Devyani Khobragade case: Top US leadership feels diplomat row 'most stupid thing to do'

[jaunty]

She's an UN diplomat. Accordingly she can be accredited to the UN and thus if required she has to be given a visa for the US.

Wrong. Just because she has been appointed to the UN doesn't mean that the US has to give here a visa. It's still their decision and I am pretty sure she won't be given a US visa again unless she wants a non diplomatic visa to contest the charges.

 

[kbd-raaf]

She can be given a visa per say, however if she isn't given a diplomatic visa, she will be arrested by the police and prosecuted.

If she is an UN accredited diplomat she has full diplomatic immunity. That is how enemies of the American state are allowed to visit NY for UN general meets etc.

Wrong. Just because she has been appointed to the UN doesn't mean that the US has to give here a visa. It's still their decision and I am pretty sure she won't be given a US visa again unless she wants a non diplomatic visa to contest the charges.

No, no. If she is posted to the UN headquarters in NY, the US CANNOT deny her a visa.

 

[jaunty]

No, no. If she is posted to the UN headquarters in NY, the US CANNOT deny her a visa.

The US can deny a visa to anybody. Only the head of states are confirmed to get a visa to attend the UN sessions.

 

[airpower183]

The US can deny visa to anybody. Only the head of states are confirmed to get a visa to attend the UN sessions.

That was my understanding too.

If she is an UN accredited diplomat she has full diplomatic immunity. That is how enemies of the American state are allowed to visit NY for UN general meets etc.



No, no. If she is posted to the UN headquarters in NY, the US CANNOT deny her a visa.

Perhaps if you don't mind, I would like to see the legislation you're referring to.

 

[kbd-raaf]

The US can deny visa to anybody.

Not if she's posted to the UN. That is one of the agreements the UN had with the US for them to place their headquarters in New York.

And heads up; this is the US diplomat that got expelled:

http://racistdiplomatsusa.tumblr.com

Wonderful stuff.

PS: Guys please spread the above link around, let people know exactly who the expelled diplomat/diplomats wife is.

That was my understanding too.



Perhaps if you don't mind, I would like to see the legislation you're referring to.

I'll give it a go, I was reading it earlier in the week.

 

[jaunty]

Not if she's posted to the UN. That is one of the agreements the UN had with the US for them to place their headquarters in New York.

Dude she has already been asked to leave the US while she was working as a diplomat at the UN. Technically she was a diplomat at the UN when she was asked to leave so yes the US do have that power. It's similar to not issuing a visa, if they can ask her to leave the country they can also deny her a visa. She is not welcome in the US on a diplomatic visa of any kind. That's the whole point of declaring someone persona non grata. If she wants to come back as a normal person to contest the charges against her then she might be given a visa, otherwise no chance.

 

[airpower183]

ng too

Not if she's posted to the UN. That is one of the agreements the UN had with the US for them to place their headquarters in New York.

And heads up; this is the US diplomat that got expelled:

http://racistdiplomatsusa.tumblr.com

Wonderful stuff.



I'll give it a go, I was reading it earlier in the week.

There appears to be factual inconsistency with the content from the link you provided.

"Racist American Diplomat Alicia Muller May speaks about her Diplomatic Immunity as a ‘Get Out Of Jail’ card. Funny how the US State Department however thinks that Diplomatic Immunity applies only to Consular functions, and not personal actions."

1. If Alicia Muller May has been accorded diplomatic immunity by the United States she cannot be prosecuted under Indian local laws. India may only request for her withdrawal from the United States

2. It is not the position of the US State Department to interrupt the law but the Court.

3. The statement "US State Department however thinks that Diplomatic Immunity applies only to Consular functions, and not personal actions." is entirely inaccurate.

Dude she has already been asked to leave the US while she was working as a diplomat at the UN. Technically she was a diplomat at the UN when she was asked to leave so yes the US do have that power. It's similar to not issuing a visa, if they can ask her to leave the country they can also deny her a visa. She is not welcome in the US on a diplomatic visa of any kind. That's the whole point of declaring someone persona non grata. If she wants to come back as a normal person to contest the charges against her then she might be given a visa, otherwise no chance.

The fact that she cannot visit the US on a diplomatic visa is inaccurate.

However the supposition for her to visit the US on a diplomatic visa after the state department has called for her withdraw will bring US-India relation to an all time low. This supposition is based on the fact that india's foreign department will be willing to ruin its relation with the US in order to appoint her to a position within the Indian government to conduct diplomatic affairs with the US.

 

[kbd-raaf]

There appears to be factual inconsistency with the content from the link you provided.

"Racist American Diplomat Alicia Muller May speaks about her Diplomatic Immunity as a ‘Get Out Of Jail’ card. Funny how the US State Department however thinks that Diplomatic Immunity applies only to Consular functions, and not personal actions."

1. If Alicia Muller May has been accorded diplomatic immunity by the United States she cannot be prosecuted under Indian local laws.

2. It is not the position of the US State Department to interrupt the law but the Court.

3. The statement "US State Department however thinks that Diplomatic Immunity applies only to Consular functions, and not personal actions." is entirely inaccurate.



The fact that she cannot visit the US on a diplomatic visa is inaccurate.

However the supposition for her to visit the US on a diplomatic visa after the state department has called for her withdraw will bring US-India relation to an all time low. This supposition is based on the fact that india's foreign department will be willing to ruin its relation with the US in order to appoint her to a position within the Indian government to conduct diplomatic affairs with the US.

What're you talking about? That link is from the facebook page of Alicia May, the wife of the expelled American.
His posts are included there if I'm not wrong. It's just an expose of what they think about their host country.

You're going off on a tangent. I'm talking about her being appointed one of India's reps to the United Nations. NOT THE US.

Dude she has already been asked to leave the US while she was working as a diplomat at the UN. Technically she was a diplomat at the UN when she was asked to leave so yes the US do have that power. It's similar to not issuing a visa, if they can ask her to leave the country they can also deny her a visa. She is not welcome in the US on a diplomatic visa of any kind. That's the whole point of declaring someone persona non grata. If she wants to come back as a normal person to contest the charges against her then she might be given a visa, otherwise no chance.

Mmm, actually you do bring up a point. I haven't been able to locate that document I was after. I'll keep looking.

 

[jaunty]

The fact that she cannot visit the US on a diplomatic visa is inaccurate.

It's not inaccurate. India may appoint her in the US again (highly unlikely), be it at the Indian embassy/consulates or the permanent mission at the UN. However it's under the discretion of the US State dept. whether they want her in the US or not.

 

[airpower183]

It's not inaccurate. India may appoint her in the US again (highly unlikely), be it at the Indian embassy/consulates or the permanent mission at the UN. However it's under the discretion of the US State dept. whether they want her in the US or not.

What stated earlier was inaccurate.

Whilst what you stated here is accurate, it seems to be providing the impression that its at the whim of the US State dept whether they want her in the US or not.

I advise you that any visa application filed is considered by the US State dept and a decision is made to be consistent with relevant legislation.

 

[faithfulguy]

She's an UN diplomat. Accordingly she can be accredited to the UN and thus if required she has to be given a visa for the US. That was one of the agreements the UN had, in order to place their head quarters in NY.

Not if we do not give her a visa. She no longer can come to America.

 

[jaunty]

What stated earlier was inaccurate.

Whilst what you stated here is accurate, it seems to be providing the impression that its at the whim of the US State dept whether they want her in the US or not.

I advise you that any visa application filed is considered by the US State dept and a decision is made to be consistent with relevant legislation.

I said that with a priory knowledge of the state department's statement that she won't be given a diplomatic visa again or something of similar nature.

 

[airpower183]

What're you talking about? That link is from the facebook page of Alicia May, the wife of the expelled American.
His posts are included there if I'm not wrong. It's just an expose of what they think about their host country.

You're going off on a tangent. I'm talking about her being appointed one of India's reps to the United Nations. NOT THE US.



Mmm, actually you do bring up a point. I haven't been able to locate that document I was after. I'll keep looking.

I note that you stated that in the event she be appointed as India's highest permanent representative to the United Nation, and not representative to the US.

I advise you that the UN has no jurisdiction in the United States, and there are no provision in place to provide any member of the organization immunity from prosecution.

I said that with a priory knowledge of the state department's statement that she won't be given a diplomatic visa again or something of similar nature.

It is unlikely for the State department to provide a comment on the prospects of a hypothetical visa application that hasn't been filed.

Your statement appears to be inaccurate.

 

[chhota bheem]

First of all this thing should not have come to this,as US looking for a strategic patnership should have informed India in advance so that we could have pulled her back.now i guess both countries dont want to hurt relations between both the countries any further, i guess she will be posted to UN once things cool down and US will issue visa to her and move on.if i have to follow the the book then whats the point in having a strategic relationship.

 

[airpower183]

First of all this thing should not have come to this,as US looking for a strategic patnership should have informed India in advance so that we could have pulled her back.now i guess both countries dont want to hurt relations between both the countries any further, i guess she will be posted to UN once things cool down and US will issue visa to her and move on.if i have to follow the the book then whats the point in having a strategic relationship.

I again advise that United Nation is a organization not a country. The United States provides no provision for providing full immunity to member's of the organization.

She was indicted by a grand jury, she is not eligible for a claim under the statute of limitation. There is no 'moving on' she may be prosecuted 40 years from now for the charges filed.

Provided india wants to ruin its relation with the US and appoints her as a diplomat to India, in order for her to get into the country. The only circumstance she will be rejected on her visa application is if the CIA provides an adverse security assessment on her to the state department.

For an ASA to be made on her, the CIA needs to be satisfied that she is a threat to national security. By paying her housemaid $3.5/hour instead of $9.75/hour, it is unlikely for the CIA to provide an ASA on her. Exploitation of an individual is a serious offense, nonetheless it is not a threat to national security.