Texas AG Threatens To Arrest U.N. Elections Observers

Post Reply New Topic

Nonetheless, when the United States confers diplomatic immunity on a representative of an international organization, that grant of immunity is binding upon the several states. Period.

Observers representing an international organization of which the United States is a member are performing a diplomatic function, and the Vienna Convention applies. If Texas objects to their presence, then Texas must make its complaint to the State Department, and seek a declaration of persona non grata.

All this serves to do is demonstrate--yet again--that petty partisans throughout the United States prefer their own rhetoric to any meaningful application of the principles of the the law and federalism. Now, I don't suggest for a moment that Mr. Abbott is stupid--he knows full well that his rhetoric is completely empty. But I do lament that his empty rhetoric resonates with a substantial number of people who are too lazy, too ignorant, or both, to understand how the world works.

Don't take it for granted that the "observers" would be diplomats and issued diplomatic passports. If not, they can be arrested and tried for violating Texas law.

From http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Abbott-threatens-foreign-election-observers-with-3981317.php:

The passport does not dictate whether or not a person is entitled to diplomatic immunity, it is the function for which the person is admitted to the Receiving State. (And in any event, OSCE officials would generally travel on a UN Laissez Passer rather than a passport).

An official of an international organization who is not a national of the Receiving State and whose purpose in travelling to the Receiving State would enter the United States on a G4 category visa and would be entitled the privileges and immunities that reflect the purpose of which that person was being admitted.

As you say, a UN Laissez Passer does not grant diplomatic immunity. As far as I can tell, neither do G4 visas.

Someone with diplomatic immunity can be arrested, but they have to be deported instead of prosecuted unless their home country revokes diplomatic immunity. This was common practice in the cold war, where both countries had spies on their embassy payroll to protect them from prosecution and execution.

No--immunity is conferred by the State Department upon a person who is entering the United States for a diplomatic purpose. It is entirely conceivable that a person might enter on a B1 visa in an regular passport and still be entitled to diplomatic privileges and immunities.

But an official of an international organization entering for an official purpose establishes a prima facie entitlement.



Saying that a person with diplomatic immunity can be arrested is a little bit like saying that a person can be murdered. It can occur--but it's not legal. If the police arrest a person who enjoys diplomatic immunity they must immediately investigate the claim to immunity, and upon its verification relase the individual forthwith. Even if the Receiving State has declared the individual persona non grata they continue to enjoy immunity right up until the moment that they depart.

We've done it with countless spies where they were held for deportation (often the next flight out), and once a Russian (post cold war) foreign ministry official was convicted here for a dui-related vehicular manslaughter conviction when Russia agreed to lift his diplomatic immunity. Things must be done differently there.

Texas sees things their own way.

I spoke with a Honduran who told me about spending four days in a Texas jail, because he did not have a real Honduran passport. The diplomatic was called fake, and he was jailed until Honduras claimed him. Then he had to pay for his car being towed, impound fees, and everything had been searched, and some things were missing.

Texas, it's a whole other country.

Driving with out of state plates is not a crime, but it will get you stopped, searched, and having more than $100 cash, it is taken because you were going to buy drugs. Lots of stories of people going to pick up a car they bought, bringing cash, and getting copped. No ticket, no arrest, just take the money.

If the law was honest they would not need guns. The biggest crooks in Louisiana are all in government.

The local reality is reality, not what it may say in some book.

Spies held for deportation would invariably be "illegals" (i.e. those without diplomatic immunity). Members of the mission would not be treated in that fashion for the simple reason that such treatment would expose members of the American mission to precisely the same treatment by the Soviets.

As for the the DUI case, you hit the salient point: Russia waived immunity. But that was wholly and entirely a Russian decision, and the courts did not have jurisdiction over the individual until Russia did so.

It turns out that in the past when they have "monitored" US elections, they did not enter polling places in Texas because it would have been illegal for them to do so.

For example, in their report for the 2008 US elections, they say:

The Supreme Court also sided with Bush due to the fact that certain officials were doing some "creative recounting," and counting votes for Ralph Nader as votes for Al Gore. Additionally the Gore Campaign wanted to exclude the votes of people that were serving in the military.

If I remember correctly, the case to which I think you are referring involved a member of the staff of the embassy of the Republic of Georgia, rather than the Russian Federation. As long as I've been paying attention, Russia generally doesn't extradite its nationals (whether diplomats & ordinary citizens) for trial in other countries. In the case referenced above, Georgia was keen to maintain its alliance with the U.S. & didn't want to risk the potential harm to relations, so it was an easy call for them to sacrifice that diplomat suspected in the felony DUI case. But, as already noted, it was THEIR choice to do so.

For what it's worth, Russia bars foreign election observers from its polling stations. It is their sovereign right to do so, even if it reflects poorly on the state of democratic governance there. So does Iran. So Texas would be in good company here. But, as has been alluded to in this thread already, this is all BS anyway, as the Texas AG surely knows; these are just throw-away words to appeal to all the nutcases & know-nothings that form the base of the Republican Party.

In the United States there are Constitutional limits on the Federal Government that keep it from being all powerful. The Federal Government cannot legally just make any decision they want and force the states to abide by that decision.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Federal Government the jurisdiction over Texas state elections that would permit them to force Texas to change its laws to allow foreign election observers.

Iowa has just joined Texas in this.

Nobody ever suggested that they could. What the federal government can do, is prohibit states from arresting and prosecuting representatives of foreign states and international organizations.

The issue isn't whether Texas (or Iowa) can say to foreign representatives, "keep out!" It's whether the Attorney General of Texas can make good on his threat of arrest and prosecution.

Empty rehetoric to appeal to the ignorant.