A recent article in a Korean American newspaper, referring to newly-published statistics from South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, has revealed that the number of Koreans cutting off their ties with the U.S. reached an 11-year high last year: 2,158 Koreans gave up U.S. green cards or citizenship in 2011. Very clearly, this is larger than the Federal Register number for the same year — and of course, the Federal Register includes people of all nationalities, not just Koreans.
Keep in mind that the Federal Register is only supposed to cover citizens and “long term residents”, those who have had their green cards for more than eight out of the past fifteen years, so some of those 2,158 were not supposed to show up in the “name-and-shame list” anyway. That said, this article is another piece of evidence to add to the ones we already have that the Federal Register grossly understates the number of people ceasing to be U.S. Persons. I’ve translated the article and various background materials below.
| 한국 역이민 행렬 가속화 | South Korea’s reverse migration trend picks up speed |
| http://ny.koreatimes.com/article/742326 | |
| 한국일보, 2012-07-26 | The Korea Times, 26 July 2012 |
| 김노열 기자 | By Kim No-yeol |
| 작년 역이민 총 2,158명…11년 만에 최고치; 2011 외교백서, 고령·취업·이민 부적응 등 이유 | Total of 2,158 reverse migrants last year … highest in 11 years; 2011 Diplomacy Whitebook gives reasons like old age, career, inability to adjust, etc. |
| 미국에 이민 왔다가 한국으로 되돌아간 역이민자수가 11년 만에 최고치를 기록한 것으로 나타났다. 한국 외교통상부가 25일 공개한 ‘2012 외교백서’에 따르면 2011년 한 해 동안 미국 시민권이나 영주권을 포기하고 한국으로 영구 귀국한 역이민자는 총 2,128명으로 전년 대비 7.6% 늘었다. | The number of reverse migrants who emigrated to America but then returned to Korea has set an 11-year record high, it has been revealed. According to the 2012 Diplomacy Whitebook published on 25 July by South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in the one-year period of 2011, the number of reverse migrants who gave up U.S. citizenship or green cards and permanently returned to South Korea was 2,158, up by 7.6% from the previous year. |
As we all know, journalists everywhere are prone to misinterpretations of government reports, so I did some due diligence on these numbers — and found out, to my surprise, that the reporter’s description is accurate. The first relevant source is the Diplomacy Whitebook‘s appendix, at page 301. The 2,158 figure for “reverse migrants” comes from Table 3, which lists “people declaring permanent return” (영주귀국 신고자); it also lists “people giving up on moving overseas” (해외이주 포기자), which is not included in that 2,158 and isn’t relevant for our purposes. The columns are: Year, U.S., Canada, Central/South America, Australia, New Zealand, Other, and Total. You can see that out of all emigrants declaring their return to South Korea that year, those from the U.S. made up a bit more than half of the total of 4,164 reverse migrants who officially reported their return to the South Korean government.
South Korea’s actual Overseas Migration Act, which governs the procedure for declaring permanent return, states:
| 제12조(영주귀국의 신고) | Section 12 (Declaration of permanent return) |
| 해외에 이주하여 영주권 또는 이에 준하는 장기체류 자격을 취득한 사람이 국내에서 생업에 종사할 목적 등으로 영주귀국(永住歸國)하려면 외교통상부령으로 정하는 영주귀국을 증명할 수 있는 서류를 갖추어 외교통상부장관에게 신고하여야 한다. | Persons who moved overseas and obtained permanent residency or qualification of long-term stay which is equivalent to it and who then return permanently to engage in any profession or for other reasons shall make a declaration to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, providing documents proving permanent return as defined in an order by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. |
So what exactly are those “documents proving permanent return”? The answer is found in the Overseas Migration Act Implementation Regulations, which explain (emphasis mine):
| 제13조(영주귀국) | Section 13 (Permanent return) |
| ① 법 제12조에서 “외교통상부령으로 정하는 영주귀국을 증명할 수 있는 서류”란 영주권 또는 영주권에 준하는 장기체류 자격의 취소를 확인할 수 있는 서류와 거주여권을 말한다. | (1) In Section 12 of the Act, “documents proving permanent return as defined in an order by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade” means documents which can confirm the cancellation of permanent residency or of long-term stay equivalent to permanent residency, along with a passport. |
| ② 외교통상부장관은 영주귀국 신고를 받았을 때에는 영주귀국 확인서를 발급하여야 한다. | (2) When the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade receives a declaration of permanent return, he shall issue a Certificate of Confirmation of Permanent Return. |
So that confirms it: each of those 2,158 provided proof to the South Korean government of the cancellation of their right to stay in the United States. Also note that the regulations don’t specify anything ridiculous like a fine of 300% of your assets for failing to file this paperwork. So this number of self-reports is highly likely to be an underestimate of the actual number of Koreans who gave up U.S. green cards — kind of like how early FBAR figures are far smaller than the actual size of the U.S. population abroad.
The Regulations quoted above do not yet seem to have been amended to take into account South Korea’s recent moves to permit dual citizenship, so it’s not clear whether that 2,158 includes former citizens, or just former green card holders. People restoring South Korean citizenship would show up in nationality statistics as well, however. According to those figures, 3,740 Koreans had their nationality restored in 2008. This was back when regaining South Korean nationality meant giving up any other citizenship you had obtained. If that number is divided up anything like the “permanent return” figures, probably about half of those 3,740 are former Americans — utterly dwarfing the Federal Register statistic of 235 people losing citizenship that year.
Keep in mind that the U.S. has more than 35 million foreign-born residents. People born in South Korea barely form 3% of that total. Even if people of some other nationalities have only one-tenth the reverse migration rate of Koreans, you can do the math yourself and compare that to the U.S. government’s published numbers. Again, at this point we may still have some lively discussion about who exactly doesn’t get included in the Federal Register, but it gets harder and harder to claim with a straight face that it includes everyone losing U.S. citizenship or long-term green cards.
| 특히 이 같은 수치는 지난 2000년 모두 2,612명을 기록한 이후 가장 많은 것이며 2000년대 최저치를 기록한 2005년과 비교해서는 무려 61% 증가한 것이다. 한인들의 역이민 행렬은 1997년 IMF 외환위기 후 2000년 정점을 찍은 뒤 감소세를 보이다가 ▶2006년 1,403명 ▶2007년 1,576명 ▶2008년 1,654명 ▶2009년 2,058명 등 갈수록 큰 폭의 증가세를 보이고 있다. | It’s the largest number since 2000 when the record of 2,612 was set, and when compared with 2005 — the lowest point in the past decade — the number has increased by 61%. Reverse migration of South Koreans after the 1997 IMF currency crisis reached its peak in 2000, but declined after that. However, with 1,403 in 2006, 1,576 in 2007, 1,654 in 2008, and 2,058 in 2009, it appears to be a rising trend again. |
| 무엇보다 2008년에는 역이민자수가 한국에서 이민수속을 밟아 미국으로 떠나온 한인 이민자수(1,034명)를 1962년 해외이주법 제정 이후 46년만에 처음 역전하기도 했다. 이는 2011년에도 이어져 한국에서 이민수속을 밟고 이민 온 한인이 618명에 그치면서 역이민자에 비해 1,510명이나 적었다. | More than that, for the first time in the 46 years since the passage of the 1962 Overseas Migration Act, in 2008 the number of reverse migrants exceeded the number of Koreans who went through procedures in South Korea to emigrate to the U.S. (1,034 persons). The number of Koreans who came as immigrants [to the US] was only 618, or 1,510 fewer than the number of reverse migrants. |
Here, unlike above, the journalist has made an obvious error. Again, you can refer to the whitebook’s appendix at page 301. Table 1 lists the number of “people making declarations of moving overseas” (해외이주 신고자), whence the 618 mentioned above. Table 2 lists “local move” (현지이주), whatever that means; the figure for U.S. given there is 13,386, which sounds like roughly the right magnitude for the number of people who moved out of South Korea without telling the South Korean government. In otherwords, the 618 is based on the number of self-reports of migration.
Since the South Korean government does not appear to be threatening to steal 300% of anyone’s assets for failing to fill out this not-very-useful self report, apparently no one bothers with it. (In the free world, this is the proper attitude towards paperwork for a country in which you no longer live). For comparison, the Department of Homeland Security reported that 22,824 South Koreans were granted green cards in 2011, and that 12,664 naturalised as U.S. citizens. The problem seems to be that the reporter misinterpreted the table.
| 역이민 사유를 보면 고령이 21%로 가장 많고, 한국내 취업 19%, 이민생활 부적응 10%, 신병치료 7%, 한국내 취학 3% 등이 뒤를 이었다. 전문가들은 이민 1세대들이 노후를 고국에서 보내기 위해 ‘유턴’하는 경우가 많아진데다 미 경기침체의 장기화와 맞물려 한국에서 살아가려는 한인들이 점차 늘고 있는 것으로 분석하고 있다. | Looking at the reasons for reverse migration, “old age” was the most common at 21%, “employment in South Korea” at 19%, “inability to adapt to immigrant life” at 10%, “treatment for a new illness” at 7%, and “studying in South Korea” at 3%. According to analysis by experts, there are many cases of first-generation migrants who make a “u-turn” in order to spend their old age in their home country, and furthermore the gradual growth in the number of Korean-Americans going to live in Korea may be linked to the U.S.’ protracted economic recession. |
As mentioned above, many former green card holders do not show up in the Federal Register either. Those who were in the U.S. for fewer than eight of the last fifteen years aren’t considered “long term residents” under 877(a) or 877A and so don’t even have to file Form 8854. The Federal Register list only began including the note that “[f]or purposes of this listing, long-term residents, as defined in section 877(e)(2), are treated as if they were citizens of the United States who lost citizenship” in the Q1 2012 list. However it seems reasonable to guess that the list has included long-term residents with green cards all along, since the wording of the actual law authorising the list has not changed, and of course the IRS would never make major changes without Congress explicitly amending a tax law first, right?
So how many of these 2,158 were “long-term residents”? The reason of “inability to adapt to immigrant life” only accounted for about two hundred of the cases of return; it’s probably safe to bet that most of them didn’t stay in the U.S. for eight years. People responding with the most common reason, “old age”, appear to comprise senior citizens who spent long years raising their children in the U.S., but hope to go back to their hometowns in South Korea for retirement, so they’re all likely to fall into the “long-term resident” category. With the other reasons, it’s hard to say how many of them are long-term vs. short-term green card holders, let alone citizens.
For those of you who are interested in reading more about the phenomenon of reverse migration among Koreans in the U.S., New American Media has an English-language report on this phenomenon focused specifically on the elderly. As the report points out, there’s no pressure from the South Korean side for reverse migrants to give up U.S. citizenship and restore the South Korean one, as they can easily qualify for an ex-citizen’s F4 visa. It’s only the U.S. which will make their lives difficult if they exercise their human right to settle down outside of their passport-issuing country.
@ Victoria
It sounds like what your husband signed was the I-407 form. I would have done the same back then if I’d known about it. I learned after coming back home to Canada that if you did not tell the USA within a year that you intended to return to the USA your green card was considered expired but I was unaware of I-407 and since I haven’t crossed the border for 15 years there was no chance of a border guard telling me about it either. I stupidly (in hindsight) tucked my green card away and forgot about it. Oh well, I can honestly say I do not hold a green card now because it lies in a dark corner of the USCIS. Just wish they’d send me their official stamp of approval that’s all. I want my husband to stop filing jointly when he does his 1040 for 2011 (got an extension this year until mid October) and it would be nice to have official recognition of what I’ve considered myself to be all these years — Canadian only. Thanks for your reply and I hope this is a good day for you. To find peace of mind, take one day at time and then leave it behind. (Em’s new motto.) 🙂
@RecalcitrantExpat,
A good point, Recalcitrant, something bothers me about that list, too … the motivation for it. I see no valid or logical reason why a government would publish a list of renunciants … it’s not like there’s a need to protect the public from them.
Apparently congress-critters who think that renouncing is terrible thing to do, etc, etc, etc, were motivated by vindictiveness, and as you put it trying to “inflict emotional abuse,” and maybe they thought it would intimidate people from renouncing.
Although vindictiveness, etc., seems to be the only possible motive for the list, those congress-critters probably were, and are, unaware that the average renunciant today is probably just happy to be free. (Happy to be free, that’s how bad it’s gotten. Back in the old days, when you relinquished your citizenship, you didn’t feel happy, or sad, or free, or anything, as I recall. It was just a neutral experience, no sigh of relief, let alone jubilation.)
It’s referred to as the “name and shame list.” I’d like to point out to these congress-critters that there is absolutely nothing dishonourable about terminating a contract according to the provisions of its out-clause.
I agree with you. I do think we should keep an eye on their list and the official numbers. But not to include reference to it on our main Brock data-sheet, as that is like acknowledging, legitimising, a list that appears to have been enacted out of vindictiveness as an attempt at harassing people who choose to exercise a legitimate right.
@recalcitrantexpat
The Relinquishment and Renunciation Data list on this site does not have any personal identifying information. Furthermore all the information on that list is provided by the Brocker themselves, if they don’t want any information to be made available they don’t have to provide any.
There is no emotional abuse in Yes/No/Unknown
@Just a Canadian- Then I must be confused. It sounded to me as if you wanted to republish the official U.S. government list of published renunciants. If that is the case then I stand by my position that doing such a thing would be ill advised. The government list is a case of emotional abuse and does serve as a warning to others that they can expect to receive a similar public humiliation. We should have no part in furthuring such an act of humiliation. It is little different than what the Romans would do when they would crucify their conquered enemies and use them to line the roads.
If you aren’t wanting to republish the names then I apologize for misunderstanding what it is that you want. I would appreciate a clarification though of exactly what it is that you want to add?
A while back I systematically downloaded the quarterly renunciation lists and briefly fooled around with the “data.” This is public information (of a sort), and whoever wants to do whatever with it has every right to. Such effort could include consolidation and republication. Depending on your point of view, this is a list of persons distinguished by having the personal honor to sever their formal associations with a corrupt and failing state.
Problem #1 is garbage-in garbage-out. This data is obvious garbage. Its main value is anecdote – the inclusion of a known name that can be assumed to be the name which is already known. (How can even that be certain?)
We have anecdote counterexample to disprove the spurious hypothesis that the listing consists of “covered” expatriates only. I’d like to see no more specious theoretical claims that the list is legally defined, but may have a few impurities. It obviously is not. The list is an almost meaningless grabbag.
The only other utility of the listing is as some weird soft indication of the rate of renunciation – always with the uncomputable wild cards of manipulation and carelessness factored in. Does this situation remind anyone else of Kremlinology and similar numerological speculations? The United States should be so proud to have all sorts of people waiting for and gazing at and guessing about the obviously ridiculous entrails that it the ravenous beast lays on the quarterly public altar.
An accompanying quarterly ceremony with flag and pledge and anthem seems called for in this theatre of the absurd data!
@all- the list is actually reminiscent of what the Nazis would do when they would find and execute someone who was a part of the resistance movement or who had been found to be hiding a Jewish refugee. We could also compare it to the era of McCarthyism when anti-Communist fervor swept over the U.S.A and so many Americans ended up being blacklisted. Additionally there is always the comparison that can be drawn between the list of renunciants and Stalin’s rule which saw the Communist PEOPLE’S government execute the enemies of the people’s revolution.
Of course this comparison could go on but I think that everyone gets the point. Which is that naming and shaming is a tool of a tyrannical government and not a democratic one. How the government makes a difference to exist between renunciation and relinquishment I will never understand. Both acts are basically the same but doing the former means that you are a traitor and can not carry a gun in the U.S.
It just boggles the mind to see just how angry the U.S. is when it comes to renunciation. This is even though the American Oath of citizenship starts off with a renunciation clause. Obviously it is okay to renounce your citizenship in any country except that of the U.S.
“No comparison possible?” Well, ask the Beothuk. Oh, sorry, there are none of those people left. So I guess you’re right about no comparison possible with them. Ask an Armenian instead. That’s just one possibility. (Added bonus, a people from one of the historic quarters of Jerusalem.) To presume that Brockers stand unified behind “our message” ranks right up there for objectionable – and mimics the mindset of our oppressor.
*Wow! My comment mimics the mindset of our oppressor. That’ s wildly over the top. So is the idea that publishing names on a BS list is comparable to anything the Nazis did. WTF does the Armenian genocide have to do with this? Some of us find these comparisons to the Nazis egregious. Is that so difficult for you to understand ?
@QueenofSurrey, I think that the purpose of Godwin’s Law was clearly to mock comparisons to Nazis. Indeed, all who make a prophetic critique of the events happening before their eyes will be mocked.
Thus, the question for me is not whether such comparison will invite mockery. Obviously it will. In this sense, as you suggest, our detractors will have call to criticize or downplay our comparisons with previous examples of oppression. This does not mean, however, that it is not appropriate. What we are seeing is governments which are losing control because of their own profligacy. The United States has clearly become the most corrupt nation (not per capita but in total scale) that the world has ever seen. The closest equivalent is likely the Roman Empire.
But clearly, the question is not whether the United States has become like Nazis in certain respects, with its facist form of crony capitalism. But it is whether it will take the next step in beginning to murder those who get in their way. Already Barack Obama has called for gestapo-like civilian military force, which is equal in funding and size to the United States military. Why would he need that, except to oppress the population? Surely not to protect from terrorists.
So in sense the warnings of Recalcitrant, of USX, and of the Joe Smith video are extremely important. You can’t wait until another genocide happens and say, this is like the Nazis. That’s too little too late. You have to recognize the signs of totalitarianism in advance and warn. And that leaves you open to mockery.
@queenofsurrey- the comparison is not egregious. The tools of tyranny are everywhere the same. Maybe you should read Hannan Arendt’s books “The Origins of Totalitarianism” or “Eichmann in Jerusalem”. Maybe you are not aware that Goebbels modelled his propoganda machine after U.S. advertising?
How do you think the Natives feel about the American attempt to exterminate them? What about the Blacks who were subjected to experiments for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases but weren’t informed that they were part of an experiment? Somehow I don’t think that the Vietnamese civilians who were napalmed or sprayed with agent orange would be able to distinguish between the U.S. and Nazi Germany.
So. This site has degenerated from one dealing with the problems of ex-pats around the world (primarily in Canada) to one of unfocused anti-American rants. So be it. Leave me out.*
@Queen, You are welcome to join or not. This site has not degenerated at all.
I start with the premise that any government that threatens a citizen with 383% of his financial wealth is depraved and only worthy of criticism of the most severe sort. What do you suppose Obama wants a civil force for? He said this,
If he had such a force, would he not use it to oppress the people? Isn’t that what they are doing with the TSA?
After the US government started really going after my assets with the 2009 OVDI program, I decided to become anti-American. If you want to blame someone, blame Barack Obama, Timothy Geithner, and Douglas Shulman for launching their Tax Jihad against me and all other US expats. Do you really expect us to write pro-American comments, once being threatened with utter financial ruin by the US government?
@QueenofSurrey, This is a site with a lot of diverse viewpoints and I think it’s one of the things that make it so interesting. If we were all singing off the same sheet of music then we risk “groupthink” which would be a sad thing.
A friend of mine said this to me recently, “If you are in a group of people and everyone loves you and agrees with you (and each other), then you are definitely doing something wrong and you should get out while you can.” 🙂
I did a search of the comments at Isaac Brock for the term “Nazi” to see who here made the first comparison between the United States and the Nazis and the Godwin’s Law award goes to Don Pomodoro on 29 January, 2012, i.e., only 38 days after the Isaac Brock Society started. He managed also to compare the USA to Stalin, a double whammy:
Congratulations Don!
*Watch this video and tell me what you think
Brock is a big tent. Of course, I don’t agree with every opinion I read here. I think to myself sometimes that someone sounds like a kook, but, for all I know, they may well think I sound like a kook.
Seems that when someone really disagrees with someone else’s opinion, they post their own comment. We’re so diverse in so many ways that I think it all balances out.
If anything, I think our differences show how theUS ’s anti-US-persons-abroad policy has galvansised together people with diverse views, diverse personalities and diverse political leanings – that in itself shows how serious this policy issue is.
As an aside, sort of, I’ve met several times with a local Brocker, who I never knew before. We live in the same riding (electoral district). I’m an active Conservative, this person is an active NDP; in normal times, like election campaigns, we fight against each other. It made me think that that’s like what happens in an overrun country – partisans of all parties unite against the external threat. No, of course we’re not under physical siege by theUS or in danger for our lives … but this external issue is so serious that it overrides normal life and has us working together.
Brock is a big tent, bringing together a motley crew from around the world. No way we’re all going to see every aspect of this issue the same way. But in this diversity, there is unity. And in unity, there is strength.
Being exiled or banished is a pretty strong form of punishment that is just below execution. In many societies exile was as good as a death sentence since it was virtually impossible for the exiled person to survive on his/her own.
The Reed amendment is a modern day version of exile/banishment. Now when you couple the Reed Amendment with the inability to hold a none U.S. based bank account plus add in the Patriot Act’s prohibitions against a none resident having a U.S. based bank account then what does it add up to? It adds up to the inability to survive outside of the U.S. territory without the IRS’s special piece of paper showing tax compliance. Bascially we have all now been caught on the wrong side of the line and have only two choices if we are to survive- either go home where we belong or else renounce. I think that America is surprised to see that so many are willing to chose the latter rather than the former.
Another thing that Americans should think about is why is it that when America builds a barrier along its borders it is called a “fence” but when the East Germans built one that divided East from West it was called a “wall”. What’s the difference in effect? Isn’t it a matter of America propogandizing the local population by using the rather harmless term of fence so as to make sure no one questions the government’s motives? This way no one feels trapped and starts asking hard questions?
Thank you, Pacifica. Well said!
@Tim. Thank you for sharing the video. In French we would call this a “dialogue de sourd”. Mr Posey is not listening and just repeats back the same, incorrect information.
Are they inferring that citizens of the Cayman Islands are hiding money in the USA? I guess I need to listen again because from the first take, that sounds like what they are saying.
In any case, the way legislative business is conducted is very worrisome. Now I understand how FATCA was passed without proper background information and thought to the consequences.
Recalcitrant: yes banishment, a practice of the Reed Amendment and a the proposed Ex Patriot Act of “Despicable” Schumer, is indeed a barbaric practice and cruel and unusual punishment. See http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/05/22/objections-to-arguments-against-the-ex-patriot-act/
The Armenians experienced genocide which was intended only to be ethnic cleansing: i.e., expulsion.
@Pacifica, very well put, indeed. I also (as I’ve stated elsewhere) do not agree with everything everyone writes here, but I still find this site an extremely valuable resource, and I also feel free to disagree when so inclined. My main concern about playing the nazi card is that it may look like people here are downplaying the sheer horror of what happened back then, but I also do not think that is their intent. And there’s also the thought I have to keep in mind that the nazis didn’t start out with genocide – they built up to it, by making laws and then enforcing those laws, and then making more laws, etc. So, vigilance is necessary, not just with this particular situation, but in all of our countries, with all of our politicians, to ensure that things can never get bad enough to allow something like that to ever happen again. And if people are quick to cry, ‘just like the nazis’, well is that such a bad thing? To make the lawmakers prove that it’s not so?
@Eric…
I am just getting around to reading your excellent work. You really add tons of value to Isaac Brock, so thanks for all your analysis…
@Badger..
I just happened to read that WSJ article tonight, and was perusing the comments looking for Brockers. I didn’t see any obvious ones, but maybe I missed them, so thought I might put in a tardy comment and link back to Eric’s analysis here.
Oohlala wrote:
Well, I agree it was a dialogue de sourd, and that the two men were not listening to each other, but to point out that Mr. Posey was incorrect is pretty unfair. Mr. Posey is correct on several points, and his states of Florida, being the financial capital of Latin America, has a great deal to lose: the vital financial information of foreign investors in the United States could be compromised, DATCA will lead to disinvestment in the United States, that money will never return to the United States. Not only so, but the IRS proposes to use their regulator control to impose an information exchange that is otherwise not required by law, and is thus outside the law and thwarts the legislative authority of Congress.
Barney Frank on the other hand is deaf and dumb. He is not listening to Posey. Posey says quite rightly that having 88 billion flee to collect 800 million recovered from tax cheats (and it won’t be 88 billion but as much as 26 trillion which will flee the United States!–estimates by ACA are not so implausible and have been repeated elsewhere). This is not a good exchange for the United States.
Unfortunately, the sourd one in this conversation is Barney Frank. But he’s so partisan he will never listen to reason, ever. All he wants to do is get the tax cheats. He doesn’t care who gets hurt in the process. He is such an absolute mind boggling turkey, that I don’t see how in the world how any expat could criticize Posey and let Frank off the hook.
You are right about Cayman Islanders. They don’t have to hide any of their money offshore. They have very fine banks and no income taxes.
@Petros
Petros. By “incorrect information” I was referring to the case that under an eventual reciprocity, the USA would not be handing over data to countries such as Iran, Venezuela, etc. that cannot guarantee the appropriate end-use. This was repeated back and forth and it was obvious that the two gentlemen were not listening to each other.
I’m not a FATCA fan, I was simply disappointed to see how legislation is debated and enacted. I agree with your points, thank you for clarifying.