES work, you will have given away the farm to get an apple.

Subject to jurisdiction" means: can the courts try you. Diplomats? No immune. So their kids aren't citizens. Indians on reservation? No. Illegals? Yes. Their kids are citizens.

No subject to jurisdiction means if they are Americans. If they were trying to legalize foreigners they would have just left it at born here. They wouldnt have had to add the "and...". Also like I said the legislators gave their reasons and they spoke in truth.

...the one the (current) wife of the Toad Warrior was raised in by a card- carrying member of the Soviet Communist Party.

{ shrug } Maybe Baron SHOULD be deported?

No it doesn't. They are not subjects to our jurisdiction.

What jurisdiction was claimed to prosecute the killer of Kate Steinle; said killer being a bona fide illegal alien?

The 14th Amendment speaks to the status of the newborn child, without respect to the parents of the child. The status of the newborn child is not affected by the parents being legal or illegal aliens.

The child, at the time of birth, is in the United States and has never been anywhere else. The child is within the jurisdiction of the United States unless he or she is the child of persons such as officially recognized foreign diplomats or visiting royalty who enjoy immunity from U.S. jurisdiction.

The ratified words of the 14th Amendment are controlling.

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.

This was just a pre-election Trump troll.

Trump: I can eliminate birthright citizenship by Executive Order.

Congress: You are a usurper. That's the job of Congress.

Trump: OK, do your job.

As long as the Democrats are talking about Trump, they are not getting out any message of their own.

A SCOTUS vote would likely be 9-0 against.

The plain language meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment cannot be avoided.

Diplomats are subject to our jurisdiction. Laws can take away their immunity and they are subject to being expelled.

The states ratified language, not legislative history. The Congress ratified language, not the opinions of individual legislators.

Exactly.

Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 699 (1898), Gray J.

Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment; and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words. But the statements above quoted are valuable as contemporaneous opinions of jurists and statesmen upon the legal meaning of the words themselves, and are, at the least, interesting as showing that the application of the Amendment to the Chinese race was considered, and not overlooked.

The arguments of individual legislators are no proper subject for judicial comment. They are so often influenced by personal or political considerations, or by the assumed necessities of the situation, that they can hardly be considered even as the deliberate views of the persons who make them, much less as dictating the construction to be put upon the Constitution by the courts.

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U. S. 290; 318-319, Peckham J.

Looking simply at the history of the bill from the time it was introduced in the Senate until it was finally passed, it would be impossible to say what were the views of a majority of the members of each House in relation to the meaning of the Act. It cannot be said that a majority of both houses did not agree with Senator Hoar in his views as to the construction to be given to the Act as it passed the Senate. All that can be determined from the debates and reports is that various members had various views, and we are left to determine the meaning of this act, as we determine the meaning of other acts. from the language used therein.

There is, too, a general acquiescence in the doctrine that debates in Congress are not appropriate sources of information from which to discover the meaning of the language of a statute passed by that body. United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., 91 U. S. 72, 91 U. S. 79; Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 44 U. S. 24, Taney, Chief Justice; Mitchell v. Manufacturing Co., 2 Story 648, 653; Queen v. Hertford College, 3 Q.B.D. 693, 707.

The reason is that it is impossible to determine with certainty what construction was put upon an act by the members of a legislative body that passed it by resorting to the speeches of individual members thereof. Those who did not speak may not have agreed with those who did, and those who spoke might differ from each other, the result being that the only proper way to construe a legislative act is from the language used in the act, and, upon occasion, by a resort to the history of the times when it was passed. (Cases cited supra.)

United States v. St. Paul, M. & MR Co., 247 US 310, 318 (1918), Pitney, J.

It is not our purpose to relax the rule that debates in Congress are not appropriate or even reliable guides to the meaning of the language of an enactment.

Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443, 474 (1921), Pitney J.

By repeated decisions of this court, it has come to be well established that the debates in Congress expressive of the views and motives of individual members are not a safe guide, and hence may not be resorted to, in ascertaining the meaning and purpose of the lawmaking body. Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 44 U. S. 24; United States v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 91 U. S. 72, 91 U. S. 79; United States v. Freight Association, 166 U. S. 290, 166 U. S. 318.

Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 US 281, 311 (1979), Rehnquist, J.

The remarks of a single legislator, even the sponsor, are not controlling in analyzing legislative history. Congressman Moss' statement must be considered with the Reports of both Houses and the statements of other Congressmen…

Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. 9, 24 (1845), Taney CJ

In expounding this law, the judgment of the Court cannot in any degree be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself, and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed.

The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy.

We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators. As the Court said in 1844: "The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself...." Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24 (emphasis added). But not the least of the defects of legislative history is its indeterminacy. If one were to search for an interpretive technique that, on the whole, was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one could hardly find a more promising candidate than legislative history. And the present case nicely proves that point.

Judge Harold Leventhal used to describe the use of legislative history as the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one's friends.

If they said all persons born on the United States you would be correct. I respectfully disagree with you.

The Constitution says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...."

The plain meaning of the words is clear.

My take on what Trump said is. He would issue an executive order defining what he thought the amendment meant. Then acting on it. Thus triggering a Supreme Court decision.

My take is Trump has no desire to get slam dunked by SCOTUS.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/31/trump-congress-path-end-birthright-citizenship/

Trump backs off executive order threat, says Congress is better path to end birthright citizenship

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Wednesday, October 31, 2018

President Trump said Wednesday he’s still committed to ending birthright citizenship for babies born to immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, but would prefer to go through Congress rather than use an executive order.

That’s a softening of his stance from an interview published Tuesday, where he told Axios, an online political outlet, that he was preparing an executive order to test the boundaries of the Constitution’s definitions of automatic citizenship.

[snip]

Diplomats are subject to our jurisdiction. Laws can take away their immunity and they are subject to being expelled.

FALSE. They can be expelled. If Kate Steinle's killer had been a recognized diplomat, with diplomatic immunity, he could have been decertified, declared persona non grata and ordered to leave the country, but he could not have been prosecuted.

I honestly see it different no spin here.

We can also change our laws anytime to strip their immunity. Correct.me if I'm wrong but I believe diplomatic immunity came after the 14th.

A SCOTUS vote would likely be 9-0 against. The plain language meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment cannot be avoided.

I agree.

To stop the illegal alien invasion we have to spend the money and the effort to wall and patrol the Border, and to patrol the workforce and punish businesses that hire illegals.

The easy end-run won't work. Trump has started the conversation, and will move on immigration after the election - maybe even move for a constitutional amendment. (Probably not.)

He can police the border, put the army there, throw up a wall, and heavily enforce border security. He's not going to be able to erase birth right citizenship.

My take on what Trump said is. He would issue an executive order defining what he thought the amendment meant. Then acting on it. Thus triggering a Supreme Court decision.

He might well do that.

The decision will be either 9-0, 8-1 or maybe 7-2 against him.

Roberts, Alito and Kavanaugh will never go along with Trump on this one.

Can't say for Gorsuch. Thomas might.

But I have not observed Trump doing futile gestures. He doesn't like to lose, and he will lose this one, so I agree with Nolu Chan that he won't do it.

Roberts, Alito and Kavanaugh will never go along with Trump on this one.

Truthfully you do not know that. It is your imagination. A mere thought in your head. Thoughts in your head are not the substance of the constitution.

Correct.me if I'm wrong but I believe diplomatic immunity came after the 14th.

No, that's been a principle of international law, in the West anyway, since the Age of Reason at least, maybe before that.

Truthfully you do not know that. It is your imagination. A mere thought in your head. Thoughts in your head are not the substance of the constitution.

It's not imagination. They're senior, educated jurists whose judicial philosophies are well documented, and whose conservative careers have been dedicated to really hating the very sort of wild, language-ignoring judicial activism that would be required to cut clear birth-right citizenship out of the 14th Amendment.

And they're all Catholics to boot, just not likely to lie in this particular way on this particular issue.

It's not vain imagining on my part, it is reasoned speculation from fact.

Do you know what lawyers get paid to do? This. We look at precedent. We look at the fact pattern. To the extent we can know it, we look at the judicial history of the judge or judges who will be deciding the case. We look at the language itself. And we come to a reasoned opinion as to what will probably happen in a particular case.

Our clients pay us to speculate as to what WILL happen, based on what HAS happened, what the words say, and who the judges are. That is the very essence of legal advice and the legal opinions for which clients pay tens of thousands of dollars.

The future is unknown, but the PROBABLE future is knowable by studying those things. I've made my living doing just exactly this: speculating, based on the facts, on what will happen in court and how courts will apply laws to a particular fact set.

When it comes to this sort of thing - not predicting elections, but predicting appellate decisions, I have very rarely been wrong. Obviously I have not fully researched this speculation here, but I have kept up on it over the years, and read a great deal of the argumentation. I'm professionally certain that there is no possibility whatsoever that the Supreme Court would uphold an assertion by the President that birth right citizenship does not inhere in anchor babies.

I am morally certain that, were I hired to opine on the subject, my formal research on the subject would produce precisely that result, and that my bill, probably something on the order of $12,000, would not be paid in vain by the President were he to pay it.

This one is not a close case. It's self-evidently obvious on the language of the statute.

It's not imagination. They're senior, educated jurists whose judicial philosophies are well documented, and whose conservative careers have been dedicated to really hating the very sort of wild, language-ignoring judicial activism that would be required to cut clear birth-right citizenship out of the 14th Amendment.

If they are educated Jurists. They will side with the words of the 145h amendment. It was to make sure former slaves were citizens. Nothing more.

Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders and that Muslim cunt who organized the pussy march all agree with you.

You're wrong, i'm right. It is a fact.

If they are educated Jurists. They will side with the words of the 145h amendment. It was to make sure former slaves were citizens. Nothing more.

The words of the 14th Amendment say nothing whatever about former slaves. Not a word. They will read the language that says "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."

They will comment that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States: the are subject to the laws and are tried in our courts (unlike diplomats, or reservation Indians in that day, or foreign troops occupying parts of US soil in war). And that will be that: they will uphold the 14th Amendment by striking down Trump.

At least 7 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices, and probably 9 out of 9, will agree with my professional, educated legal assessment.

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

They aren't subjects of this jurisdiction. They are illegally here.

Have a good day.

9 out of 9, will agree with my professional, educated legal assessment.

In your imagination they will do that.

Better more skilled more knowledgeable lawyers disagree with you.

There are not many of those. I graduated from top law schools in the US and France, easily passed the bar in two states, worked in the top firms, and have always been very successful in this profession.

Go find federal judges or law partners of white shoe firms who agree with you.

Now I'm hoping Trump does sign that Executive Order. Since it seems to be an open question, let's close that question.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, at least, along with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor will all agree with me.

Thomas and Gorsuch might agree with you. But I doubt even that.

They aren't subjects of this jurisdiction. They are illegally here.

They are illegally here, and we can arrest them and try them in our courts for being so and breaking our laws. If the court can try you, you are subject to its jurisdiction. That's what "subject to jurisdiction" MEANS: it MEANS that the court has the legal power to try you.

In your imagination they will do that.

Right now, it's in everybody's imagination that Trump will sign such an EO.

Once he does, the lower courts will swiftly block it. It will be appealed to the Supremes. I predict a 9-0 opinion. It's not a close case.

If they can be expelled they are subject to our jurisdiction at the time they are here.

We can also change our laws anytime to strip their immunity. Correct.me if I'm wrong but I believe diplomatic immunity came after the 14th.

Wrong on all counts. Persons with recognized diplomatic immunity are not subject to our jurisdiction. If the killer of Kate Steinle were a recognized diplomat at the time, he could not have been arrested, detained, and tried for the crime, regardless of the evidence against him. The United States government could advise his government that his recognition as a diplomat was being withdrawn and he had to leave by a specified date.

Diplomatic immunity preceded the Constitution by centuries. Internationally, persons allowed in as diplomats cannot be detained or tried for alleged crimes if they enjoy a grant of immunity.

ersons with recognized diplomatic immunity are not subject to our jurisdiction.

Sure they are. We can expel them from this country. So it is within our right to do that.

We can withdraw from treaties that obligate us to diplomatic immunity if we so choose.

Diplomatic immunity preceded the Constitution by centuries

Ok you and Vic taught me that one. I'll give you that.

Mexicans arent our subjects.

What Mexican are you talking about???

The 14th Applies to infant children born in the United States. If the child does not enjoy immunity from our laws, the child is a natural born United States citizen.

The United States has no subjects, but it has citizens.

If the killer of Kate Steinle were a recognized diplomat at the time, he could not have been arrested, detained, and tried for the crime, regardless of the evidence against him.

nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Those don't jive with each other. How would Kate receive equal protection. She couldn't have.

If the words meant what they said there would be no diplomatic immunity without repealing the 14th.

The United States has no subjects, but it has citizens.

Mexicans who have babies are Mexicans.

Americans who have babies are Americans.

It is really that simple.

I disagree with you. I always will. There is no changing my mind on this one.

None of us is going to decide this. We will just have to wait and see.

I do respect your opinions though unlike some others here. I respect Vics as well. I just don't agree. Other constitutional experts also agree with me. As others agree with you.

If they are educated Jurists. They will side with the words of the 14[t]h amendment. It was to make sure former slaves were citizens. Nothing more.

This is emphatically incorrect. The stated purpose was to take the existing common law rule and place its application beyond the control of Congress.

The common law rule of jus soli already existed in the United States, since day 1, and the 14th Amendment did not change that.

The stated purpose was to take the existing common law rule and place its application beyond the control of Congress.

Which Senator stated that?

We can withdraw from treaties that obligate us to diplomatic immunity if we so choose.

And nobody would have diplomats here, and we would not have diplomats anywhere.

If we are to have their diplomats here, or our diplomats there, immunity is just part of the deal. You would essentially break off diplomatic relations with the rest of the world.

We do not expel foreign diplomats in the sense that we arrest them and put them on an outbound flight. We advise the foreign country that their diplomat is no longer welcome and they fly them out.

And nobody would have diplomats here, and we would not have diplomats anywhere.

If we are to have their diplomats here, or our diplomats there, immunity is just part of the deal. You would essentially break off diplomatic relations with the rest of the world.

We do not expel foreign diplomats in the sense that we arrest them and put them on an outbound flight. We advise the foreign country that their diplomat is no longer welcome and they fly them out.

They are still subject to our jurisdiction. If they weren't we wouldn't be to tell them to leave. If they weren't subject... We would have to let them stay because we had no jurisdiction over them.

Diplomatic immunity should never include the right to kill our people. If they kill our people they should be punished. If a country doesn't like that deal. We can kill their country.

Mexicans who have babies are Mexicans.

Americans who have babies are Americans.

And -- "Only Jews have the right to self-determination"

That applies to Mexican, American, and all other flavors of Goyim... especially if you happen to be Kosher meat packer illegally employing over 400 of them!

And -- "Only Jews have the right to self-determination"

They should exple the muslims. Since they can do whatever they want right.

Since they can do whatever they want

"PRAISED BE HE WHO PERMITS THE FORBIDDEN"

www.google.com/search? q=p...s+the+forbidden+sabbatean

{ golf clap ]

They are still subject to our jurisdiction.

Respectfully, Stone, you're misunderstanding this word.

"Jursidiction" doesn't mean "subject to power". It means subject to the rulings of a COURT. It's not about executive power, it's about judicial power, about the power of judges to judge you, as a person (in personam jurisdiction), or to issue judgment over a thing (say, a ship) (in rem jurisdiction), or to preside over a case on a specific subject matter (example: family court) (subject matter jurisdiction).

It does not refer to the police power, which is executive branch stuff. It does not refer to the power to make rules, which is legislative branch stuff. It is a very specific legal term that refers to the power of a specific court to judge a case and impose a penalty.

"JURIS" means law. "Diction" refers to speaking. Jurisdiction refers to the power of a judge to pronounce a binding decision at law. Murder is illegal in the USA and everywhere else, but US courts do not have the jurisdiction to try murder cases that happen between two regular Norwegians in Trondheim. It didn't happen on us soil (the location was not subject to US courts), it did not happen between people who could be haled before US Courts (US courts can't judge Norwegians in Norway for things that happen in Norway). The crime committed there is a crime here too, and US cops could certainly arrest the Norwegian culprit who got caught here, if there were an Interpol report or an international warrant. But the district attorney could not bring that murder case before the state court, because the crime didn't happen under US jurisdiction, and the persons involved were not subject to US law when they did it.

On the other hand, a Norwegian traveler killing another Norwegian while in a US airport CAN be tried in US court for the murder, because it occurred on US soil, and whatever happens on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction...unless it happened in the Norwegian embassy (then things get murky and there might be a fight IF Norway wasn't going to hold the killer accountable), or unless the killer was a Norwegian diplomat. Then he could be arrested, but whether or not he could be tried would depend on the terms of our agreement with Norway. Norway could waive diplomatic immunity, and then our courts could try the guy.

Jurisdiction is a legal term with a specific meaning: it refers to the authority of the courts to try a case. Illegal aliens can be tried for anything they do on US soil. Therefore, they are subject to US jurisdiction, full stop. That's what the word means. It doesn't mean subject to arrest, it means subject to trial.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage? collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

"I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the US and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the US".

"This will not of course include persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the US but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the US".

Was / is that a good idea?

Why or why not.

You are the biggest CT person on this site and that says a good deal about you.

They are still subject to our jurisdiction. If they weren't we wouldn't be to tell them to leave. If they weren't subject... We would have to let them stay because we had no jurisdiction over them.

WRONG.

The law which applies to accredited diplomats is an international treaty to which the United States is a party and signatory, namely the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, done at Vienna on 18 April 1961 and entered into force on 24 April 1964. The United States signed on 29 June 1961, and ratified on 13 November 1972.

We do not have to let them stay. See Article 9, quoted below.

When the functions of a person enjoying privileges and immunities have come to an end, such privileges and immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country. See Article 39, quoted below.

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Done at Vienna on 18 April 1961

The States Parties to the present Convention,

Recalling that peoples of all nations from ancient times have recognized the status of diplomatic agents,

Having in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations,

Believing that an international convention on diplomatic intercourse, privileges and immunities would contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems,

Realizing that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States,

Affirming that the rules of customary international law should continue to govern questions not expressly regulated by the provisions of the present Convention,

Have agreed as follows:

[...]

Article 9

1. The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.

2. If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.

[...]

Article 29

The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.

Article 30

1. The private residence of a diplomatic agent shall enjoy the same inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission.

2. His papers, correspondence and, except as provided in paragraph 3 of article 31, his property, shall likewise enjoy inviolability.

Article 31

1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of:

(a) A real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;

(b) An action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending State;

(c) An action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.

2. A diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness.

3. No measures of execution may be taken in respect of a diplomatic agent except in the cases coming under subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of this article, and provided that the measures concerned can be taken without infringing the inviolability of his person or of his residence.

4. The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State.

Article 32

1. The immunity from jurisdiction of diplomatic agents and of persons enjoying immunity under article 37 may be waived by the sending State.

2. Waiver must always be express.

3. The initiation of proceedings by a diplomatic agent or by a person enjoying immunity from jurisdiction under article 37 shall preclude him from invoking immunity from jurisdiction in respect of any counterclaim directly connected with the principal claim.

4. Waiver of immunity from jurisdiction in respect of civil or administrative proceedings shall not be held to imply waiver of immunity in respect of the execution of the judgement, for which a separate waiver shall be necessary.

Article 33

1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this article, a diplomatic agent shall with respect to services rendered for the sending State be exempt from social security provisions which may be in force in the receiving State.

2. The exemption provided for in paragraph 1 of this article shall also apply to private servants who are in the sole employ of a diplomatic agent, on condition:

(a) That they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State; and

(b) That they are covered by the social security provisions which may be in force in the sending State or a third State.

3. A diplomatic agent who employs persons to whom the exemption provided for in paragraph 2 of this article does not apply shall observe the obligations which the social security provisions of the receiving State impose upon employers.

4. The exemption provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article shall not preclude voluntary participation in the social security system of the receiving State provided that such participation is permitted by that State.

5. The provisions of this article shall not affect bilateral or multilateral agreements concerning social security concluded previously and shall not prevent the conclusion of such agreements in the future.

Article 34

A diplomatic agent shall be exempt from all dues and taxes, personal or real, national, regional or municipal, except:

(a) Indirect taxes of a kind which are normally incorporated in the price of goods or services;

(b) Dues and taxes on private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;

(c) Estate, succession or inheritance duties levied by the receiving State, subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 of article 39;

(d) Dues and taxes on private income having its source in the receiving State and capital taxes on investments made in commercial undertakings in the receiving State;

(e) Charges levied for specific services rendered;

(f) Registration, court or record fees, mortgage dues and stamp duty, with respect to immovable property, subject to the provisions of article 23.

Article 35

The receiving State shall exempt diplomatic agents from all personal services, from all public service of any kind whatsoever, and from military obligations such as those connected with requisitioning, military contributions and billeting.

Article 36

1. The receiving State shall, in accordance with such laws and regulations as it may adopt, permit entry of and grant exemption from all customs duties, taxes, and related charges other than charges for storage, cartage and similar services, on:

(a) Articles for the official use of the mission;

(b) Articles for the personal use of a diplomatic agent or members of his family forming part of his household, including articles intended for his establishment.

2. The personal baggage of a diplomatic agent shall be exempt from inspection, unless there are serious grounds for presuming that it contains articles not covered by the exemptions mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article, or articles the import or export of which is prohibited by the law or controlled by the quarantine regulations of the receiving State. Such inspection shall be conducted only in the presence of the diplomatic agent or of his authorized representative.

Article 37

1. The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household shall, if they are not nationals of the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 36.

2. Members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission, together with members of their families forming part of their respective households, shall, if they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 35, except that the immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving State specified in paragraph 1 of article 31 shall not extend to acts performed outside the course of their duties. They shall also enjoy the privileges specified in article 36, paragraph 1, in respect of articles imported at the time of first installation.

3. Members of the service staff of the mission who are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State shall enjoy immunity in respect of acts performed in the course of their duties, exemption from dues and taxes on the emoluments they receive by reason of their employment and the exemption contained in article 33.

4. Private servants of members of the mission shall, if they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State, be exempt from dues and taxes on the emoluments they receive by reason of their employment. In other respects, they may enjoy privileges and immunities only to the extent admitted by the receiving State. However, the receiving State must exercise its jurisdiction over those persons in such a manner as not to interfere unduly with the performance of the functions of the mission.

Article 38

1. Except insofar as additional privileges and immunities may be granted by the receiving State, a diplomatic agent who is a national of or permanently resident in that State shall enjoy only immunity from jurisdiction, and inviolability, in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions.

2. Other members of the staff of the mission and private servants who are nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State shall enjoy privileges and immunities only to the extent admitted by the receiving State. However, the receiving State must exercise its jurisdiction over those persons in such a manner as not to interfere unduly with the performance of the functions of the mission.

Article 39

1. Every person entitled to privileges and immunities shall enjoy them from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when his appointment is notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other ministry as may be agreed.

2. When the functions of a person enjoying privileges and immunities have come to an end, such privileges and immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country, or on expiry of a reasonable period in which to do so, but shall subsist until that time, even in case of armed conflict. However, with respect to acts performed by such a person in the exercise of his functions as a member of the mission, immunity shall continue to subsist.

3. In case of the death of a member of the mission, the members of his family shall continue to enjoy the privileges and immunities to which they are entitled until the expiry of a reasonable period in which to leave the country.

4. In the event of the death of a member of the mission not a national of or permanently resident in the receiving State or a member of his family forming part of his household, the receiving State shall permit the withdrawal of the movable property of the deceased, with the exception of any property acquired in the country the export of which was prohibited at the time of his death. Estate, succession and inheritance duties shall not be levied on movable property the presence of which in the receiving State was due solely to the presence there of the deceased as a member of the mission or as a member of the family of a member of the mission.

[...]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-diplomatic-immunity.html

What Is Diplomatic Immunity?

Foreign government officials in the U.S. enjoy some protection from prosecution, but not in all matters.

By Amien Kacou

The term "diplomatic immunity" refers to a principle of international law that limits the degree to which foreign government and international organization officials and employees are subject to the authority of police officers and judges in their country of assignment. Does this mean that foreign officials can get away with anything in the countries where they’re posted, as is often assumed? Not exactly. This article will take a closer look at the actual legal standards governing diplomatic immunity, especially in the United States.

Strictly speaking, the principle of diplomatic immunity does not apply to all foreign government or international organization officials and employees. When it does apply, it applies differently to different categories and subcategories of such persons and their families, dependent on circumstances.

(Note: Diplomatic immunity is also to be distinguished from "sovereign immunity," which applies to the person and property of foreign governments themselves and is not discussed in the present article.)

Diplomatic Immunity for Embassy Personnel

Diplomatic agents – that is, high ranking embassy officials (ambassadors, for example) who serve the function of dealing directly with their host country's officials on behalf of their home country – enjoy the highest degree of immunity. The same applies to their family members.

The police cannot detain them, arrest them, or search or seize their houses and other property. Diplomats cannot be prosecuted or otherwise forced to appear in criminal court. Nor can they be sued in civil courts, except for their personal (non-official) involvement in certain commercial, real-estate, or inheritance-related matters, or for their separate professional activities.

So, for example: An ambassador who is sued for failing to pay her personal home mortgage premium may lose title to her house but may not be forced to pay damages and may not be evicted.

[snip]

If you read the constitution about equal protection. If that was followed to a T. Diplomatic immunity would be unconstitutional.

14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause

... nor shall any state ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Immunity from criminal prosecution for diplomats is part of the supreme law of the land.

The United States government has granted immunity to diplomats. It is a Federal action, not a State action. Diplomats do not fall under the jurisdiction of any State.