Our own Ladybug sent me the following 1980 document from the US Consulate in Calgary. It has this don’t-die-of-laughing-they-really-did-say-it line: ” … a person who has already lost U.S. citizenship by that date [Oct. 10, 1978] may not have it restored.” Oh that the rules were what they were. Now, no matter whether you lost it back then or not, you have it whether you want it or not. One line, however, is still all too true: “Did you know … That U.S. laws, regulations and procedures are always changing, and what was true some years ago may not be true now?”
The law is always changing. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I bet the next change will be all Canadians lose their US citizenship automatically.
In the US it wouldn’t be the LAW if it wasn’t always changing.
Freakin’ Banana Republic!
Forget the law.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
Let justice be done though the heavens fall.
Justice is one of the seven virtues. The law is you know what.
The US has a long history of “changing the rules of the game” and adopting the attitude of “accept it or renounce”. I saw yesterday that even Charlie Chaplin’s wife had to renounce US Citizenship 60’ish something years ago. The “extremes” the US goes to and the lack of accomodation or understanding of Expat lives is just an American personality trait. That’s why for anyone who is holding out expecting the US to change, you will most likely be waiting forever.
They want you to renounce if you don’t want to accept their rules. Fine. The only thing that I don’t like about this is the hefty fee to renounce. After all, I didn’t ASK to be a US Citizen, so why should I have to pay to renounce!? This is the part that I find highly unfair.
Thanks very much to Ladybug for finding and posting this.
It is interesting to note that this document repeats and reinforces the point that, as recently as 1980, anyone who became a foreign national thereby would almost certainly lose their US nationality (see ninth paragraph from the top). The paragraph says there are a few exceptions, and as far as I know the only exceptions they made back then were persons who acquired dual nationality at birth (e.g., persons born outside the US in a country which grants citizenship to anyone born there — such as Canada if either parent were a Canadian citizen or a legal resident of Canada — , yet the parents were Americans). The US only “accepted” dual nationality in those particular cases, they weren’t happy about it, and until 1978 (as noted in this document) any such dual citizen had to reside for a period of time in the US by a certain age or they’d lose their citizenship.
To this day, consular officials try to tell you that this “automatic” revocation of citizenship — which we’ve seen spelled out clearly and unequivocally in the language of the act circa 1970s/80s — didn’t really happen. On Friday, when my wife was going through the “relinquish” procedure in Vancouver — the counter clerk challenged the Act “quote” I put in to indicate just that — he said that wasn’t true anyway.
I didn’t argue with him, mostly because arguing with ANY bureaucrat usually gets you nowhere; they don’t like having their misstatements categorically refuted. But to be fair, he wanted to change the language in that answer to a firm declaration that she intended to relinquish — and since that was in her interest, we just let it go.
I wonder, are there grounds here for a class action suit against DOS if they deny so-called “slam-dunk” requests for CLNs through relinquishment? If they try to argue that the loss of citizenship was not automatic (in spite of the very clear language of the act) could you get a US judge to over turn a DOS rejection?
We’re not going to know about this for upwards of 14 months, and that’s assuming the consul’s suggested timetable holds. It’s a little worrisome because if the application for a CLN is rejected, your only choices going forward would be a court challenge of the ruling (which would have to happen in the US) or move on to a renouncement. If you have to renounce, then all those IRS filing obligations rear their ugly heads because they’ve decided you are still a US citizen.
If anyone’s application for a CLN gets rejected, it would sure be good to know about that. Surely the State Department would want to avoid that kind of nastiness? What am I saying … they don’t really give a s**t.
@Arrow, I think the eventual outcome will be that the Canadian government would have to negotiate a mass renunciation on behalf of all Canadians that the US may also consider to be their citizens however irrational that is. The US would have to agree there would be no exit tax or need to file any forms other than the form to renounce US citizenship.
For each person to fight this out in a US courtroom would be expensive and knowing how the Americans think I don’t see it going our way. When they’re right they’re right, when they’re wrong they’re right. Remember Iraq?
This is going to be like a hostage negotiation for the release of 1 million people who want to be free of US citizenship. How embarrassing that would be for the US if they put up a fight.
That’s a good point. And as someone who has been involved — for more than 25 years — in writing about the infamous US-Canada softwood lumber war, I know exactly what you are saying. When they are wrong, they are right. And they will ignore their own law if it suits them.
@Arrow
You make some very good points regarding the possibility that DOS may not ‘honour’ their own words/Act and grant the CLNs. It would be great if we could ‘fast forward’ to next year and already know what will happen for all of those who have filed for the CLN under “relinquish” rather than “renounce”. Judging by the consular clerk you and your wife saw, it sounds like many DOS employees don’t know the INA as they should.
I sent a letter off to John Weston MP for West Vancouver/Sunshine Coast yesterday. He is not my MP, but my MP promised me a letter 6 weeks ago and I am still waiting. In the letter to Mr. Weston, I mentioned the conflicting advice many of us are receiving and also the fact that letters from the Canadian government all give voice to ‘not being able to interfere with tax laws made by the U.S.’. I suggested to Mr. Weston that there were many in Canada, who for decades had believed they had ‘relinquished’ their U.S. citizenship when they became Canadians. But those same people (many of whom may not be able to afford lawyers) might appreciate the Canadian government to perhaps address the issue in the media. To not address this is leaving individuals in “limbo”. I may not hear from Mr. Weston but it was worth a try.
I can’t understand why the Canadian government is being silent on this issue. By now they must know as much about the changing US citizenship laws as we do and be aware that alot of innocent people are caught up in this nightmare. I’m sure the Prime Minister’s lawyers can see a legal way out of this for most of us.
The only thing I can think of is that there’s some major financial shenanigans involving US residents and Canadian dual citizens. Maybe there’s a news story that’s being blacked out so they can catch the real criminals? I sure hope so, because otherwise it just seems like our government doesn’t care and that can’t be the case.
@OMG,
I agree. It is so disheartening not to have MP’s and other government representatives have a conversation with us. Except for the NDP, not one of my letters to government representatives has gotten more than a cursory acknowledgement, usually not even the courtesy of that.
I expect more from the government representatives that we have put into office. It is so disappointing. I either have to think that something is going on in the background, which I hope, or the more cynical view — our government representatives just don’t care — we just might be collateral damage. Tell me if there is a third reason that makes some sense.
@OMG and calgary411
I know that many on this site have sent off letters re FATCA and other issues surrounding all of this. I wonder if MP’s started to receive requests (such as mine above re our government publishing some legal points regarding ‘Who really is an American’), if that would get some legal action on the part of our government. As you mentioned, calgary, any replies received are all of a general, cursory nature. I am so tired of all these different ‘legal’ opinions.
I mentioned in previous posts that a Davis & Co. lawyer here in Vancouver, conducting a seminar for U.B.C.faculty and retired faculty, stated that anyone becoming a Canadian prior to 1986, was no longer an American.(as long as they did nothing to negate the ‘relinquishment’). That statement was mentioned by a friend of mine when she was in a staff meeting with her employer, a cross border tax attorney. His response was “That must have been xxxxxxxx(named the person it was). Well, he is wrong”. So now who do we believe? I mentioned all of this in my letter to John Weston. I hope he responds accordingly because I am making myself ill over all of this.
@Tiger, I know you’re just reporting what you’ve heard, but oh my, i sure wish you hadn’t heard that. It burst my precarious bubble of not me, I’m Canadian only! But thanks for posting, it’s important we hear it all, good news and bad.
@outragec
I know exactly what you mean about the ‘bubble being burst’. I got the email from my friend late yesterday; it did not make for a peaceful sleep.
But then I told myself, it is obvious that even the lawyers can’t agree; it was a cross-border tax attorney who said it was not true; people like Johnnb have heard of consulate people saying ‘it was a slam dunk’ (that is, getting the CLN); and most important, DOS own website list ‘expatriating acts’ , followed by doing nothing to ‘negate’ the act, as causing a ‘relinquishment’ of a person’s U.S. citizenship. I don’t care how many people working at U.S.consulates and embassies may not know what their own INA says, the bottom line is both the INA and Supreme Court decisions have said that ‘taking out a foreign citizenship and/or swearing an oath to a foreign government” may result in your loss of U.S. citizenship.
Arrow 2:48 pm — I think I hear you playing my tune in a different key …