> […] children of diplomats aren't citizens at birth, but U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats for some activities?

AIUI, IANAL, US courts and law do not have jurisdiction over diplomats. When a diplomat the 'hosting' government agrees to immunity, so cannot be prosecuted. E.g.:

> The collision caused diplomatic tension between British and US officials. [Anne] Sacoolas fled Britain soon after the incident, and claimed diplomatic immunity with US support.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn

The 'source' country has to agree to remove the diplomatic coverage.

▲

rayiner 2 days ago | parent [-]

Incorrect: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diplomatic_immunity

U.S. courts do have jurisdiction over diplomats for certain things, such as suits related to commercial activities.

▲

TheCoelacanth a day ago | parent | next [-]

That's more like having jurisdiction over the diplomat's property in the country than having jurisdiction over the diplomat themselves.

▲

wat10000 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What happens to a diplomat if they don't show up for the suit or comply with any judgment?

▲

abduhl 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Is the child of a diplomat a US citizen if they are born during a diplomat’s commercial activities?

	▲	ang_cire 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If the diplomat put the baby up as collateral on a loan, prior to their birth, then I think they have to be in order for the US to be able to enforce contract law relevant to the loan.
	▲	IAmBroom a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		No. Even the arguments at the time the amendment was passed discuss diplomats and their family being exempt, as well as all the instances since.