My place of birth has begun to bother me more than ever with the systematic rise in discrimination of those with US birth places, clearly obvious for all to see the moment that you open your passport, by banks and other financial institutions due to FATCA. Yes, that horrible component of your personal data that, along with your name and date of birth, allows you to be systematically categorised and cataloged. For many, where you were born also happens to be where you grew up and where you most identify with. Many are born, live and die in the same city their entire lives and come from families that go back generations in the same city as well. Some of my French friends have even told me that an unwritten rule in Paris is that you need to be no less than the 5th generation to be born and raised in the city to be a real “Parisian”.
But what about those of us who, for whatever reason, would prefer our place of birth to not be listed, or for the country name or three digit code (like USA) not to be used? Many are born in countries which they would prefer not to be shown in their passports, and others are born in areas where the legal definition of where they were born is unclear. Those born in Jerusalem, for example, are listed usually solely as being from “Jerusalem“, without a country code in both US and Canadian passports. Similar approaches to Hong Kong are used due to the different country codes after the transfer from British to Chinese rule.
Normally, a country lists you as being born in a city if you were born in the issuing country, unless you were born abroad. The US does the opposite by listing the state and country, but they accept requests for those born abroad to have only a city listed and not the country (they strangely do not accept requests from those born in the US though to only list the city or city with the state). The UK, Germany and several others list your city of birth, even if born abroad. I have a friend from Germany born in “New York”, and it says only “New York” in his passport. Another from India has “Mumbai” in his UK passport. If you are Canadian you may request Passport Canada to enter only a city name without a signifying country code, which might work to deflect unwanted “US Person” status if you were born in a city somewhere vaguely English-sounding that has a duplicate elsewhere (For example there is both a Boston, UK and a Boston,US…). You can even request them to leave the Place of Birth totally blank, though I imagine that that would bring too much unwanted attention.
This is all well and good, but what if your place of birth does not signify where you actually came from, like several on the Canadian border who were born in US hospitals? An alternative exists that several countries use called “Place of Origin” or maybe even just simply “Registered Domicile”. Swiss passports do not list your place of birth at all. If you are Swiss but born abroad, say in Los Angeles, your passport would list your Place of Origin as being Bern if your parents are from there. The idea is to establish where you or your family ancestrally hail from. Japanese passports list simply your “Registered Domicile”, ie where you are living at the time that your passport was issued. My EU passport also lists this information, but unfortunately only in addition to the place of birth.
Two years ago I couldn’t have cared less about where I was born and what was listed in my passport. Now, however, I will be honest with the fact that I am more and more uncomfortable showing my personal details in my passport, especially each time that I open a bank account. I am not a dishonest person – If someone asks if I have US citizenship I will not lie, I just don’t like the unwanted attention that having a US birthplace is already drawing when I open an account. I would love for my passport to just list my registered domicile or place of origin. I find both options to be less discriminatory and arbitrary, and, aside from being born in the US or avoiding military service somewhere like Singapore, there aren’t many instances where “Place of Birth” is really a relevant piece of information except to make us easy for bureaucrats to understand. I am envious of those of you based in Canada, since I have heard that the banks there have absolutely no information on where you were born or even what your citizenship status is. This would not be possible at a European bank – They need to know everything about you almost and you normally can only open a bank account with a passport or national identity card. Driving Licences also aren’t ID in the EU, so no use trying to use that as an ID. Even if you could, they are vastly inferior to the Nexus cards that Canadians can use since EU driving licences list your place of birth as well! My UK licence once said “United States”, while the example UK one above says Wales, so you know that that is not the place of residence at the time it was issued…
Am I alone in obsessing over where I was born and wishing that there were esoteric ways to hide it? I wish my passport just listed where I am domiciled, yet this goes against the general Orwellian trend that governments worldwide are following. I hate that even after somebody renounces US citizenship, there it is, your birthplace, bright and clear for everyone to see and begging to be explained, making me feel like less of a citizen of my own country than those fortunate enough to be born in one of the other 192 countries in the world 🙁
Sorry about the post disappearing briefly after I published – The spacing didn’t transfer well and had to be redone to make it user (eye) friendly! Cheers
You’re not alone, I’m obsessing with you 🙂
I stil can’t believe that US policy is so friggin misguided that I run the risk of getting my bank accounts closed when I pay all the applicable taxes here, (which happen to be MUCH higher than in the US if you factor in the the taxes that don’t even exist in the US.)
It appears to me, the only way out is to renounce and be treated like everyone else where you live, or keep citizenship and face more and more restrictions. No, I don’t see the end of the tunnel.
This “legislation” is putting in in a position where I will have to make a choice
A) Go back to the US and take my wife and kid away from all of my wife’s family who play an integral part in raising my son.
B) Renounce
Unfortunately, I have to take B because A is out of the question for me now. With these laws on the horizon, I have no idea why someone would actually think that US citizenship is worth it!
Agree completely. I asked Canadian passport to be issued without place of birth several years ago (before I knew about IRS issue). They said they could do that, but advised me 16 countries will not admit anyone travelling on a passport that does not provide place of birth. Then, she grimaced and said “The United States is one of those countries.”
I didn’t ask what the other 15 were because I need to visit my elderly mother who is still in the US, so I need to once again conform to US demands.
This place of birth crap is particularly infuriating for someone who chose long ago to become a Canadian and to lose US citizenship, whether or not they knew (or didn’t know) to inform State Department of that fact at the time. No one chooses where they were born, or for that matter who their parents are (not that I have any problem with my parents, now dead, I don’t nor did I when they were alive). Some of us are fortunate enough to choose where we live and of what country we CHOSE to be a citizen, and to have been accepted into citizenship of that country that we CHOSE.
I don’t mind being judged on the basis of my choices. I do mind being judged or treated on the basis of things I didn’t choose and over which I had no control and never will.
In Canada the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin, e.g. place of birth. Not so in the US. Ask anyone who crosses the border with a US or any other passport that shows a birth place in Iran, for openers … how do they get treated at the US border? Never mind anyone born in the US whose skin colour isn’t lily-white, even these days, and especially if they look remotely Hispanic and live and work in one of the states along the US’ southern border.
“With liberty and justice for all …” my a**. What a load of horse manure.
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
– Declaration of Independence 1776
You know the world has turned upside down when the best news you’ve had in a long time is figuring out that your only child is actually NOT an American.
Because my husband is technically an American I was terrified that my adult son might be too. After doing some research I confirmed that he’s not. I breathed a sigh of relief. What’s wrong with this picture?!!
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
– Declaration of Independence 1776 (part 2)
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”
– Declaration of Independence 1776 (part 3)
“The history of the present GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
– He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
– He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
– He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
– He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
– He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
– He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
– He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
– He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
– He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
– He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
– He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
– He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
– He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
– For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
– For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
– For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
– For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
– For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
– For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
– For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
– For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
– For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
– He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
– He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
– He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
– He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
– He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
– Declaration of Independence 1776 (part 4)
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the FORMER CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
– Declaration of Independence 1776 (part 5)
History repeats itself.
@Schubert1975, excellent comments. Precise, clear and eloquent.
I have but only one question: What are the characteristics of a who person looks “remotely Hispanic?”
Bill Richardson, the former governor of the US state of New Mexico, US ambassador to the UN and a former member of President’s Clinton’s cabinet, is Hispanic, because he was born to a Spanish-citizen mother and a non-Hispanic father, both residents of Mexico. She came to the US legally for the specific and sole purpose of giving birth to her son so he would have US citizenship. A few weeks ago I took my wife to the beauty parlor and while she was getting her hair fixed I talked to a blond, blue-eyed immigrant from Cuba with a Spanish surname whose grandfather had immigrated from Norway to Cuba. And former president Strossner of Paraguay for very many years, was born in that country to German immigrant parents like many other Paraguayans. Many Argentines, descendants of Italian Immigrants, travel to the US visa free with Italian passports and Miami has dozens of Chifas (the Pervuan name for a Chinese restuaurant) whose oriental looking owners speak Spanish as their primary language and carry Peruvian passports
Yet, though they “look” nothing alike, they are all classified as Hispanics.
.
@Schubert: As you know, like you, I was certain I had relinquished US citizenship 40 yeara ago. I still don’t understand how this is happening now.
But, have you seen the somerfugel posted on another thread about the reply he got from Canadian Human Rights Commission. So much for protection from foreign government”s economic terror based on country of national origin. Seems if your national origin is Etrirean (sp?), you have no obligation to a foreign government, according to our Citizenship Minister. But, if you’re of American origin, you do, according to Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Here is is part of the response I received, quoted exactly from their letter:
“US citizens who do not meet the obligation to report the required information to the IRS will soon have to deal with the fact that details on their Canadian accounts will be provided to the IRS from another source–Canadian banking institutions are now putting systems in place to report all accounts held by US citizens =. This is a new requirement of FACTA that will come into effect in 2013 (extended to 2014 for Canadian financial institutions). In order for the Commission to accept a complaint, the alleged discrimination must have already taken place. As it appears that your are concerned about a discriminatory act that may occur in 2014, the Commission at this point will no longer consider your inquiry.”
“Furthermore, as mentioned above, the alleged discriminatory practice would not constitute discrimination under our Act because a dual filing obligation based on “dual citizenship” cannot be considered as a discriminatory act protected under the Act.” (end quote).
@Blaze.
From the response from the Canadian Human Rights Commission it would appear the the concept of Predominant Citizenship does not exist in Canada any more or any less than it does not exist in the US.
@Blaze
Don’t be so sure of their response. I am planning on typing up something in the near future showing where exactly FATCA conflicts with Canadian law(I believe it does in several places). I have mainly been waiting until the new rules(which are supposed to come out soon) are released to see where specifically under the “new” rules their are conflicts with Canadian law. I am not necessarily sure the Human Rights Commission understands FATCA at this moment. I do know that the Department of Finance does and specifically is aware of the conflicts with Canadian law. It remains to be seen what they do about it.
Tim, like you, I also believe it FATCA is a violation of Canadian Charter, Human Rights and privacy laws. I’m just not sure how we can prove it, considering how disinterested CHRC seemed to be in their reply to Somerfugl.
@Blaze
I don’t even live in Canada, but the response that you posted has absolutely made my blood boil. The worst line is “…will soon have to deal with the fact details on their Canadian accounts will be provided to the IRS…”. I can’t believe how unceremoniously they dismissed your discrimination suit either, since they are affording protection to Eritreans who are being discriminated on exactly the same basis as what the official above claims is not covered – solely based on their citizenship status.
Its the hypocrisy that bothers me the most, the fact that it is so blatenly obvious that Canada, the EU and the rest of the world are simply acting like total pushovers. If any other country tried to bully others into passing their own version of FATCA they would be told to bugger off.
The worst part is how we, the lowly unfortunate dual citizens, are being left for the vultures, even though many of us are citizens of the countries in question. It is disgusting that the only ways to opt out are 1) conduct all business affairs through your mattress cash stash portfolio or 2) renounce citizenship. There is no middle ground if you value your own personal privacy or ability to live a normal life with the same rights as every other citizen.
The key parties at this point are the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada(which takes the lead role of comsumer protection at the chartered banks), Department of Finance(which is the parent department of FCofA) and the Privacy Commissioner. As I understand at all have been involved behind the scenes in discussions with US. Unfortionately no one seems to know what the results have been other than US “seems” to backing down “considerably” from different press reports. My impression as recently as six months the US was basically refusing to even discuss FATCA with Canada so I guess the present situation is an improvement given the parties are talking.
@tim,
Bravo! When you have these facts please allow me to encourage you to hit and hit hard. It is my conviction that it is only by foreign governments in defending the legitimate rights of their own citizens by taking a firm stand against this unilateral action of the US Government in FATCA that any effective action can result to recify this situation. Indivdual US citizens living abroad are totally powerless. They have neither voice nor vote, and their opinions are clearly of no interst to the US Government, who generally characterises them as being of questionable loyalty for residing outside of the US.
But foreign governments that say NO: We do not recognize that the US Government has any authority to enact and enforce extraterritorial laws that obligate our banks to act as agents in collecting US taxes from Canadian citrizens who are residents of Canada, or any authority to levy taxes on on the Canadian income of Canadian citrizens. That might require renouncing or renegotiating the US-Canadian tax treaty. If so, so be it.
@Tim
Recent developments are positive, to be sure, but where is the definitive “NO – Are you are out of your minds? We will not share any personal details as that is a violation of our data protection laws”. So far only Australia, Japan and China have clearly said that they will not comply. Has anyone heard of any other countries that have explicitly stated that they will not comply under any circumstances? That is the only acceptable moral position when one’s national sovereignty is to be so clearly overstepped and ignored.
I remember a post on the old Expat Forum about some US lawyer or lawmaker describing US law and FATCA as being the “Law of the World” or something equally arrogant. The scary thing is, I think that they actually believe that to be the case..
I want to mention the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada more specifically. If a Canadian Bank refuses to open a bank account for you when provide the required ID(i.e. drivers license) they have to not only have to tell you but also have to report it immediately to FCA where if you choose you can challenge the banks decision. Almost every case I have seen the customer has always won over the bank in the eyes of FCA. The only decision in doubt were where their was some doubt as the veracity of ID(i.e. old expired drivers license). If you choose a non interest bearing account you don’t even have to provide a SIN number. Even in cases where someone has a criminal record the FCA will get them an account however, it can be heavily “restricted” if their past conviction had to do with banking related activity.
Here is a link to their current information page
http://www.fcac-acfc.gc.ca/eng/resources/publications/banking/TSOpenBankAcc-eng.asp
@don, the FATCA is my primary concern without a doubt. Secondary to that, is my dislike of being able to shed American citizenship. On one hand, I think the US’s actions are noble because it prevents statelessness of children, but on the other hand, they make it very difficult to get rid of US citizenship. The net benefit is zero!
The US just has to come to terms with the fact that we live all over the place, and we are not tax evaders where we live. There may be some, but as the TAX ADVOCATE mentioned, the situation has changed considerably over recent decades.
My thoughts are usually 4 years ahead of my parents generation (in their 60’s). What I see now is a world that is having a difficult time adapting to the mobility of people today. So bear this in mind when I say this ::::::
I live in Brazil, but I can identify with some American elements, but also Brazilian. My tendency now is to think “Act where you live” so when I leave an establishment, I say “Tchau, tenha uma boa noite” to everyone that is near me. Because that’s how it is done here. Not saing goodbye to someone who is near you is a little rude.
I don’t know if the world is read for bi/tri/quad-culturalism yet. My personal belief is that the Americans wants this to prevent people from moving overseas in the first place. Once you start mixing elements of different cultures and ideas, theirs becomes dillluted. And they want to prevent this from happening, hence the difficulties.
As an American who has had the privilege of living both in Brazil and the United States, the two countries have their similarities and their profound differences
Both are similar in that they are melting-pot nations of immigrants from around the world. But there is one very profound cultural difference: Immigrants that came to the United States generally insisted their children become Americanized as fast as possible, so while they spoke their native languages among themselves they insisted their children learn and speak English, often deliiberatly avoiding their native languages. So it was not uncommon that the children of immigrants did not learn the languages of their parents. American culture rejects immigrants who continue to use their native language. Many English speaking “natives” in Miami, when they retire, often move away to communities where everyone speaks Engilsh to get away from hearing Spanish, beause they are uncomfortable hearing their neighbors speaking Spanish.
It is just the opposite in Brazil. Immigrants to Brazil not only learned Portuguese and made sure their children dit, but they maintained the language of their home countries in the home, so their children grew up perfectly bilingual in both Portuguese and the native languages of their parents, and this continues generation after generation. The churches they attend, the social clubs they belong to, etc. use their native language as their primary language. And when descendants of these immigrants 4 or 5 gerations removed from when their ancestors arrived, sill maintain native fluency in their languages and cultivate contacts with relatives in the “old country.” Young Braziiian professionals are recruited in Germany, Portugal, Italy, etc. and often end up moving with their families to pursue employment opportunities in those countries.
If you go today to the city of Amercana, about 100 miles from Sao Paulo, you will find a large “American” community that dates back almost 150 years to the days when it was colonized by some 5,000 immigrants from South Carolina who moved their after the Confederacy was defeated in the Civl War. To this day walking through the crowded downtown streets of Americana, with a population of 150,000, you will hear a mixture of English and Portugese as the descendents of these immigrants switch back and forth between these two languages. Most of them speak Engish at home thus insuring their children are fluent.
Here’s a newpaper srory about Americana.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1291&dat=19840826&id=XKZYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xYwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6969,7088699.
The same is true in other towns in Brazil where your will hear and see signs posted in German, Italian, French, Latvian, etc, along with Portuguese. In Blumenau and Curitiba people often greeted me with “guten morgen,” incorrectly suspecting that my heritage was German. Personally I very much like the Brazilian culture and am very proud that our 4 adult children not only mainain their native fluency in Portuguese but all have jobs where this fluency is necessary, so they use both languages (as well as Spanish, which they learned when we lived in Peru) every day.
I suspect that this aspect of American culture is one of the reasons why the US, incuding the US Government, “looks down” its collective noses with suspicion at Americans who move abroad to live, learn another language and have careers in foreign countries. They must have some alterior motive to do that, they reason, because it is “not normal” for an American to do that.
I think Americans in the US are programmed to believe that it is a privilege to live in the USA–the greatest country on earth.
Anyone leaving, is looked upon as being ungrateful and deserves to be punished for their disloyalty to the group.
Analyzing the dynamics of this would make a good topic for someone’s dissertation.
@John,
I also believe this is a contributing factor. I touched on this in my post just above yours.