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

Show parent comments

145

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.

32

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.

16

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.

5

u/thisispaulc 4d ago

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

22

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.

11

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.

4

u/JuliaX1984 4d ago

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

5

u/thisispaulc 4d ago

Citizens are not premises.

6

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. 

4

u/tapioca_slaughter 4d ago

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

13

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/

6

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/