Yes, a US embassy is considered US soil, as it is considered an extension of the United States within a foreign country.
Yes, an embassy is considered foreign soil because it is the sovereign territory of the country it represents, not the host country where it is located.
An embassy being considered foreign soil is significant because it allows the host country to respect the sovereignty of the visiting country. This means that the embassy is subject to the laws and regulations of the visiting country, not the host country, providing a safe space for diplomatic activities and communication between nations.
The takeover of the US embassy by radical students
The soil of the embassy, whatever the country, is always French land (this isn't American soil even though the premises have diplomatic status). Regarding French law, a person born in France in French.
An embassy is technically owned by the country. So a US embassy will be owned by the US and not India
Extraterritoriality is the legal device of considering a particular piece of land to belong to some other country than the country in which it is actually located. This is used to give special legal rights to embassies. A US embassy in Another Country is considered to be US soil, governed by US law, not by the law of the country in which it is actually located.
Yes, embassies are generally considered foreign soil according to international law. This concept is known as diplomatic immunity, which grants certain legal protections to diplomats and embassy staff while they are in a foreign country.
Embassies is the plural of embassy.
The US Embassy is in Akasaka, not Roppongi. Close, but not the same thing.
The takeover of the US embassy by radical students
The people go to the US embassy and fail as many times as the US embassy allows them.
Pretty much every country in the World has an embassy in Washington DC; similarly the US has an embassy in pretty much every country in the World.