From a recent post on Duncan’s website. Transcript and commentary after the jump.
0:00/Duncan: Hello. I’m coming to you from my office in the Rayburn House Office Building across the street from the U.S. Capitol, and I wanted to mention a couple of things to all the people who view my website from time to time. Last night, on the ABC National News, I saw the report that 1,760 Americans had given up their U.S. citizenship in the past year, primarily to avoid taxes. But the person who was featured was a woman named Denise Rich. Several years ago, I criticised President Clinton for granting a pardon to Mrs. Rich’s ex-husband Marc Rich, who had fled the country to evade $40 million in income taxes.
I would have hoped that a Congresscritter would have access to a better source of information than sensationalistic television news, but I guess he doesn’t care about the finer points of this issue; he just wanted the chance to spout some bombast in front of a camera like Chuck Schumer, whose language he echoes. Duncan is a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, which claims to comprise libertarian-minded members, and holds weekly lunches hosted by Ron Paul. But apparently, Ron Paul’s understanding of liberty hasn’t rubbed off on Duncan, for whom “liberty” clearly doesn’t include the right to emigrate as guaranteed by the Expatriation Act of 1868, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
0:53/Duncan: President Clinton granted this pardon after Mrs. Rich donated — I believe it was — $400,000 to the Clinton Library. This is a scandal of major proportions, really, and I was disappointed and surprised that the national media did not make more out of this at the time. But Mrs. Rich is from a family — I think the report said her grandfather came here to this country to avoid or escape the Holocaust. This country gave the Rich family, or Mrs. Rich’s family, a great life, and freedoms, and enabled them to become fabulously wealthy.
One amusing fact that none of the Denise Rich coverage can be bothered to mention: Marc Rich also believed he had given up U.S. citizenship. Unfortunately for him, he was mysteriously determined by a court to have retained it, despite a relinquishing act — acquisition of Spanish citizenship — which occurred at a time when the State Department still discouraged dual citizenship and could unilaterally begin the process to make a “Determination of Loss of Nationality” for anyone of whom the “preponderance of evidence” suggested that they intended to lose U.S. citizenship. Indeed, this is precisely what they did to Israeli politician Meir Kahane in 1985 (even though two other Americans who served in the Knesset before him were found not to have given up their U.S. citizenship).
The usual tiresome disclaimer must be repeated here, for people who misinterpret support for a person’s renunciation as support for the person as a whole: I don’t agree with the political views of Kahane, or of either Rich, or for that matter of Bobby Fischer way over on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Kahane. What I do support is the same thing that Voltaire supports: their right to say what they want and to continue exercising their fundamental human rights after they’ve said it — including the right of emigration and the right to retain or renounce their citizenship as they see fit, without being subject to populist calls for their property to be confiscated and for them to be exiled and banned from returning as visitors.
1:41/Duncan: And now this is a terrible way for her to show her appreciation — or her lack thereof — to this country for all that it has done for her and her family. And I thought it was terrible for President Clinton to have given a pardon to her ex-husband Marc Rich for evading $40 million in federal income taxes and fleeing the country, all in return, really, for several hundreds of thousands of dollars of contributions to President Clinton’s library, and I think maybe possibly contributions to his campaign before that.
2:23/Duncan: Senator Schumer from New York was on this newscast, saying that he described this as “despicable” — the citizens giving up their citizenship to evade taxes. And I very seldom agree with Senator Schumer, but I certainly agreed with him on that.
Note carefully his words. Duncan is not simply accusing renunciants and would-be renunciants of avoiding taxes (observing the letter of the tax laws while breaking their spirit); he accuses us of evasion, which is a crime. The only question is whether Duncan knows the difference.
2:43/Duncan: The second thing I wanted to mention was is that I have now become the lead Republican sponsor of legislation by Congressman Bill Pascrell of New Jersey for a bill that has been referred to or labelled as the Bring Jobs Home Bill. This is something I’ve talked about for several years, and it is designed to give a tax break or tax deduction to companies that bring jobs back from other countries to the US. And it also would deny a tax break, or tax deductions, for expenses incurred by companies that move jobs to other countries.
The bill to which Duncan refers, H.R. 5542, can be viewed in its entirety over on GovTrack. The “Increased Domestic Employment Requirement” in Section 45S(c) is particularly amusing:
No credit shall be allowed under this section unless the number of full-time equivalent employees of the taxpayer for the taxable year for which the credit is claimed exceeds the number of full-time equivalent employees of the taxpayer for the last taxable year … determined by only taking into account wages … paid with respect to services performed within the United States.
To put it more simply for those of you who are still working through your remedial course in the Orcish language: an American employer who creates jobs for U.S. Persons abroad (and thus prevents us from coming home, joining the ranks of the American unemployed, and putting more stress on the U.S. welfare budget) gets no tax break from this bill. It’s another example of the same old phenomenon we see all the time in the Homeland: U.S. Persons abroad are never intended as beneficiaries of U.S. legislation, and are read out of the definition of “Americans” — until it comes time to pay for all these subsidies for which Congressional porkers have voted, at which point Homelanders like Hale Sheppard opine that we’re only being asked to pay “our fair share” for “the significant benefits” of U.S. Personhood, and that those who do not are “free riders”.
3:27/Duncan: I think that we should have done this a long time ago. We should be trying to put our own country first, and our own workers first, and that’s what I’ve tried to do. All the polls at this time show that jobs and job creation is one of the concerns — probably the main concern — of most people. I’ve said many times that while our unemployment rate is far too high, many people feel our underemployment rate is even higher. There are many of college graduates and very intelligent non-graduates who are having to work at very low-paying jobs or jobs certainly far below what their education and skills and talents and abilities would justify.
I was one of those underemployed workers too more than a decade ago: a computer science major who graduated into the aftermath of the dot-com crash and ended up taking odd jobs to pay the rent and the student loans. I typeset physics books. I sold furniture (I was really bad at it). I went to night school to try to upgrade my skills. And my big break came along: a stable job in a growing company. The only catch was that it was in Hong Kong, which had recently been handed back to China and was the object of all sorts of American and British coverage proclaiming its death under communism.
But I took a risk and I went. I referred one of my formerly unemployed friends into my job as a sofa salesman; he was much better at it than me, quickly earned promotion, and moved on to bigger things a year later — his resume nicely rounded out with his couch store job illustrating his management experience. And with my departure from the U.S., everyone was better off — except, of course, congresscritters who think they own my brain and its output and have the right to tax it for the rest of my life.
4:23/Duncan: And so I hope that while it’s probably too late in this Congress to do anything, that we will at least start the effort toward passing a bill similar to H.R. 5542 which is a bill to bring jobs back to this country.
Well, I don’t know about jobs, but the continued harassment of U.S. Persons abroad might well result in unemployed workers coming back to your country, Mr. Duncan. Especially if they’re so intimidated and bamboozled by you and your fellow demagogues’ rhetoric — that renouncing citizenship is a “despicable act” undertaken only by “tax evaders” — that they do not consider availing themselves of a commonsense action undertaken by millions of emigrants from all countries over the world: cutting off their political ties to their passport country in which they no longer live, and becoming citizens of the places where they live.
The level of Duncan’s hypocrisy is best illustrated by this failed law he cosponsored in 2005, the “Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act” (H.R. 3938), which among other things directed that:
Sec. 703. Policy of Discouragement of Dual/Multiple Citizenship.
The Secretary of State shall revise the 1990 memoranda and directives on dual citizenship and dual nationality and return to the traditional policy of the Department of State of viewing dual/multiple citizenship as problematic and as something to be discouraged not encouraged.
Sec. 704. Informing Birth Nations of Their Previous Citizens’ New Status As American Citizens.
- In General- In the case of an individual who formerly a native of a foreign state and who is naturalized as a citizen of the United States, the Secretary of State shall provide for notice to consular officials of such foreign state
- of the fact of such naturalization and that such individual is no longer subject to that states’s jurisdiction; and
- that the United State rejects the doctrine `perpetual allegiance’.
- Effective Date- Subsection (a) applies to individuals naturalized on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
In otherwords, Duncan believes that immigrants to the U.S. should be forced to give up their original citizenships to gain American citizenship. But emigrants from the U.S. who give up their U.S. citizenship — either in order to gain another citizenship, or simply to avoid interference with their democratically-enacted right to hold a retirement account where they live — are despicable tax evaders who must be stopped. “Perpetual allegiance” for the U.S., but not for other countries. American exceptionalism, indeed.
After having seen Obama’s utter disregard for the promises to Americans abroad he made during his campaign, many Isaac Brock readers are inclined to vote for the Republicans. (I for one hope to have no right to cast a U.S. ballot at all by November). I certainly encourage voters to cast a ballot against incumbent Democrats who have supported FATCA, the “Budget For All” which would repeal the FEIE, the passport confiscation provisions of the “Highway Bill”, and all the other anti-expat garbage coming out of Washington DC. Just remember that a significant number of Republicans, like Duncan, Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Tom Coburn (R-OK), have no respect for your right of emigration either and view you as traitors to the Homeland.
Great post…I think the issue is that most Americans do indeed think that you should have to give up your original citizenship to naturalise there, but the reverse doesn’t really register in the national consciousness: most people there still believe that all immigration in the world stops in America. It is a one way street and nobody would ever want to leave, so anyone who is renouncing citizenship to naturalise overseas does not ‘click’ in most peoples’ heads there. Going overseas for a job opportunity, to marry, to study, for a better quality of life, be closer to relatives, etc are all illegitimate reasons and only tax evasion makes sense for why someone would want to leave ‘the best country in the world’ to many it would seem.
I know that for many here this would be terrible, but in my case I almost want them to just routintely ban all ‘renunciants’ from visiting. Then at least I could give a reason to friends there as to why I can’t legitimately visit. In reality, I refuse to go back due to an ‘enhanced patdown’ that I received there awhile back before a flight. I would find it very over the top if they were to ban me though, since I have almost nothing in assets and have returned to my country of origin, being an ‘accidental American’. Its their loss if they don’t want the tourism revenue that many former citizens would bring. These politicians and commentators just look like big cry babies more and more…
*
Interesting that laws such as the one proposed in 2005 and the passport-confiscation part of the highway bill don’t pass. Perhaps there are some fair and intelligent people in Congress after all. Again, if we get the word out about how are issues are not just about rich fatcats, maybe Congress will understand.
Eric:
This is a fantastic post – thanks very much for this effort!
Interesting the constant use of the word “despicable” – the pot calling the kettle black.
On the topic of employment of Americans, over the weekend I was at a party and spoke with a lady who works in compliance for a investment firm in Switzerland. She said that, as a result of FATCA, American names are disappearing as officers of companies and as signatories. They are being replaced by other “Anglo-Saxons” (her term), i.e., Brits, Aussies, Canadians, etc. She stated the obvious when she said that companies do not want to deal with FATCA complexity and uncertainty.
The change from Americans to other English-speaking nationalities for key positions in companies is rather predictable, since they are not burdened by this overreaching law.
Separately, a sharp, elderly European at this party said that his son acquired US citizenship some years ago, in addition to his European citizenship. Now, due to “new laws”, he was planning to give it up but was finding it was time-consuming and difficult to do so.
And I very seldom agree with Senator Schumer…
If you find yourself agreeing with Sen Schumer, check your moral compass. It may be wrong.
The court found that he had not acted in a manner consistent with loss of citizenship, in that:
As well as travelling on hisUS
In March 1983, the US Consulate inMadrid requested Rich to contact them within 30 days to clarify if he had intended to lose his US citizenship upon acquiring Spanish citizenship. He did not respond until November 1984, after the action against him had commenced;
He continued to list himself as an American citizen in a European business directory until after the action commenced, although he had made other changes to his directory listing after the date of his alleged relinquishment; and apparently identified himself as a USC in a legal action he took in Switzerland, also after the alleged US citizenship loss.
I read this case some months ago when researching the application of INS 349, and it struck me that, although there is no time limitation on notifying the US govt of your relinquishment, it did seem suspicious, to me, that he did not do so until after a US-based legal action was taken against him which made it expedient for him not to be a USC – especially as he had actually received notice from a consulate to contact them about his citizenship status. Ditto for removing hisUS citizenship from the business directory – seems he waited until it was expedient to do it – and of course he was using a US passport and identifying himself as a USC.
That’s all I know of his story. But based on it, I felt his case was very different from those of us who acted consistent with loss of citizenship from the get-go.
http://openjurist.org/951/f2d/504/action-sa-v-marc-rich-and-co-inc
Again, most are giving up there US citizenship NOT to evade or avoid taxes, but rather avoid and evade Accountants to maintain IRS compliance……8k and counting for me so far….minus of course the 300 dollars cash back from 2008!
@mach73 Some wish to evade US DOUBLE TAXES that would result in their not being able to pay their bills abroad. We should not be held to compliance in two systems that are incompatible.
I really wish someone would send this representative a letter because I’m very sure that 1800+ people don’t all renounce over taxes. Personally, I can’t stand to be denied bank accounts just because I was born in the US.
My story is also somewhat similar to Eric’s. I had already requested to leave the US military when the dot-com bubble burst. I couldn’t find a job anywhere that paid more than $10/hour, despite having worked in IT for the past 6 years prior. I eventually started working odd’ish jobs for 3 Fortune 500 companies. (The departments that I worked at those companies are now gone.) At that time, I only saw things getting worse in the US so eventually I decided to leave.
So here I am now, having lived in this foreign country for quite some time, paying my fair share of taxes here, and contributing to the local economy, and my very existence here is threatened by “crazy” US laws — keep in mind, I COULDN’T find opportunities or happiness when I lived in the US. I also have a foreign wife and foreign children, who are perfectly happy where we live now. So Mr. Duncan, what would you do if you were in my situation? Remember, you would face the risk of not being able to open bank accounts because of your birthplace. That’s a huge risk. In my case, and many more, I’m quite sure that *taxes* are small concerns.
Also, this “witch hunt” involving Americans abroad has given me even more determination to work EVEN harder and increase my level of output here in this foreign country. As a result of the US threat, the US is the last place I’ll ever go to to create jobs. Creating 10-20 (direct fully above-the-table) new jobs here for me is a piece of cake. And guess what? I need absolutely *ZERO* US capital to do it.
Apparently, I’m not the only person who says this either. I saw a bumper sticker that said something along the lines of “We’ll create no new jobs until Obama is gone…”
So Mr. Duncan, I just want to renounce/relinquish to cut-out the US risk and be able to live my life exclusively where I have been living for the last 6 or so years. Taxes are not an issue. For the record, they are my relatives’ businesses that I operate. The last thing I would do is open a business with my “toxic” nationality.
My grandmother’s family was from Tennessee, the state of Mr. John Duncan, but before she was born, they moved to Oklahoma to avoid paying taxes in Tennesee. Then, my grandmother didn’t like Oklahoma taxes, so she moved to Oregon with a sister and married a native Oregonian. Then, my Dad, who was born in Oregon, moved to Alaska to avoid Oregon taxes. After the death of my Okie grandma, my grandfather, moved from Oregon with his second wife to Reno, Nevada, to avoid Oregon state income taxes. Then, at the age of 23, I moved to Canada to avoid US taxes.
I am despicable. I come from a family of despicable people. Mr. Duncan, you “miserable, vomitous mass“, I have cheated your state of Tennessee out of three generations of taxation. Sue me.
Thanks, Petros. That was my first laugh this morning. Loved it!
*@Petros, You are so funny, I had a good laugh this morning I needed it.
@petros I don’t like the way this Duncan guy talks even. Why don’t these Congresscritters wake up and see all sides of the story?
Fantastic post @Eric. Why doesn’t the Canadian ambassador point out that he finds Duncan’s comments insulting to Canada and other countries where millions of US persons live – as it implies that major numbers of naturalized or Canadian born duals and residents are ungrateful criminals, and that our country of residence is sheltering tax evaders and money launders. And what is Duncan’s plan for those living in Canada with dual citizenship? He only says how he will discourage those living inside the US.
I read the FEIE article by Sheppard too, and now understand your comment on it in another thread. A signal omission in the FEIE article you link to, is the lack of any discussion of the two largest populations of dual US/other citizens and permanent residents – in Canada and Mexico – with long historical crossborder movement – with many other compelling reasons (wars, trade, colonization) for expatriation and integration – quite apart from any tax considerations. He chose to focus only on temporary employees of US multinationals overseas, and ignored those many who were born abroad and inherited the US taxable status – with zero US economic ties or benefits. No doubt that is why that wasn’t addressed – because those compelling and significant populations give the lie to US claims – and stand as irrefutable evidence of arguments against disingenuous claims to justify it’s claims – by our very existence. That is why Canada and IBS have been so successful. Too much evidence that we did not relocate for tax reasons – and in fact pay more in Canada. And, many/most did not come to work here for US multinationals – we intermarried, and followed spouses, or were brought by parents. We aren’t being assisted by the US in a war zone, or in danger of needing rescue – unless you count being in heightened danger through sheer proximity to the US (I refer to the specious argument in the FEIE article that through extraterritorial taxation we derive some nebulous citizenship benefits such as possible US protection through US defense spending abroad).
*I believe I was right when I said I didn’t believe any of the political parties.
Just to dispel this myth that Americans who renounce are tax cheaters. The IRS
advised me to relinquishmy citizenship after knowing of my ordeals as a dual ciizen living abroad.. I am not authorized to publish the whole and signed letter. But I believe that without revealing names I can quote:
“Your constituent wrote a follow-up response to our letter dated XX XX XXXX, addressing his U.S. tax liability and filing requirements. Your constituent stated that he agrees with our first letter and does not raise any new substantive issues to which we can respond. If his U.S. tax liability and filing requirements are causing a hardship, he can consider relinquishing his U.S. citizenship. If he were to do so, he should be aware of some important tax consequences, which are explained in Form 8854, Initial and Annual Expatriation Statement, and its instructions.This form is available on http://www.irs.gov. I hope this information is helpful.”
I am giving this information only to dispel this growing notion that Americans who relinquish their citizenships are tax cheaters. In my case I really believe that this advice from the IRS was an attempt to be helpful to me and my circumstances as a dual citizen living abroad. At first I was hurt because I am proud of having becoming an American, and I have family in the USA. But on second thoughts I thought that the person who signed it had good intentions and wanted to help me.
I got to the IRS through a Representative from the State where I resided for 30 years. I explained to
him my situation and he sent it to the IRS without revealing my name. The answer from the IRS was addressed to him referring to me as his constituent.
Emigration has been controversial subject for possibly centuries. In 1843 Norway started to wake up to the fact that its citizens were leaving the country for better opportunities. After careful study by a Norwegian government commission, an Emigration Law was proposed to: a. protect those emigrating from unsavory ship agents and travel conditions and b. protect creditors in Norway from emigrants leaving without paying their debts.
Similar to Congressman John Duncan, a member of the Norwegian Storthing parliament with the aristocratic name of Falsen, railed against emigrants in 1843, showing little understanding for why they were leaving Norway:
“He looked upon the emigration as a disheartening spectacle and bewailed the fact
that the country’s inhabitants, who were famed for their love of country, should now — after thirty years under a free constitution, which had yielded excellent fruits — desert their country and flock to the New World.”
“In his opinion, high taxes, large salaries paid to officials, and
the conduct of public officials had no effect upon the emigration.”
Excerpted from “THE NORWEGIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE
EARLY NORWEGIAN EMIGRATION”, June 1925, Theodore C. Blegen
http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/6/v06i02p115-140.pdf
In 1843 Norway had only seen the tip of the iceberg concerning emigration and did not pass the Emigration Law. If Congressman John Duncan is indeed concerned about Americans emigrating and giving up their American citizenship, he may wish to delve deeply into the causes of their actions and cease with the unproductive name calling.
The ironic thing here being that Norway is probably one of the best places to live in the world nowadays. I know a few people whose grandparents or great-grandparents emigrated from Norway and a lot of them wish that they had never left…
@Don Pomodoro:
A running joke in my family is that our Norwegian ancestors must have been incredibly stupid to leave Norway. We know, however, that they gave up a rocky farm, that had been sub-divided too many times, and went to America to seek a better life. Conditions in Norway must have been horrific as one-third of the population emigrated.
“From the time the first settlers arrived in North America in 1825 to
1925 a total of 800,000 Norwegians left their home country for the New
World. That means that about one third of the Norwegian population
immigrated to the United States during that period, a smaller number
stayed in the Canadian territory. The number is only exceeded by the
Irish immigrants where a higher percentage of its population arrived in
the USA.”
http://www.european-emigration.com/no/
US political leaders need to understand that Americans will leave if they cannot find what they are looking for in the homeland. The US should show some maturity and not try to hold back would-be emigrants.
@ Innocente
Guess my grandmother did 2 things that would have befuddled and appalled poor Mr. Falsen — emigrated to Canada AND married a Dane. 🙂
John Duncan and his ilk irritate me to no end. Were the empathy genes simply not bestowed upon these types at birth or were they severely and irrevocably damaged by poor parenting and the American education system? Unflipping believable!
@Innocente: you’re asking too much of US political leaders, who are not used to acting in manner that the rest of the world would interpret as mature, but rather childish and criminal.
@Em: Forget empathy. Let’s talk about ethics–like Romney “Retroactively” Retired From Bain Capital.
How dumb do politicians think we are?!? Wait. Don’t answer that!
One critically important part of Duncan’s failed bill, part 701-1-2 says “that the United States rejects the doctrine `perpetual allegiance’”.
And yet that is exactly what he is now trying to claim that US persons abroad owe to the US, now that it’s politically and fiscally advantageous for him to do so. Nobody can ever be free to leave in his mind.
Moral relativity is a bitch Duncan. As in this case, it comes back to bite him in the rear end and show him as nothing more than a wet noodle. Not a man of principle.
@Don Pomodoro
“The ironic thing here being that Norway is probably one of the best places to live in the world nowadays.”
Thats not my impression after spending a month there last summer. I thought the Norway was the one of worst welfare hellholes of Europe. The men have been castrated by the welfare state.
Here they are, a major oil exporter and their gas is the most expensive in Europe. They have put license plate reading stations all over the place to read your license and asses toll for the environment. There were police all over and they almost made us turn back at the border because our dog was late getting de-wormed. The divorce rate is horrible and something like 40% of children are born to married parents. Sure, the women don’t need men because they get all these great benefits, but it is all paid for with the sovereign oil fund that the socialists use to stay in power. This Breivik incident and the way they are handling it shows what kind of tension is hiding below the surface. All is not well in Denmark, Sweden or Norway.