Eritrea: Ambassador Rice On Passage of UN Resolution On Eritrea
Explanation of Vote by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, after the Adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2023, December 5, 2011:
“According to the monitoring group, Eritrea is financing all of these activities through illicit means, including threats and the extortion of a “diaspora tax” from people of Eritrean descent living overseas.”
Tax laws are only for the little people. They do not apply to the ruling classes like Geithner, Rangel and the King of Thailand etc. How dare the impudent serfs even question the FBAR compliance of the anointed one, Susan Rice!
*bubblebustin, how is the US government any different from Eritrea on the matter? A $10’000 fine per account per year for not filing FBAR is not a threat? $10’000 is what a expat might be able to save in 20 years! I renounced because I’ve been reading so many threats that I finally came to the conclusion that it’s just not worth it when I learned that I was being denied banking services too and that my own banks might cancel my account for being American. Eritrea is innocent compared to what America is doing to its expats abroad.
Some news from today is another example of such:
…Remember, failure to report is punishable with up to five years in jail. I say that jail thing twice because the U.S. wants a reporting of all assets of all U.S. citizens and residents… But don’t get tripped up with stuff you didn’t know you didn’t know. Ignorance is no excuse for the law, except of course for those in congress who have to pass laws before they read them. http://www.nicaraguadispatch.com/news/2012/11/conference-looks-at-tax-laws-for-us-citizens/6188
I honestly felt sorry for Susan Rice upon hearing that she had to represent even more American idiocy by being one of the few lone losers who reject the nation of Palestine. Speaking of which, when is Canada going to liberate itself from US serfdom? I’ve always believed that Canada is the 51st state, and this continues to be the case.
@SwissPinoy- I am afraid that Canada will never free itself from its status of U.S. serf. The relationship that Canada has had with the U.S. has probably been the worse thing that could have ever happened to this nation. The Americans treat the Canadians like crap and still the Canadian politicians talke about having a special “relationship” with their American “cousins”.
I don’t think that many people actually think about this but Canada is the ONLY Western country that does NOT have a domestic auto industry. The Auto Pact that Canada has with the U.S. has done nothing but guarantee to the Americans that they wouldn’t have to face direct competition from a nearby country.
Susan Rice, the anti-Diaspora Tax activist, at least for Eritrea any way.
Ms. Rice, what do you think about the US Diaspora Tax? Is it not being used for funding the destabilization of the entire planet?
@swisspinoy
“Eritrea is innocent compared to what America is doing to its expats abroad.”
Eritrea:
-2% flat diaspora tax (no professional fees)
-Physical threats and property seizure of family members remaining in Eritrea.
Without the torture aspect of Eritrea’s tax enforcement, I’d say you are right!
Good point, Bubblebustin, Eritrea’s tax form for Eritreans outside the country fits on one page, and a low or middle income US person abroad can easily pay much more than 2 percent of their income to a tax preparer, not to mention having to pay tax when they’ve actually lost money (phantom gains) and other such weirdness that does not apply to US persons within the US, and the ease of making mistakes on the convoluted US person abroad tax forms which can result in horribly astronomical penalties.
And that’s 2% of net income, as Shadow Raider points out (with a link to form) two comments down.
@pacifica777
I should have specified “physical” torture, as the US is not without inflicting mental torture (in the worlds of the IRS’s own National Taxpayers Advocate: the IRS is “terrorizing the entire country of Canada”). Considering the US’s war on terror, those are curious words to use to describe the actions of her government!
Also, the Eritrean diaspora tax is 2% on net income, meaning after deducting all taxes and mandatory contributions in the country of residence. And it’s only on wages and rental income, it doesn’t include pensions, interest, dividends or capital gains, and there is no estate, gift or inheritance tax. A single one-page tax form can be used for all years, and there is no financial reporting. Eritrea accepts, and actually prefers, payment of the tax in the currency of the country of residence.
Sure, without the physical threats and the impossibility of renouncing citizenship, the Eritrean diaspora tax looks much better than the US taxes on its citizens abroad.
@shadow raider
I was wondering if it was gross or net income. A remittance of 2% of line 236 is all Eritreans need to comply with their tax filing obligations with the Eritrean government’s diaspora tax? LOL!
@bubblebustin, The Eritrean government doesn’t care about filing obligations, it just wants the money. The US government gets obsessed with useless paperwork and forgets that the whole purpose of taxes is to collect revenue. A pile of tax forms and reports that end with a zero, so common for Americans abroad, doesn’t make any sense.
@ Shadow Raider
My gosh what a simple form! Almost as easy as my father’s first filed Canadian tax form which was 1/2 page long and only had 5 lines to fill in — wish I had saved that! Anyway, it looks like most overseas Eritrean retirees would pay the grand sum of zero to Eritrea.
@Em, That form is from the Eritrean embassy in the US. The embassy in Japan uses a similar form. In the UK, it looks like they also ask for an earning statement, but the tax form itself if even more simple.
Yes Eritrea’s methods of collecting its “diaspora” tax are dubious and coercive but the USA is one huge black pot calling a tiny kettle black. Are you listening, Ms. Rice? If the USA, Canada and other countries object to overseas Eritreans being forced to fund the Eritrean military, then overseas Americans who are forced to pay US taxes should get a 53% refund.
Interesting. I found a US Supreme Court case from 1914, United States v. Goelet, where the court ruled that a law that mentions a tax on “citizens” cannot be assumed to apply to nonresident citizens unless clearly specified.
It may not be doubted, as observed by the trial court in these cases (omitting the consideration of taxes imposed on property having a situs within the jurisdiction of the taxing authority), speaking in a general sense, that the taxing power, when exerted, is not usually applied to those even albeit they are citizens, who have a permanent domicile or residence outside of the country levying the tax. Indeed, we think it must be conceded that the levy of such a tax is so beyond the normal and usual exercise of the taxing power as to cause it to be, when exerted, of rare occurrence, and in the fullest sense exceptional. This being true, we must approach the statute for the purpose of ascertaining whether its provisions sanction such rare and exceptional taxation. Considering the text, we search in vain for the express declaration of such authority. True, it is argued by the United States that, as the tax is levied on any citizen using a foreign-built yacht, and as any includes all, therefore the statute expressly embraces a citizen permanently domiciled and residing abroad. But this argument in effect begs the question for decision, which is whether the use of the general words “any citizen,” without more, should be considered as expressing more than the general rule of taxation, or, in other words, can be treated, without the expression of more, as embracing the exceptional exertion of the power to tax one permanently residing abroad.
Sounds nice, doesn’t it?
I think today’s Internal Revenue Code is clear that the income, estate and gift taxes apply to nonresident citizens, since it mentions “citizen or resident” and “nonresident alien” everywhere, there is an expatriation tax on renunciation of citizenship, and a specific exclusion available just for nonresident citizens (FEIE). However, the FBAR is not part of the Internal Revenue Code, it only mentions “resident or citizen” (note that it mentions resident first), and it even states that the Treasury may exempt certain classes of individuals from the requirement. Besides the excessive fines clause, this might be another basis for unconstitutionality of the FBAR.
@shadow raider, I would have been a happy US camper with a 2% flat tax if I could watch for myself how much of the national debt my contribution, as well as that of all (and I mean ALL) other Americans, reduced the national debt. But, with all the threats, scare tactics, reporting requirements, processing fees, banking restrictions/risks, reckless federal spending, etc. Forget it! Never Again!
The justification for the existence of government and its power to tax is the protection that the government provides to its people. Depending on the country, the level of protection may vary from simply physical protection against crime or foreign invasion, to a broad “protection” from poverty, disease or disaster, in the form of social assistance. Each country decides, either through traditional leadership (monarchy) or public debate (democracy), what level of protection the country will provide, and the corresponding level of taxation needed to afford that protection.
The people who are taxed are the ones who receive the protection, and the people who do not receive it should not be taxed. Therefore, in theory, citizens residing abroad may be taxed by their country of citizenship if the country provides them some kind of protection. Many countries do provide assistance to their citizens abroad in cases of emergency, but given the rarity of these cases in practice, the corresponding taxation should be minimal or non-existent. In fact, in agreement with this principle, the only countries that tax nonresident citizens are Eritrea and the US.
Eritrea claims it can tax its diaspora to help pay for its relatively large military force. The Eritrean military protects people living in Eritrea but not its citizens abroad, so the diaspora tax cannot by justified.
The US claims it can tax its citizens abroad because it provides them protection in case of emergencies anywhere in the world. It is true that the US provides such protection, especially for its government employees and troops abroad. However, 22 USC 2671 clearly states that any emergency expenditure for private citizens abroad must be “on a reimbursable basis to the maximum extent practicable”. The Department of State also states that. The US government may provide loans for those who cannot pay the reimbursement, but they may not receive passports to leave the US again until the loan is paid. Therefore, according to US law, US citizens cannot receive protection abroad for free, so the taxation of citizens abroad by the US cannot be justified.
@Shadow Raider Your argument is an interesting one that has come up several times at IBS and elsewhere, and thanks for bringing it up again. I have read this law and state department policy before, and also have found that Switzerland also requires reimbursement for some types of consular protection. I think many other countries do the same (would anyone have more data on this)?
For me, the argument that consular protection is not free is a rebuttal argument against the claim of US officials that taxation is justified because of consular protection (which I have heard from several US officials whose names I will not mention here, along with the argument that Marines will come bursting in whenever a US Citizen gets into trouble–which I do not believe ***See Below). While being a rebuttal when such claims that taxation is justified by the availability of protection are proffered, it is not by itself a conclusive argument against citizenship based taxation. Better arguments have to do with the denial of Medicare, non-use of infrastructure in the US, or non-availability of welfare or unemployment benefits to those living abroad. For example, a USP living in Switzerland, whether a mere legal resident or a dual national, pays taxes to Switzerland and benefits from the infrastructure, welfare, unemployment, mandatory health insurance with protection against pre-existing conditions, and other benefits. He or she does not use the US equivalent infrastructure and programs. On the other hand, he or she could still benefit from consular protection (subject to repayment) were he or she to travel elsewhere on a US passport, in the same way that he or she would benefit from Swiss consular protection (subject to repayment also) where he or she to travel elsewhere on a Swiss passport. An exception would be a Green Card + Swiss living in Switzerland who could not claim US consular protection in Ivory Coast, for example (correct me if I am wrong, but the Green Card offers only entry and residence to the US, and in some cases might also allow someone to transit a 3rd country where they would otherwise need a visa based upon their nationality ++++See Below).
However, the rebuttal of the consular protection argument against territorial-based taxation could be further strengthened by suggesting that if someone had their primary residence in France, or Switzerland, or wherever else, and held the passport of that country, they would probably travel on the passport of their country of residence (and might be required to if they were going somewhere that required a visa), and, should they get into trouble, would more likely invoke consular protection of their country of residence and not the US. Why would someone ask the US State Department for a repatriation loan from Pakistan to the US when they hold Swiss citizenship and their immediate family lives in Switzerland?
*** There are plenty of stories about US Citizens who were not helped in foreign countries even when their basic human rights were violated. Example, a guy from California who got swindled by some real crook offering him money to courrier leather goods from Pakistan (which were, unbeknownst to him, laced with drugs). The victim said that he was tortured by Pakistani officials, and if we take his reenactment for National Geographic at face value, was not even allowed the chance to argue his case before court, i.e. see the evidence against him, call witnesses, confront his accuser. He claims that the DEA were even present at the prison on several occasions and were portrayed as being quite callous. You can see the entire “Locked up Abroad” episode here:
(DISCLAIMER: this may or may not be legal to view in your country or state.)
++++ I do not know if what I am about to describe would still be possible, this was a year or so after 9-11, but I once was stuck in the US preclearance line at Zürich Airport behind someone of African nationality who had an expired African passport, no residence permit in Switzerland, and an (appearantly valid) Green Card. I seem to remember that she said that she was in transit from Africa. She was not turned into the Swiss police (I have always noticed Swiss police are waiting at the door of the aircraft for flights from Africa, they check everyone, the Germans seem to do the same, so she must have already gotten past that checkpoint with the Green Card), airport security called a US immigration hotline, and while this was going on the line advanced while she was waiting for a response. I think I may have seen her in the plane, and was surprised to see her at the baggage carosel in the US between Immigration and Customs (I thought that she was dodgy so I paid attention). Maybe I mistook someone else for her after being locked up in a tin can at 30’000 feet for 15 hours, but I do distinctly remember the conversation at Zürich airport where the Swiss airport security authorities were willing to let her proceed if the US had no objection.
@Em so if Eritrea’s tax appears less onerous and appears not to penalize retirement and other investments as badly as US policy does to people in many circumstances, how can the US keep its policy while condemning Eritrea’s? Again, it seems that the gist of the matter is that “WE ARE THE US” and “Eritrea is a 2-bit nation”. Hypocritical to say the least.
@SwissPinoy,
I would have been a happy US camper with a 2% flat tax if I could watch for myself how much of the national debt my contribution, as well as that of all (and I mean ALL) other Americans, reduced the national debt. But, with all the threats, scare tactics, reporting requirements, processing fees, banking restrictions/risks, reckless federal spending, etc. Forget it! Never Again!”
I suspected a lot of people feel like that. I relinquished long before this stuff was going on, so I never had to think about this as a factor in my decision to terminate my citizenship. But earlier this year, having seen the Eritrean form, it got me thinking that if the US had only a one page form with 2% tax on net income (and none of the other egregious confusing requirements and fear instilled by the IRS) for USCs abroad, that it’s quite likely that most people renouncing today would not be renouncing.
I also absolutely agree with Bubblebustin that the this system is causing severe mental torture. It’s ruining lives, both intangibly (depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, marital breakdown) and tangibly (costs of compliance causing severe financial hardship and inability to live normally and save for one’s retirement and one’s kids’ educations, etc. like a normal person).
@Jefferson D. Tomas, I didn’t mention the impossibility of use of infrastructure and social services by nonresident citizens because I thought that was already obvious. I focused on protection because I see it as the primary justification for taxes in theory, and it is the only remaining benefit that a country can offer to its citizens abroad.
A US green card allows a person to visit Canada, Mexico and some other countries without a visa, even if the person’s passport is from a country that would need a visa. Residency permits from other developed countries also result in some similar visa waivers. The case you mentioned is true, a US green card and even a tourist visa for the US exempts the person from obtaining a transit visa in the Schengen area. But this is a benefit provided by the country being visited or transited, not by the country of the residency permit or visa. Consular protection is reserved for citizens only.
Eritrea: Ambassador Rice On Passage of UN Resolution On Eritrea
Explanation of Vote by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, after the Adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2023, December 5, 2011:
“According to the monitoring group, Eritrea is financing all of these activities through illicit means, including threats and the extortion of a “diaspora tax” from people of Eritrean descent living overseas.”
http://allafrica.com/stories/201112060439.html
Tax laws are only for the little people. They do not apply to the ruling classes like Geithner, Rangel and the King of Thailand etc. How dare the impudent serfs even question the FBAR compliance of the anointed one, Susan Rice!
*bubblebustin, how is the US government any different from Eritrea on the matter? A $10’000 fine per account per year for not filing FBAR is not a threat? $10’000 is what a expat might be able to save in 20 years! I renounced because I’ve been reading so many threats that I finally came to the conclusion that it’s just not worth it when I learned that I was being denied banking services too and that my own banks might cancel my account for being American. Eritrea is innocent compared to what America is doing to its expats abroad.
Some news from today is another example of such:
I honestly felt sorry for Susan Rice upon hearing that she had to represent even more American idiocy by being one of the few lone losers who reject the nation of Palestine. Speaking of which, when is Canada going to liberate itself from US serfdom? I’ve always believed that Canada is the 51st state, and this continues to be the case.
@SwissPinoy- I am afraid that Canada will never free itself from its status of U.S. serf. The relationship that Canada has had with the U.S. has probably been the worse thing that could have ever happened to this nation. The Americans treat the Canadians like crap and still the Canadian politicians talke about having a special “relationship” with their American “cousins”.
I don’t think that many people actually think about this but Canada is the ONLY Western country that does NOT have a domestic auto industry. The Auto Pact that Canada has with the U.S. has done nothing but guarantee to the Americans that they wouldn’t have to face direct competition from a nearby country.
Susan Rice, the anti-Diaspora Tax activist, at least for Eritrea any way.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/02/10/eritrea-evil-usa-good/
Ms. Rice, what do you think about the US Diaspora Tax? Is it not being used for funding the destabilization of the entire planet?
@swisspinoy
“Eritrea is innocent compared to what America is doing to its expats abroad.”
Eritrea:
-2% flat diaspora tax (no professional fees)
-Physical threats and property seizure of family members remaining in Eritrea.
Without the torture aspect of Eritrea’s tax enforcement, I’d say you are right!
Good point, Bubblebustin, Eritrea’s tax form for Eritreans outside the country fits on one page, and a low or middle income US person abroad can easily pay much more than 2 percent of their income to a tax preparer, not to mention having to pay tax when they’ve actually lost money (phantom gains) and other such weirdness that does not apply to US persons within the US, and the ease of making mistakes on the convoluted US person abroad tax forms which can result in horribly astronomical penalties.
And that’s 2% of net income, as Shadow Raider points out (with a link to form) two comments down.
@pacifica777
I should have specified “physical” torture, as the US is not without inflicting mental torture (in the worlds of the IRS’s own National Taxpayers Advocate: the IRS is “terrorizing the entire country of Canada”). Considering the US’s war on terror, those are curious words to use to describe the actions of her government!
Also, the Eritrean diaspora tax is 2% on net income, meaning after deducting all taxes and mandatory contributions in the country of residence. And it’s only on wages and rental income, it doesn’t include pensions, interest, dividends or capital gains, and there is no estate, gift or inheritance tax. A single one-page tax form can be used for all years, and there is no financial reporting. Eritrea accepts, and actually prefers, payment of the tax in the currency of the country of residence.
Sure, without the physical threats and the impossibility of renouncing citizenship, the Eritrean diaspora tax looks much better than the US taxes on its citizens abroad.
@shadow raider
I was wondering if it was gross or net income. A remittance of 2% of line 236 is all Eritreans need to comply with their tax filing obligations with the Eritrean government’s diaspora tax? LOL!
@bubblebustin, The Eritrean government doesn’t care about filing obligations, it just wants the money. The US government gets obsessed with useless paperwork and forgets that the whole purpose of taxes is to collect revenue. A pile of tax forms and reports that end with a zero, so common for Americans abroad, doesn’t make any sense.
@ Shadow Raider
My gosh what a simple form! Almost as easy as my father’s first filed Canadian tax form which was 1/2 page long and only had 5 lines to fill in — wish I had saved that! Anyway, it looks like most overseas Eritrean retirees would pay the grand sum of zero to Eritrea.
@Em, That form is from the Eritrean embassy in the US. The embassy in Japan uses a similar form. In the UK, it looks like they also ask for an earning statement, but the tax form itself if even more simple.
It looks like condemnation of the Eritrean diaspora tax is growing.
http://972mag.com/asylum-seeker-to-israel-probe-claims-eritrean-embassy-extorts-refugees/56282/
@ Shadow Raider
Yes Eritrea’s methods of collecting its “diaspora” tax are dubious and coercive but the USA is one huge black pot calling a tiny kettle black. Are you listening, Ms. Rice? If the USA, Canada and other countries object to overseas Eritreans being forced to fund the Eritrean military, then overseas Americans who are forced to pay US taxes should get a 53% refund.
Interesting. I found a US Supreme Court case from 1914, United States v. Goelet, where the court ruled that a law that mentions a tax on “citizens” cannot be assumed to apply to nonresident citizens unless clearly specified.
Sounds nice, doesn’t it?
I think today’s Internal Revenue Code is clear that the income, estate and gift taxes apply to nonresident citizens, since it mentions “citizen or resident” and “nonresident alien” everywhere, there is an expatriation tax on renunciation of citizenship, and a specific exclusion available just for nonresident citizens (FEIE). However, the FBAR is not part of the Internal Revenue Code, it only mentions “resident or citizen” (note that it mentions resident first), and it even states that the Treasury may exempt certain classes of individuals from the requirement. Besides the excessive fines clause, this might be another basis for unconstitutionality of the FBAR.
@shadow raider, I would have been a happy US camper with a 2% flat tax if I could watch for myself how much of the national debt my contribution, as well as that of all (and I mean ALL) other Americans, reduced the national debt. But, with all the threats, scare tactics, reporting requirements, processing fees, banking restrictions/risks, reckless federal spending, etc. Forget it! Never Again!
The justification for the existence of government and its power to tax is the protection that the government provides to its people. Depending on the country, the level of protection may vary from simply physical protection against crime or foreign invasion, to a broad “protection” from poverty, disease or disaster, in the form of social assistance. Each country decides, either through traditional leadership (monarchy) or public debate (democracy), what level of protection the country will provide, and the corresponding level of taxation needed to afford that protection.
The people who are taxed are the ones who receive the protection, and the people who do not receive it should not be taxed. Therefore, in theory, citizens residing abroad may be taxed by their country of citizenship if the country provides them some kind of protection. Many countries do provide assistance to their citizens abroad in cases of emergency, but given the rarity of these cases in practice, the corresponding taxation should be minimal or non-existent. In fact, in agreement with this principle, the only countries that tax nonresident citizens are Eritrea and the US.
Eritrea claims it can tax its diaspora to help pay for its relatively large military force. The Eritrean military protects people living in Eritrea but not its citizens abroad, so the diaspora tax cannot by justified.
The US claims it can tax its citizens abroad because it provides them protection in case of emergencies anywhere in the world. It is true that the US provides such protection, especially for its government employees and troops abroad. However, 22 USC 2671 clearly states that any emergency expenditure for private citizens abroad must be “on a reimbursable basis to the maximum extent practicable”. The Department of State also states that. The US government may provide loans for those who cannot pay the reimbursement, but they may not receive passports to leave the US again until the loan is paid. Therefore, according to US law, US citizens cannot receive protection abroad for free, so the taxation of citizens abroad by the US cannot be justified.
@Shadow Raider Your argument is an interesting one that has come up several times at IBS and elsewhere, and thanks for bringing it up again. I have read this law and state department policy before, and also have found that Switzerland also requires reimbursement for some types of consular protection. I think many other countries do the same (would anyone have more data on this)?
For me, the argument that consular protection is not free is a rebuttal argument against the claim of US officials that taxation is justified because of consular protection (which I have heard from several US officials whose names I will not mention here, along with the argument that Marines will come bursting in whenever a US Citizen gets into trouble–which I do not believe ***See Below). While being a rebuttal when such claims that taxation is justified by the availability of protection are proffered, it is not by itself a conclusive argument against citizenship based taxation. Better arguments have to do with the denial of Medicare, non-use of infrastructure in the US, or non-availability of welfare or unemployment benefits to those living abroad. For example, a USP living in Switzerland, whether a mere legal resident or a dual national, pays taxes to Switzerland and benefits from the infrastructure, welfare, unemployment, mandatory health insurance with protection against pre-existing conditions, and other benefits. He or she does not use the US equivalent infrastructure and programs. On the other hand, he or she could still benefit from consular protection (subject to repayment) were he or she to travel elsewhere on a US passport, in the same way that he or she would benefit from Swiss consular protection (subject to repayment also) where he or she to travel elsewhere on a Swiss passport. An exception would be a Green Card + Swiss living in Switzerland who could not claim US consular protection in Ivory Coast, for example (correct me if I am wrong, but the Green Card offers only entry and residence to the US, and in some cases might also allow someone to transit a 3rd country where they would otherwise need a visa based upon their nationality ++++See Below).
However, the rebuttal of the consular protection argument against territorial-based taxation could be further strengthened by suggesting that if someone had their primary residence in France, or Switzerland, or wherever else, and held the passport of that country, they would probably travel on the passport of their country of residence (and might be required to if they were going somewhere that required a visa), and, should they get into trouble, would more likely invoke consular protection of their country of residence and not the US. Why would someone ask the US State Department for a repatriation loan from Pakistan to the US when they hold Swiss citizenship and their immediate family lives in Switzerland?
*** There are plenty of stories about US Citizens who were not helped in foreign countries even when their basic human rights were violated. Example, a guy from California who got swindled by some real crook offering him money to courrier leather goods from Pakistan (which were, unbeknownst to him, laced with drugs). The victim said that he was tortured by Pakistani officials, and if we take his reenactment for National Geographic at face value, was not even allowed the chance to argue his case before court, i.e. see the evidence against him, call witnesses, confront his accuser. He claims that the DEA were even present at the prison on several occasions and were portrayed as being quite callous. You can see the entire “Locked up Abroad” episode here:
(DISCLAIMER: this may or may not be legal to view in your country or state.)
++++ I do not know if what I am about to describe would still be possible, this was a year or so after 9-11, but I once was stuck in the US preclearance line at Zürich Airport behind someone of African nationality who had an expired African passport, no residence permit in Switzerland, and an (appearantly valid) Green Card. I seem to remember that she said that she was in transit from Africa. She was not turned into the Swiss police (I have always noticed Swiss police are waiting at the door of the aircraft for flights from Africa, they check everyone, the Germans seem to do the same, so she must have already gotten past that checkpoint with the Green Card), airport security called a US immigration hotline, and while this was going on the line advanced while she was waiting for a response. I think I may have seen her in the plane, and was surprised to see her at the baggage carosel in the US between Immigration and Customs (I thought that she was dodgy so I paid attention). Maybe I mistook someone else for her after being locked up in a tin can at 30’000 feet for 15 hours, but I do distinctly remember the conversation at Zürich airport where the Swiss airport security authorities were willing to let her proceed if the US had no objection.
@Em so if Eritrea’s tax appears less onerous and appears not to penalize retirement and other investments as badly as US policy does to people in many circumstances, how can the US keep its policy while condemning Eritrea’s? Again, it seems that the gist of the matter is that “WE ARE THE US” and “Eritrea is a 2-bit nation”. Hypocritical to say the least.
@SwissPinoy,
I suspected a lot of people feel like that. I relinquished long before this stuff was going on, so I never had to think about this as a factor in my decision to terminate my citizenship. But earlier this year, having seen the Eritrean form, it got me thinking that if the US had only a one page form with 2% tax on net income (and none of the other egregious confusing requirements and fear instilled by the IRS) for USCs abroad, that it’s quite likely that most people renouncing today would not be renouncing.
I also absolutely agree with Bubblebustin that the this system is causing severe mental torture. It’s ruining lives, both intangibly (depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, marital breakdown) and tangibly (costs of compliance causing severe financial hardship and inability to live normally and save for one’s retirement and one’s kids’ educations, etc. like a normal person).
@Jefferson D. Tomas, I didn’t mention the impossibility of use of infrastructure and social services by nonresident citizens because I thought that was already obvious. I focused on protection because I see it as the primary justification for taxes in theory, and it is the only remaining benefit that a country can offer to its citizens abroad.
A US green card allows a person to visit Canada, Mexico and some other countries without a visa, even if the person’s passport is from a country that would need a visa. Residency permits from other developed countries also result in some similar visa waivers. The case you mentioned is true, a US green card and even a tourist visa for the US exempts the person from obtaining a transit visa in the Schengen area. But this is a benefit provided by the country being visited or transited, not by the country of the residency permit or visa. Consular protection is reserved for citizens only.