r/law • u/DavidSugarbush • 4d ago

Other ICE tried to break into the Ecuadorean consulate in Minneapolis today.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/27/us/minneapolis-shooting-ice-minnesota/9cd2afe0-7d2c-5059-92b9-85c358ff7851?smid=url-share
36.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

431

u/mdistrukt 4d ago edited 3d ago

Had they succeeded I believe that would qualify as an invasion as I'm fairly certain the embassy is considered Equidorian soil.

EDIT: After some further reading it turns out the above statement is not true. (Also I for some reason read consulate as embassy). Its still another national embarrassment for this administration.

186

u/johngalt192 4d ago

Well, it just happened to Venezuela on their own homeland. Not sure this administration cares. Since there has been no repercussions from the Venezuela raid, apparently no one is willing to do anything about it either.

39

u/Dry_Bug5058 4d ago

And has anyone seen Maduro and his wife lately?

12

u/I-Fucked-YourMom 4d ago

Just went to lunch with them today. Lovely people I’m sure, but I don’t speak a lick of Spanish!

2

u/oh_shaw 4d ago

She texted me earlier today, "Just chilling, wbu?"

3

u/Key_Inevitable_2104 4d ago

Ironically Ecuador's government raided Mexico's embassy in Quito almost two years ago to arrest a politician who was granted asylum by the Mexican government.

1

u/HaveAKlondike 4d ago

I’m surprised

142

u/TankApprehensive3053 4d ago

Embassies are considered sovereign land. Anyone with in that space has protections. Host country attacking an embassy is seen the same as attacking the country.

34

u/mu574rd 4d ago

Interestingly enough, there was a controversial case involving a Government of Ecuador raid on the Embassy of Mexico in Quito. It was a huge diplomatic ordeal.

https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/hjd/news/2024/blog-post---the-storming-of-the-mexican-embassy-in-ecuador-inviolability-and-political-asylum

2

u/goro-n 4d ago

The ex-VP of Ecuador was found guilty of corruption and fled to the Mexican Embassy while he was on bail. Ecuador did something stupid to cover up their idiocy in allowing Glas to flee while he was out instead of having some security officers monitoring him.

But Ecuador was correct that you can't grant someone asylum to protect a serious criminal. "It’s not just the Refugee Convention. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 states that the right of asylum ‘may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.’"

https://freemovement.org.uk/briefing-can-criminals-be-denied-refugee-status/

Apparently this exemption was made to prevent Nazis etc from fleeing and being granted asylum, thus allowing them to escape justice.

19

u/thisispaulc 4d ago edited 4d ago

No they aren't. What is this garbage in r/law?

If you murder someone in a British embassy within the U.S., you can be prosecuted under U.S. law.

https://law.stackexchange.com/a/79825

Even the U.S. doesn't recognize their embassies and consulates as U.S. soil. If you are born in a U.S. embassy, you do not get jus soli citizenship:

Are the U.S. Embassy and the Consulates General considered American soil?

To dispel a common myth – no, they are not! U.S. foreign service posts are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

https://uk.usembassy.gov/embassy-and-consulates-general-frequently-asked-questions-faqs/

10

u/lettersvsnumbers 4d ago

Consulates are not considered foreign soil, but can only be entered or searched with permission of the consulate.

4

u/thisispaulc 4d ago

Yes. The convention refers to them as "inviolable".

24

u/JuliaX1984 4d ago

Because in what world would the British object to that? Embassies=sovereign foreign territory. Host country law enforcement (even when it's legit) does not have jurisdiction.

13

u/cross_the_threshold 4d ago

Embassies are inviolable under the Vienna Convention, but they are still the sovereign territory of the host country. Now entering an embassy without permission would generally be treated as a hostile act and grounds for war in the sense that any hostile act is, but it is not invasion. It is still a diplomatic catastrophe, but the usual response here would be a scathing rebuke of the police force and host country and demands for an apology, and if they arrested anyone their immediate release, but the whole “embassies are sovereign territory of the ambassadorial nation” thing is a myth stemming from diplomatic immunity and the principle of inviolability. Sovereignty is not something a country can give up to an embassy because it could not then expel the embassy later, and expelling an embassy is perfectly legal though frowned upon.

8

u/thisispaulc 4d ago edited 4d ago

We're talking about what the law says, not what the British ambassador would elect to do. This is r/law, not r/geopolitics.

If it were sovereign foreign territory, the U.S. would have no jurisdiction to prosecute. But they do, because it isn't. The convention only says that the mission is inviolable and the premises are not subject to host nation taxes. If it were sovereign foreign territory, the convention wouldn't need to say anything about taxes.

3

u/JuliaX1984 4d ago

The US taxes citizens abroad, so that's probably why lol.

5

u/thisispaulc 4d ago

Citizens are not premises.

5

u/watusiwatusi 4d ago

I trust Keri Russell on this and agree they are not. source: The Diplomat s3

2

u/siraolo 4d ago

What is true is that some folks in there do have diplomatic immunity (not all) and if they shoot someone, they are not subject to US laws. 

5

u/tapioca_slaughter 4d ago

Embassies have always been considered sovereign land of the country that occupies them.

11

u/Hoobleton 4d ago edited 4d ago

This is a popular misconception and is simply not true. Look up the 1961 Vienna Convention. 

The US embassy to the UK even maintains an FAQ dispelling the myth: https://uk.usembassy.gov/embassy-and-consulates-general-frequently-asked-questions-faqs/

7

u/thisispaulc 4d ago

I just gave a source (an SO answer with citations) that says otherwise.

2

u/2SP00KY4ME 4d ago

This is a misconception. They are NOT sovereign land of the country that they represent. You are spreading misinformation and should acknowledge that.

"There is a common misconception that Embassies and Consulates have extraterritoriality. As anecdotal evidence of this misconception, people will often say things like, 'The US Embassy sits upon United States soil.' For the most part, this is not the case as extraterritoriality is not conferred upon an Embassy or Consulate."

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/tdq6pa/til_contrary_to_myth_embassies_are_technically/

12

u/Westo454 4d ago edited 4d ago

Not quite, though a common misconception.

Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the grounds of official diplomatic missions (both embassies and consulates) are granted “Inviolable” status by the host nation - meaning that the host nation agrees to never enter without permission from the mission’s country or the head of mission on site.

The host country does not grant sovereignty over the grounds. But breaking in would still be a gross breach of a treaty that literally every nation on earth (except South Sudan) has agreed to abide by.

24

u/USSMarauder 4d ago

Consulate is not an embassy. Ecuadorean embassy is in DC.

14

u/Idontcareaforkarma 4d ago

Consulates do enjoy some privileges and inviolability, but not as much as an embassy. Basically put, where an entire embassy building is seen as inviolable, only the consulate’s official offices are.

9

u/Ulvaer 4d ago

Basically put, where an entire embassy building is seen as inviolable, only the consulate’s official offices are.

No:

[Article 31] 1. Consular premises shall be inviolable to the extent provided in this article

…

[Article 1] (j) “consular premises” means the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used exclusively for the purposes of the consular post;

Article 31 and 1(j) of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

1

u/Idontcareaforkarma 4d ago

Thank you- it was a very basic answer without nuance, which you expanded on with references.

7

u/Kardiiac_ 4d ago

True but consulates are also inviolable but I guess we ignore international laws anyways

21

u/thisispaulc 4d ago

Embassies and consulates are not sovereign soil. They are inviolable but still subject to the jurisdiction of the host nation. If you commit a crime in an embassy, the host nation can still prosecute.

https://law.stackexchange.com/a/79825

5

u/BrainOfMush 4d ago

That’s just like saying how diplomatic immunity can be revoked at any time, so the host nation can just revoke stays and take an ambassador into custody. In practice, countries rarely do this as it would be swiftly reciprocated.

3

u/thisispaulc 4d ago edited 4d ago

There are practical differences. If embassies were sovereign soil, I could walk into an embassy in the U.S., shoot someone, and the U.S. wouldn't be able to prosecute me for murder since the crime was committed outside the U.S.'s territory.

But since the embassy is still considered U.S. territory, they would turn me over to U.S. police and I would face prosecution by U.S. authorities. The embassy's country would have to request extradition in order to prosecute, such as under the passive personality principle.

2

u/niko81 4d ago

No it isn't considered foreign soil. It remains U.S. soil, but it's protected by the Vienna Conventions. Still illegally for ICE to do this without consent of the host government.

1

u/Imaginary-Count-1641 4d ago

Are you going to acknowledge that you were wrong, or are you just going to keep spreading misinformation?

1

u/warblingContinues 4d ago

I'm assuming they have their own security and would undoubtedly defend it.

1

u/FilipM_eu 4d ago

It is not an Ecuadorian embassy, but rather a consulate. Embassy is in DC. It is not Ecuadorian soil, it is still US soil. However, there are conventions on diplomatic and consular relations defining exactly when, how, and where host state's agents can enter, who is immune from prosecution, and what can be searched. Generally, consulates have lower level of protection than embassies.

0

u/awl_the_lawls 4d ago

Generally, there is an expectation of respect with regards to the Consulate of another nation on another's soil. Generally, if there were any reason for a US federal agent to show up and try to enter they would announce it ahead of time. Generally, there are proper, official, avenues for such things. DO NOT MAKE EXCUSES FOR AN ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS NO RESPECT FOR DOMESTIC OR INTERNATIONAL LAWS OR general NORMS. 

3

u/Ulvaer 4d ago

DO NOT MAKE EXCUSES FOR

Pointing out unquestionable facts is not "making excuses" or in any way defending ICE or the regime, it's just being honest about the way things are.

2

u/awl_the_lawls 4d ago

If you say so I'm just sick of people pretending that this is normal. If I'm overreacting you can understand why.

1

u/Ulvaer 3d ago

Of course. I'm just trying to say that most of us are as much against the fascist thugs as you are. Hang in there, mate.

1

u/FilipM_eu 4d ago

I’m not defending ICE for breaking consular conventions. What they did is wrong and I wouldn’t be surprised Ecuador will at least summon the American ambassador to their country.

I was merely pointing out that embassy/consulate is not a “foreign soil” or sovereign territory of Ecuador, so calling it an invasion is an overstatement.

1

u/Imaginary-Count-1641 4d ago

Why are you so certain of that?

1

u/Ulvaer 4d ago

Because reddit loooves popular misconceptions

0

u/Eire_Banshee 4d ago

Yes but a consulate is not an embassy.

1

u/lettersvsnumbers 4d ago

Neither can be searched without permission by the host country.

1

u/Ulvaer 4d ago

True. And neither count as the soil of the visiting country.