People have posted and commented on their consulate visit experiences. This is very useful information, but has been difficult to access as it appears on various threads. So, I have assembled them into a Directory of Consulate Reports, organised by location. I expect to add more reviews over the next day or two as I continue to search past postings, and of course we’ll add new reviews as they arrive.
Keep ’em coming! You can write your consulate visit story on this thread or any other thread (we’ll keep an eye out for them) and we’ll transfer them to the Directory. Thanks to everybody for sharing your experiences!
For the Consulate Report pages, I have edited or excerpted some comments. The original posts and comments remain on their threads and have not been edited.
Canada
Europe
@ Steven “Shame on him and shame on you, JDT for not exercising better judgment in selecting a video to make your point.”
Steven I’d kindly ask that you use better judgment in the future and not use an appeal to shame to embarrass our writers in this manner. Jeff did nothing wrong by posting the video. He never said that he agreed with the political views in the video. You are really going over the top with this kind of rhetoric.
Brash wrote:
I don’t think that a comment in thread like this is going to cause anyone to think that O’Keefe is our poster child. Let’s try this: We will rename the site, the Ken O’Keefe Society and put a mural of O’Keefe defiantly burning his US passport, and then perhaps people will think that he is our poster child. But that is not gonna happen. So I wouldn’t worry about it.
@rodgrod
FBAR compliance is not at all necessary for expatriation. You should have a really good reason for sending FBAR — not just the desire to be compliant — before doing so, since you are no longer a US citizen. Let’s be clear: the FBAR does put you in a position of substantial hazard on Fifth Amendment grounds: http://isaacbrocksociety.com/2012/02/09/fifth-amendment-belated-fbar-filings-are-a-substantial-hazard/
Again, FBAR is not part of the IRS exit procedure.
@Petros: Since I am already FBAR and tax compliant and have legally renounced, it would seem to me to be pointless and foolishness in the extreme ( = Ken O’Keefe foolishness) to not make sure I am fully compliant. I have friends and family in the US and I would like to visit them in the future without having to worry about being hassled. I am simply a grade school teacher who wants to simplify her life and be answerable to as few bureaucracies as possible.
@rødgrød: “…it would seem to me to be pointless and foolishness in the extreme…”
I was in the middle of writing exactly this response, when I saw yours pop up. Exactly. Why poke a bear with a sharp stick? Just file the stupid thing one last time, then live the rest of your life happily unimpeded by the US.
@Petros
One more “vote” for removing the O’Keefe video. The man is clearly a nutcase. No matter the excuses, leaving it up detracts from the rest of the site’s credibility.
@ watcher I don’t see how gathering information detracts from our credibility. I completely disagree.
The video is an extremely useful source for the information that we are gathering. I don’t really care that this guy O’keefe is some kind of whack job. He presents a case that is highly relevant to the question of renunciation. And for that matter trying to travel to the United States on a foreign passport when one has a US birth place. I have maintained that the US can reject anyone who tries to do that. We now have another case of this to add to the case of Boris Johnson, now Mayor of London.
Rodgrod wrote
If you have already done FBARs then this is perhaps less of a hazard. So you send the last ones in just to finish the requirements. Fine.
I just think that sending FBARs, especially for the first time ever, is a really bad idea, especially for the person who is no longer a US citizen.
@Petros
Can you repost some time some of old stories about Boris Johnson. Trying to remember to story again I actually believe it was his airline that refused to allow him to fly from the UK to US on a British passport. I am still of the belief there is no US law that specifically requires someone with a US birthplace to show a CLN. However, of course in a strict legal sense border agents to do have a lot of discretion whether to admit someone or not. It is unclear what exactly are the internal guidelines in such circumstances.
See my post on the subject, in which there is a link to Johnson’s on blog post on the subject.
I feel I should chime in for the record as I started this thread of practical information on people’s consulate visits. I do not in any way endorse the video under discussion nor the activities and beliefs of its subject.
@Tim
I believe that you are correct. At the end of the day one looks to the statute. S. 349 of the INA does NOT (unless I am wrong on this) make the actual relinquishment of U.S. citizenship dependent on the issuance of a CLN.
Of course having as CLN would be “proof” of having relinquished. But, the CLN as “proof” is NOT a requirement for relinquishment.
No idea where this fixation on the CLN started, bit I think it is irrelevant.
@all
I want to take this a bit further. The 14th amendment (see my next comment) gives people the right to relinquish U.S. citizenship (or to retain it). This means that the right to relinquish can’t be unduly burdened by the Government. Therefore, for relinquishment to be conditional on an act by the U.S. government (issuing a CLN) would undermine the very purpose of citizenship being protected by the 14th amendment. Therefore, a requirement of a CLN would be unconstitutional
This is an argument that needs to be fully developed and presented to the Government of Canada and all the Canadian financial institutions.
@ renounce Totally agree. CLN is not the sine qua non of loss of citizenship, it is merely the State Department’s act of recognizing that relinquishing act has actually occurred. The act of expatriation is a fundamental right protected by both US and international law. No bureaucrat has the right to stand as judge over your exercise of a fundamental right. That would be absurd.
Now the IRS has a thing called “tax expatriation”; but such a concept is unconstitutional and a violation of basic human decency. You cannot be in a position where you are required to pay taxes to a country because you were a former citizen who failed to file some forms. That is just absurd. I’ve been saying this over and over again. Those ex-citizens who submit to the IRS still, despite having no assets in the United States and being resident in a foreign country, are thus submitting to an absurdity–a violation of their basic human rights. Why would I want to voluntarily submit to a violation of my rights? You better have a gun to my head.
Sorry – but this is going to be a long comment.
This is the second time that Mr. Mopsick has disapproved of the inclusion of a video, commented to that effect, and generated a discussion because of it. This is the second time that Petros has responded to Mr. Mopsick.
In both cases the content of the video was offensive to some contributors to this board.
Mr. Mopsicks comment reads as follows:
Petros reply:
I came across this video some months ago. I have not watch it again (no interest in doing so) before writing this comment. When watching it I don’t remember much about the subject’s politics. I do remember his extreme frustration with trying to renounce his citizenship.
Renunciation of citizenship appears to be a constitutional right (as per Afroyim v. Rusk) in which Justice Black, writing the majority opinion ruled that:
My point is that the subject of the video was complaining about difficulty in exercising a right that Justice Black’s interpretation of the 14th amendment says that he has.
Although I suspect (that as a lawyer) Mr. Mopsick agrees that he has the right to renounce, Mr. Mopsick doesn’t like the things that he says in conjunction with his difficulty in exercising the right. Or to put it simply, the person in the video is not a likable person. Constitutional rights are not only for “likable people”. In fact, the more one is disliked, the more one needs the protection of constitutional rights.
Why do we have constitutional rights? Answer: Because in a democracy, the majority can use the political process to control the minority. Why should this be a problem? Well, because we recognize that there are key areas of human activity where people should have freedom from government intervention. Examples include: first amendment rights (speech, association, etc.) Legal rights (4th, 5th amendments, etc.)
Remember also that, everybody is a minority somewhere!
I would also point out that “nice people”, “people in the majority” don’t need rights. It’s the people who are not liked, people in the minority, people who say things that Mr. Mopsick doesn’t like WHO ARE THE VERY REASON FOR HAVING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Now, I don’t find the subject of this video to be a likable person. I don’t find him to be an interesting person. I have no interest in meeting him or socializing with him. But, I do believe that he has the right to renounce his citizenship. The more despicable he may be, the greater the need to recognize that he does have rights. This is where we need to focus – not on the person, but on the issue.
Mr. Mopsick is really saying that because he finds the person in the video to be offensive, the video should not be on the site.
The price you pay for a free society (to the extent that people still value that) is that there are always people you don’t like.
Mr. Mopsick: Your continued freedom is dependent on others saying things you don’t like!
I believe that Petros is correct.
How to proceed from a practical point of view:
Recognizing that:
1. Mr. Mopsick is possibly representative of the views of some, who would watch the video and become distracted by their dislike of the subject; and
2. We do want people to stay “issue focused”:
Perhaps a reasonable policy on videos posted on the Isaac Brock site would be a disclaimer “The video may be offensive to certain people, etc.” Perhaps also include a statement describing why the video is being posted.
In reference to all above and the requirement of a CLN to enter the United States.
At my Canadian citizenship ceremony in 1972, I repeated and signed the following words: “I hereby renounce all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign sovereign or state of whom or which I may at this time be a subject or citizen.” Now I wonder what the PR for the U.S. might be if I was denied entry, due to the absence of a CLN (something that I had never even heard of until about 2 months ago).
I have already told my sons if anything like that happens to get the newspapers on board. BTW, I am very much a ‘senior citizen’. Should make for good photo-op.
@Petros: you wrote: “What? Are we supposed to not pay attention to these details because the man is an anti-Zionist? What’s your problem Steven? If he was stupid, then his stupidity helps the rest of us to be smarter.”
I am more than happy to “up the ante” if that is what you want. Here’s the deal. What you have here is called “Jew baiting.” “Anti-Zionist” is a code word for “hatred of Jews.” Go back and view Mr O’Keefe’s screed. He represents as fact, ” the Jews brought down the World Trade Center.” Does that sound right to you? In fact this was a canard which was circulated after September 11 by anti-Semites all over the world.
Similarly, with the last video flap, whack-job “Bobby” Fischer was brought back from his resting place in hell, drunk, fat and slovenly, swilling champagne, to denounce the Jews of America who were working hard with their compatriots all over the world to undermine and defeat him. Free speech?
@Petros says O’Keefe’s stupidity helps us all be smarter? Really?
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. What this is about is standing up against mindless hatred and slander. Yet again, the Isaac Brock Society is way off message.
Respectfully submitted
30 Year IRS Vet
@Everyone
My vote goes to get rid of the video. I have little to no interest in it and it really doesn’t with the subject matter at hand. I am actually trying to get some people from Israel to come to the site(I believe this whole tax issue will eventually be as almost as big of issue in Israel per capita as it is Canada). Having said that videos such as this one and the Bobby Fischer one aren’t going to be to helpful in getting us assistance from people in Israel(which needs to be one of the Isaac Brock Society “target markets”).
@Everyone
Statistics
US “Persons” in Israel- Up to 300,000 according to some estimates. Majority don’t file. Population of Israel is 7.5 Million
US “Persons” in Canada – Up 2 Million according to some estimates. Majority don’t file. Population of Canada is 38 Million.
Do the math on a per capita.
“Crummy” article from the Jersusalem Post is linked below basically telling all US Person in is Israel to enter OVDI if they aren’t current. Bad Bad Bad
http://www.jpost.com/Business/BusinessNews/Article.aspx?id=227387
@ Steven
You seem to be of the mistaken belief that the reason why we put up a video is because we endorse the political beliefs of the person in the video. Where does this mistaken notion come from? The other day, Renounce put up a video from the Obama campaign that was full of lies from the democrat party. Not one person complained. I did not complain. You know why? Because it did not represent our beliefs at the Isaac Brock Society. Do you know why it doesn’t? Because we have only one coherent thing that holds us together: We are all being persecuted by the United States of America. So as we gather information about other people who are persecuted by a United States, who have tried to renounce, and who have faced the oppressive laws and rules regarding US expatriation, we may run across an O’keefe or a Fischer, or some other odious creatures. But if their stories have information that adds to our database, we are nevertheless interested in it.
I want you to go back to the history of this website. We started it because of the Expat Forum’s censorship. Some people even find the very act of renunciation offensive. Some take offense at Isaac Brock, a man who protected Canada from American invaders.
You missed my point about O’Keefe’s stupidity. I meant to say that if O’Keefe was stupid its because he thought he could renounce and live in the United States or travel with a US passport. Believe me, none of us who are regular readers here plan to do something that stupid. If you meant that he was stupid because of his anti-Zionism, I ask your pardon for misunderstanding your point.
@Tim,
A little twist on dual citizenship for people in Israel:
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#israel
Most Israeli’s probably can’t even make the same argument most Canadians can that they renounced long ago when they became Canadian citizens. Their lives are going to be even more complicated.
I agree with Steven Mospick. It is very easy for the message and purpose of this site to drift away from it’s original intent and for the message and purpose to become diluted. Also, I am not in favor of highlighting any discriminatory material which single’s out a people group for slander. While these issues at hand easily incite feeling and passion, as a collaborative collection, we need to operate from a place of mindfulness towards the present and future reactionary impact of our words and the words of others that we chose to highlight and bring attention to will have.
I contiune to applaud and support the orignial premise of the Isaac Brock Society being “Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad”. However, when a post is placed, the impact that such a post may have on the perceptions of other potential viewers, posters, and responders that this site hopes to engage in conversation and collaborative effort needs to be wisely considered.
My hope is that the original poster, Jefferson Thomas, will take a step back to reflect on the possible present and future impact that the posting of this video may have on those we hope to welcome.
And, perhaps, more importantly, the “posting” of material that slanders a people group is offensive and concerning on many levels.
@All of above
I have to say that I agree with Steven on this one. Quite honestly I don’t wish to be associated in any way, shape or form to the person in that video. I understand the point that Petros has tried to make here, but I also know there will be individuals out there who would see the video and be very offended and/or believe that all of us posting on this site are as ‘nuts’ as the guy in the video. Please take it down.
If somebody posted a video of a lunatic claiming that the terrorist attacks in India are the work of the Indian government I would be disgusted and respond using expletives this site has never seen before. Because I am originally from India, a lie like that would be very painful to me.
I’m not one for censorship but I think the video should be taken down out of respect for the extreme pain it would cause to a Jewish person.
I too think Steven has it right. That video does not reflect well on us at all, and I’d like to see it gone. This isn’t a question of censorship; he can spew his venom wherever he wants. While the point may be that he’s just another persecuted person, I wouldn’t invite him over for dinner, and don’t feel comfortable with him on this site.
@all: Thank you to everyone who has come forward to support me on this. Words really matter.
30 Year IRS Vet