Most of us here have little interest in going back to live in the U.S., but others who are considering giving up U.S. citizenship may be worried about whether they’ll be able to get back into the country in case their career takes them there in the future, or to care for aging relatives, or for any number of other reasons, either temporarily or permanently.
Though there are some cases which may show evidence of the USCIS trying to retaliate against renunciants when it comes to visas and treatment at the border, there are also many examples of ex-citizens both low-profile and high-profile who have managed to return to live in U.S., among them naturalised Japanese citizen Arudou Debito (the former David Aldwinckle, now an affiliate scholar at the East-West Center in Honolulu), Taiwan constitutional court judge Chen Be-yue (who renounced in 1996 and then got a green card in 2008 through her U.S.-born daughter, though she wisely cancelled it again the following year), and Fred Alger (who came back on an H-1B visa to rebuild Alger Asset Management after all its employees were killed in the WTC attacks).
A recent article in the Korea Times, a Korean diaspora newspaper published in North America, gives us many more examples of Korean Americans who gave up their U.S. citizenship to try their hand at politics in South Korea, then returned to the U.S. when things didn’t work out. I’ve translated it below.
시민권 포기 후… 취업비자로 신분 유지 |
Maintaining [residence] status in U.S. with employment visa after giving up citizenship |
| http://www.koreatimes.com/article/781940 | |
| 김종훈 사태 계기로 본 한인인사 사례 | Korean American examples, starting with Kim Jeong-hoon |
| 남문기·이용태 전 회장… 투자비자 이용도, 미 국적 다시 취득하기는 사실상 불가능 | [Korean-American Federation of Los Angeles] Ex-Presidents Nam Moon-key, Lee Young-tae used investor visas, but getting U.S. citizenship again seems impossible |
| 입력일자: 2013-03-07 (목) | Publication date: 7 March 2013 (Thu.) |
| 새로 출범한 박근혜 정부의 미래창조과학부 장관으로 내정됐다가 자진 사퇴한 미주 한인 1.5세 출신 김종훈 전 벨연구소 사장의 이중국적 문제 논란 등을 계기로 과거 한국 공직에 진출하기 위해 시민권을 포기했던 한인사회 주요 인사들의 미국 내 체류 신분에 대한 궁금증이 증폭되고 있다. | Kim Jeong-hoon, the 1.5-generation Korean American former Bell Labs president who was nominated to be the Minister for Innovation and Science in the newly-formed government of Park Geun-hye, voluntarily withdrew [from the nomination process]. With the controversy over his dual citizenship, people are increasingly wondering about past examples of leading figures in the Korean American community who gave up U.S. citizenship to try to advance to public positions in South Korea, but now have residence status in the United States. |
For those of you who haven’t been keeping up to date with South Korean politics, Kim Jeong-hoon is a naturalised U.S. citizen who was nominated to a position in the South Korean government in mid-February, and stated that he would relinquish his U.S. citizenship. However, there was a surprising groundswell of objections to his nomination from the opposition coalition, and then the South Korean news media, which is normally a reasonably sober source of information about giving up U.S. citizenship, started spreading all sorts of FUD. Two of the more prominent examples were YTN News, which got up in arms about the fact that, two whole days after he got his Korean citizenship back, “Nominee Kim Jeong-hoon had his nationality restored but still hasn’t given up U.S. citizenship”, and Dong-A Ilbo, which hysterically claimed that “the CIA may deny him permission to give up citizenship”.
Eventually, Kim decided that he would not be able to give up his U.S. citizenship, and then withdrew from the nomination process. The exact reason for that is another post in itself; I’m still busy translating the relevant articles. Let’s just say for now that the U.S. Homeland papers aren’t giving you the whole story.
The U.S., unlike dozens of other countries ranging from Australia to the United Kingdom to the Philippines, offers no special procedure for people who gave up citizenship to resume it, or even to easily obtain visas afterwards. This reflects the larger U.S. view that the diaspora is not a potentially valuable source of brain circulation, but simply a bunch of backpacking kids, oddballs, and disaffected losers who should be derided and ignored.
| 김종훈 전 내정자의 경우 한국 국적 회복 절차는 밟았지만 미국 시민권은 포기하지 않은 채 다시 미국으로 돌아왔지만, 이민법 전문가들에 따르면 미국 시민권을 포기할 경우 미국 내 체류신분이 곧바로 상실되고, 한 번 포기한 시민권은 다시 취득하기가 극히 어렵기 때문에 문제가 되고 있다. | In former nominee Kim Jeong-hoon’s case, he went through with the procedures for getting his South Korean nationality restored but did not yet give up his U.S. citizenship and so was able to come back to the United States. However, according to immigration law experts, you lose your residence status in the U.S. after giving up citizenship, and afterwards it is very difficult to regain citizenship, which can be a problem. |
| 시민권 포기 후 미국에 재입국하기 위해서는 합법체류 비자를 새로 취득해야 한다는 것이다. | In order to re-enter the United States after giving up citizenship, it is necessary to obtain a legal residence visa. |
Again, in black-and-white: it is clearly possible for an ex-U.S. citizen to get a visa to return to live in the United States. The misconception that it is impossible seems to stem from misunderstandings and internet rumours about the never-enforced Reed Amendment, but even those who have a professional duty to be better-informed about the law clearly are not. One of my favourite examples is the racist San Buenaventura/Santa Barbara, California immigration lawyer who goes around on Yahoo! Answers scaring everyone who even mentions giving up U.S. citizenship with nonsense about how you will “never ever set foot on US soil again” after you “p*ss the world’s most desirable citizenship — the US one — down the toilet” and “told [Uncle Sam] to shove his citizenship where the sun don’t shine” and how you must be “mentally ill” to give up “a passport that oil sheikhs would pay $10 million for”.
Anyway, the journalist goes on to bring up the case of Chris Nam, whom we briefly discussed last September. Nam, who gave up U.S. citizenship to become the head of South Korea’s equivalent of Republicans Abroad, stepped down from his position after less than a month due to controversy over his having been a dual citizen (which was not legal under South Korean law until recently), and is now back in Los Angeles. Of course, the fact that in the first place he was willing to move halfway around the world and turn in his U.S. passport (and pay the ex-citizen/green card-holder tax) to take up a position like that should tell you that the diaspora actually enjoys some political power in South Korea, unlike in the United States.
| 지난 2011년 새누리당의 전신인 한나라당 재외국민위원장에 임명된 뒤 시민권을 포기했던 남문기 전 미주총연 회장의 경우 현재 자신이 운영하는 회사인 뉴스타부동산을 통해 취업비자(H-1)를 받아 체류신분을 유지하고 있다. | Another case was [Chris] Nam Moon-key, the former President of the Federation of Korean American Associations who in 2011 was nominated to be the Head of the Commission on Overseas Nationals of the Grand National (Hannara) Party, the predecessor of the New Frontier (Saenuri) Party. He gave up his U.S. citizenship, but received an H-1 employment visa to work at his company New Star Realty, and is now staying in the U.S. again. |
| 당시 한나라당 재외국민위원장에 임명된 뒤 복수국적 논란으로 한 달 만에 사퇴한 적이 있는 남 전 회장은 “국적문제에 있어 내가 제일 큰 피해자”라며 “시민권이 없으니 이만저만 불편하게 아니다”고 말했다. | Nam was nominated to be president of the then-Grand National Party’s Commission on Overseas Nationals, but his earlier dual nationality caused a controversy, and he withdrew after just one month. He stated that “I was the biggest victim of the nationality problem” but that “not having [U.S.] citizenship is actually not all that inconvenient”. |
Notice that Nam wisely did not acquire a green card, even though he could presumably afford the price tag for an EB-5 — New Star is said to be the largest Korean-run real estate company in the U.S., and Nam even mentioned in interviews that he met the $2 million asset threshold for the Form 8854 tax. Presumably he’s decided that while he might enjoy living in the U.S., he plans to retire in his native country, and having paid a high price to get rid of U.S. Person status once, he doesn’t want to pay it again when it comes time for him to leave.
In the 1990s, in contrast, successful 1st-generation Korean Americans trying to parachute back into South Korea and break the domestic elite’s monopoly on politics were not so well-informed; like some wealthy mainland Chinese people today (and the media which cluelessly apes their attitudes), they saw the U.S. passport or green card as a “status symbol” and didn’t really understand the costs of keeping it, a phenomenon which in China is only now starting to change; see for example this October 2012 South China Morning Post article, or this comment by Fred from a few days ago.
| 지난 1996년 총선 당시 신한국당 후보로 전남 순천 국회의원 선거에 나간 장성길 전 LA 한인회장은 국회의원 출마를 위해 시민권을 포기했지만 낙선했다. 장 전 회장은 이후 한동안 한국에서 생활하다 시민권을 유지하고 있던 부인을 통해 영주권을 회복했다고 한다. | In the general election in 1996, former Korean-American Federation of Los Angeles president Chang Sunggill ran as the New Korea (Shinhanguk) Party candidate to represent Suncheon, Jeollanam-do in the National Assembly. He gave up his citizenship to run in the election, but was defeated. After some time living in South Korea, Chang was able to get U.S. permanent residency again through his wife, who had retained her [U.S.] citizenship. |
Of course, under the version of the ex-citizen tax that had just come into effect in 1996, a person like Chang living in his own or his parents’ country of birth could obtain a ruling from the IRS exempting him from payment of the tax. (Under the new system since 2004, this has been restricted to people who were born dual nationals.) And once he got his green card, he’d get a step-up in basis on any of his U.S. assets for purpose of any future capital gains tax. Chang is now a real estate agent in Beverly Hills. And as a relinquisher rather than a renunciant, he’s presumably even still eligible to buy guns without any problems from the FBI’s NICS background check system.
One other interesting thing is that Mr. Chang, like virtually every public figure who gave up citizenship prior to 2006, appeared in the Federal Register name-and-shame list, in his case for Q1 1997 — but a 2008 relinquisher mentioned in the article does not appear. This fits the pattern we observed earlier: starting in the Bush/Paulson era, the lists of ex-Americans — which purportedly showed a huge drop in people giving up citizenship — are actually quite incomplete.
| 이용태 전 LA 한인회장은 지난 2008년 한국에서 제18대 총선 출마를 위해 시민권을 포기했던 경우이다. | There’s also the case of Korean-American Federation of Los Angeles president Lee Young-tae, who gave up U.S. citizenship to run in the 18th general election in 2008. |
| 이 전 회장은 한나라당 비례대표 신청에서 낙선한 뒤 자신이 설립한 양로보건센터를 통해 다시 투자비자(E-2)를 취득했으며 현재는 영주권을 회복한 상태다. 이 전 회장은 “영주권은 받았지만 시민권을 다시 취득하기는 쉽지 않다”고 말했다. | After Lee lost out in his bid for a seat on the Grand National Party list, he obtained an E-2 investor visa through the nursing home which he had founded, and has now got his permanent residence back. Lee stated, “I received permanent residence, but getting citizenship back again is not so easy.” |
If Lee indeed got a green card, then the clock is ticking for him. If he’s still holding it in 2015, then he becomes a “long-term permanent resident” for purposes of Section 877A, and if he gives up his green card — or even if he’s administratively deemed to have “abandoned” it by spending too long outside of the U.S. or taking the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion — then he’ll owe the Form 8854 tax again. Should have stayed with the E-2. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that investors these days prefer E-2s over EB-5s for precisely that reason, like this British family.
But of course, Homelanders can’t understand this concept at all, as seen by the tone of the linked article — the entire visa system is premised around the idea that everyone in the world wants to “immigrate” and spend all the rest of their days in the U.S. and the system must carefully screen to make sure people on “non-immigrant visas” do not have “immigrant intent”, when in reality people at all levels, ranging from unauthorised guest workers all the way up to company bosses, often just want to come in for a fixed purpose of earning some money, and move on to the next destination when they’re finished. In simpler terms: to Homelanders, every foreigner who comes to the U.S. is an “immigrant”, but every American who lives abroad is an “expat”.
| 또 김영태 전 LA 한인회장은 지난 2000년 4월 16대 총선에서 자민련 소속으로 자신의 고향인 강원도 철원에 출마했었으나, 이를 위해 1999년 12월 한국 국적을 회복해 복수국적을 유지한 상태에서 이듬해 4월 총선을 치렀지만 낙선하자 시민권 포기를 신청하지 않은 경우다. | Also, there’s the case of former Korean-American Federation of Los Angeles president Kim Young-tae, who joined the race in his own hometown of Chilwon, Gangwon-do for the 16 April 2000 elections under the banner of the United Liberal Democratic Front (Jaminryeon). In order to do that, he had his South Korean nationality restored in December 1999, and held dual nationality for four months right through the election without applying to give up his [U.S.] citizenship. |
| 그는 “국적 회복에는 보통 4~6개월이 소요되며 국적을 회복한 뒤 1년 내에 시민권을 포기, 이를 한국 정부에 제출해야 절차가 마무리 된다”며 “이 기간에 선거를 치르게 돼 시민권을 포기하지 않아도 됐다”고 말했다. | He stated that “restoration of [South Korean] nationality normally takes four to six months, and then within one year of your nationality being restored you have to give up [U.S.] citizenship as the final part of the procedure set by the South Korean government” and that “during that period I lost the election, so it’s a good thing I didn’t give up my citizenship”. |
As mentioned earlier, the Korea Times is a Korean diaspora newspaper, distributed in various major metropolitan areas in North America. That means, for the most part, that their readers consist of people who voluntarily uprooted themselves from South Korea and want to go on living in the United States, and have never experienced life outside of the U.S. as a U.S. citizen or green card holder, with all its attendant information reporting consequences. More recently, those who dared leave any money in South Korea rather than patriotically bringing all their capital with them to the Land of Milk and Honey are starting to understand some of those consequences. But except for the increasing number of unfortunates caught up in that problem, they think of U.S. citizenship as a valuable prize to be jealously guarded and protected.
| 미주 한인으로 첫 현지 출신 LA 총영사를 역임한 김재수 변호사의 경우 영주권자 신분이어서 총영사 재직 때부터 현재까지 한국 국적을 유지하고 있는 것으로 알려졌다. | In the case of lawyer Kim Jae-su, who was the first Los Angeles Consul-General to be selected from among Korean emigrants, he held permanent resident status, and from the time he took up the post of Consul-General up until today has maintained his South Korean nationality. |
| 이승우 변호사는 “시민권을 포기하면 영주권자가 되는 것이 아니라 아예 체류신분이 없어진다”며 “다시 시민권을 취득하기 위해서는 처음부터 이민 절차를 다시 밟아야 하지만 과거 시민권 포기 사실이 불리하게 작용한다”고 말했다. | Lawyer Lee Seung-woo stated that “If you give up citizenship, you don’t become a permanent resident but instead you lose your residence status entirely” and that “in order to get citizenship again, you have to start the process all the way over from the beginning, but the fact that you were formerly a citizen can be a disadvantage”. |
It’s another “exceptional” quirk of the U.S. system that dual citizens living in the U.S. are unable to renounce citizenship so that they can claim the consular protection of their other country of citizenship or take up a diplomatic appointment on its behalf. Hong Kong, for example, processes such applications within 24 hours, and afterwards you retain the right of abode or the right to land in Hong Kong, as the case may be. And of course, when was the last time you heard of an American living abroad being appointed into a consular position in the country where he lives? Silly rabbit, consular appointments are for career civil servants and big political donors.
Very interesting read, and thanks for digging in for the “rest of the story”!
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. The
MordorWashington DC edition of Korea Times is running basically the same story, with a couple of extra anecdoteshttp://dc.koreatimes.com/article/782226
If this is who I think it is, he is in the Federal Register. Again no surprise with a pre-2006 relinquishment.
Excellent research. I had already read that the citizenship of some Americans had been restored after renouncing in some cases, but it is nice to read about more examples of such in one place. This is something that I took into consideration when I renounced. I figured that if I must someday live in the US, for whatever reason, then either the US will permit such or not. So be it. For now, I don’t really care much about US policy within US jurisdiction, but it would be good for the US to do a 360 on its immigration policy, changing it to be much more compatible with modern times. I mean, with the exit tax and declared irreversible renunciations, the US needs to do much more to not encourage or pressure its citizens to renounce, unless it chooses to change its position on renunciations, making it much easier for its citizens to renounce and restore their citizenship as they choose.
@swisspinoy: Thanks. Up to now there’s only two cases I’m aware of where an ex-citizen got U.S. citizenship again (as opposed to just getting a visa to live in the US). One was Elizabeth Taylor, who renounced in 1962, got a green card through her next husband John warner in the 1970s, and naturalised through the normal process in 1978 when Warner was running for the Senate. I imagine that having a politically well-connected husband shielded her from the negative effects of any anti-renunciant sentiment in the bureaucracy:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=s2ocAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YU8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7364,5810172
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=awxPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cgIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6365,5024920
The other was Joel Slater, who was in a pretty uniquely screwed situation: he renounced in Australia without even having a visa to live there, and they deported him right back to the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Slater
If there were more of these cases I’m sure the media would be trumpeting them from the rooftops: “look at all these prodigal sons & daughters who who came back after wasting their inheritance abroad because they realised that the United States is the Freest Country On Earth”. (A lot of people on the Internet claim Fred Alger “had his citizenship restored” and “had to pay back all the taxes he avoided”. As far as I can tell this is untrue; he got the same tax treatment as any other H-1B holder.)
Wouldn’t put it past them to pass laws to restore U.S. citizenship to all renunciants for tax purposes. It’s why I will continue to avoid U.S.-unfriendly investments such as my local mutual funds and will stick with my advisor who’s familiar with U.S.-compliant investments. You just never know….I probably will never feel completely safe from the U.S., at least as long as my parents are alive. I was brought up to be law-abiding so would grudgingly continue or resume filing if the laws do in fact change. But at least if this happens I’d hope they’d at least make it easier for renunciants to get long-term visas.
It still worries me that renouncing would thus not make my life any easier. I may grow to regret it, especially if it makes visiting family difficult. They could be capricious and refuse me the visa waiver or retroactively restore my U.S. persimmons for tax purposes. But if I go ahead and expatriate now, I will have at least have a chance that life will become simpler. If I don’t then it will definitely continue to be complicated; sometimes life involves risks. IT also occurs to me that once my parents are gone, I’ll no longer have any need to cross the border again. If all my assets are located outside America, and with no further need to go there, I would be able to more easily ignore all these issues anyway.
@monalisa……They could be capricious and refuse me the visa waiver…. no they would not do this to a law-abiding citizen like you 🙂 remember they still need your shopping$
Lol, I know, I know…;)
I’m sure everything should turn out OK actually; I’m a natural worrier too.
A more realistic concern is whether I could get a long-term visa if I needed to spend time with my Mother if she became really sick or something. She’s very independent but I still worry about her; I’d hope they’d be willing to grant me one on compassionate grounds if the need ever arose. This is why I realise it’s not a black and white decision but life doesn’t always have a perfect solution.
Just created a new Wikipedia article about another guy who lived in the U.S. for a while after renouncing: he was one of the first white guys to serve in the Taiwanese army, then came back after he got discharged so he could attend New York Film Academy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._C._Lin
I think if you’re worried, it’s actually better renouncing sooner rather than later. There’s enough opposition in the U.S. government to imposing retroactive punishments and penalties that any new anti-emigrant legislation would probably only apply going forward. And of course, an amusing side effect of the fact that they’re blatantly suppressing names from the Federal Register is that the demagogues less likely to be able to drum up the public outrage necessary to push through any of that anti-emigrant legislation in the first place.
Hey Eric… are there any means to contact you besides here and Twitter (which I’ve always avoided). I’m in HK too and nobody here seems to care about FATCA except you and me (and maybe the MPFA and Big Four accounting firms… but they suck). If you’re all about staying on the down-low, fully understand.
Eric, I think you’re correct on both fronts which is why it seems wise to get out sooner than later. I would imagine that they will eventually make it harder to shed U.S. tax status post renunciation but would only be able to impose this going forward. Of course there are no guarantees but if someone has expatriated and has removed all their assets from the states, I can’t see them harassing non-covered renunciants because the IRS would have to pursue them through the foreign courts. Minnows would be cost-ineffective to pursue while the super rich could protect themselves with fancy lawyers.
Don’t think think that the United Kingdom for example would protect me as a dual citizen but would be different if I were solely British. The U.S. would be risking a diplomatic incident otherwise.
Previous tax liabilities would still be collectable but only those up to the date of expatriation. However, those who renounced after such a law change could find it almost impossible to make a clean break.
Garry Davis renounced his US citizenship in Paris in 1948 and later ran for mayor in Washington D.C. in 1986 and ran for US president in the 1988 US presidential election. I don’t know what his current status is in the US, but he probably rejects it whatever it is.
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130304/NEWS02/303040006/Vermonter-s-mission-for-global-citizenship-subject-of-film-in-the-works
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Davis
I know you guys are going to flip out over my comment because you always do, but I’m of the opinion that once you go, and end your connection you shouldn’t be able to come back. I’m flexible on VWP, naturalization on the other hand should no longer be an option. If you choose money over family or this country it’s plain to see what kind of person you are.
@WhoaIt’sSteve, I renounced US citizenship so that I can have a local bank account and so that my mortgage wouldn’t get cancelled due to US policy. So, if you want to prohibit me from spending tourist dollars in the US, buying US products or promoting America, then well, it’s your economy and not mine. So, good luck with that and you are always welcome to travel as a tourist abroad!
@Steve, I will have to accept that you think I’m a traitor. But I feel more devotion to England where I have lived for the past 25 years. My British husband has been good to me and so my first loyalties are to him, even above my parents.
If you have followed my posts here and Expat forum over the past couple of years, you will realize that this has not been an easy decision for me. I am just trying to lead a normal life where I live and not be forced to rely on specialized accountant and be subjected to ongoing burdensome compliance. My taxes going forward will be negligible because I will have come into compliance; I have moved all my investments into US-friendly accounts; but it’s the ongoing annual accounting fees of at least $2000-3000 which I frankly cannot afford.
I do not get regular hours in my job so cannot rely on a consistent wage to budget for these fees; obviously, had I understood all the problems from the start, would have planned things differently. But as things are, I am now in retirement schemes which I am not allowed to close in order to simplify my tax situation for the U.S. authorities; I am thus in a situation where I cannot become technically 100% compliant. The IRS doesn’t recognize defined contribution pension schemes and could argue that they are foreign trusts; I have concluded that I can no longer bear all the uncertainty and stress. I just want to become fully British and no longer have divided loyalties;
Please remember that a renunciation is not necessarily a denunciation. I will always hold a deep affection for America. I will always be American even if I’m no longer a U.S. citizen.
I also have discussed all this in great detail with my family and have their blessing. I can accept the idea that I will never be able to get my citizenship back but to not even be allowed to visit my aging parents is way over the top and am pleased you understand that! 🙂
@monalisa,
Please don’t ever feel you have to justify your actions to anyone of Steve, The Homelander’s close-mindedness — or to anyone else who perceives you a traitor!
@monalisa I don’t think you’re a traitor in the slightest. The British are our closest allies and you have to do hat is right for, I don’t harbor negative feelings for any of you. And yeah you don’t have to justify to me what’s best for you in your situation.
At the same time when you close the door on your American citizenship it is a huge life altering event and the hypocrisy of people thinking they should have the ability and the right to re-enter, get a long term visa, or naturalize, we’d have to be crazy to take someone back who has already shown not to be loyal to us.
Lee Harvey Oswald was let back? Why?
As Prof. von Koppenfels’ research has pointed out, Americans abroad are diverse and generally not much different than Americans in the US (except a higher percentage are working in IT and teaching, two portable occupations). One of her key findings is: “Overall, my research suggests no connection between popular images of Americans living overseas as uniformly quite wealthy and the diverse reality of Americans living overseas.”
I personally know two Americans who have expatriated and another who said he was planning to but cannot confirm. They fit the diversity description but expect that complexity reduction, including access to normal banking services, was the driving issue rather than tax avoidance:
1) “Accidental American”: her father was American and she grew up in W. European country. Limited English and worked in a factory prior to having children. No evidence of a car in household. Was surprised to see her name in Federal Register and expect that she had (considerable) assistance to manage the renunciation process.
2) Manager: an American who came to Europe for a two or three-year assignment and then learned he had a degenerative disease. Said he would have to make the best of the situation here because he was uninsurable in US and could not return to US for that reason. He said his annual treatments were six figures which I would estimate is about what he earned. Owned a condo “with the bank” as he said. No garage and no car.
3) Ex-Military: a former US military enlisted man married to a European. Said he planned to expatriate but cannot confirm; his name hasn’t appeared in the Federal Register. He works/ed as a technician and his wife as an aide. Average people trying to make a living.
http://bsmlegal.com/PDFs/vonKoppenfels.pdf
@WhoaIt’sSteve, what you are doing here is opposing Americans (or eventual former Americans) due to flawed US policy which is reducing the value of US citizenship, limiting it to taxes. Never mind nationalism, patriotism, ancestry, culture, morals and values. All of this now seems to mean nothing to the American since they want for US citizenship to be all about the taxes. The real loyalty issue which should be troubling you is the flawed US policy which is pressuring Americans renounce since it causes discrimination against Americans. Yet, instead, you are opposing the result of a problem instead of challenging its cause and nurturing the problem by making things worse through prohibitions and restrictions. In the end, I’d say that the future outlook of the US looks really really bad. As such, I’d highly recommend that you get out while you still can.
Most other ‘free’ countries do not have this opposition to renunciation and consider it a practical matter.
Stevie Homelander –
If you delight in attempting to impose neverending reporting servitude on persons and regions who have no living or genuine economic connection to your failing and profligate state, I know what kind of person you are. Some kind of mafioso, enforcer, imperialist, slavemaster, freedom hater, etc. You should look into your own settler origins and undertake voluntary reporting of all your finances to whatever repressive regimes your ancestors escaped from. (If you happen to be 100% Indigenous, tick that box and forget the rest.)
@Whoitssteve…
You speak of ‘loyalty to us”. I almost choked on that. So tell me where it is etched in ones DNA, or it is a law of the Universe written in the heavens that one must remain loyal to the country of their lottery birth until death otherwise they are disloyal? What mindset creates such silly assertions? American exceptionalism must be a religion for you, I guess, so doesn’t have to be logical. Where is America’s loyalty to its diaspora? It doesn’t seem to care about them one whit, so.
What you are demanding, essentially is for an abused wife to be loyal to an abusive husband no matter how abusive he becomes. Well, ok, some decide to do that, but I can never condemn those that decide differently and move on! If 25 years later, something changes, and they need or want to come back for whatever reason, why would one insist that decisions made now have to be irrevocable and a person banished for ever?
I am NOT religious, but even the parable of the prodigal in the bible was not as extreme as you seem to be. I just hope you find a mate that fits your definition perfection, and you really do the “death till you part” thing. However, when you grow up, are married to an Non US citizen and live abroad for a while and get out of your homeland exceptional myopic mentality, come back and give me your opinions. At least then I will know they are born of experience and not just some “faith based” idealism of what you think Citizenship must be! You really are having less and less of interest to say, although it is good to be reminded that there are those in Kansas that think like you do.
Sorry for you Steve.
As a long term expat, I renounced some years ago and was all too happy to let the door of tyranny hit me in the A$$.
I have no intent or interest in visiting my abusive, drunk on power, ex-uncle (Sam) ever again.
So if Homelanders don’t want to let former citizens visit the US, I could care less.
Steve, you are loyal to me, correct? I mean, you are going to eliminate the half million dollars of penalties that your Senators are threatening me with? I mean, if you are loyal, you should be loyal to the Citizens of your country, correct? You have been visiting your Senator and the media so as to be loyal to your fellow Citizens, right?
Mark Twain, you are quite right to call Steve out on the “loyalty” nonsense. “Loyalty” has been used by governments for too long to get people to fight each other against their better judgment. Wars continue because of soldiers’ “loyalty” to each side’s leaders. Loyalty should be reserved for people, not for countries.
I lost my childhood “loyalty” to the US government decades ago when successive governments lied about US involvements in the affairs of other countries, involvements that benefited US corporations and the US military at the expense of people living in those countries. The war on Vietnam was just one particularly extreme case that convinced me to emigrate.
Face it: US governments continue to be economic imperialists. Their talk of “spreading democracy” is mostly feel-good BS. What really matters to most US politicians is making other countries stable for exploitation by US corporations. Friendly dictators have been much more helpful to the US in that way than democracies have been. That’s why developments like the Arab Spring are difficult for the US to deal with.
What they have been and are still doing with extra-territorial taxation and financial reporting policies are just parts of that financial imperialism. The US has been practicing that pattern for so long that most Homelanders can’t see what’s wrong with it and what all the fuss is about.
On the specific issue of going back to the US after renouncing, I think the chances are uncertain mainly because there are so few precedents. People in the US, and even the government, aren’t used to having many of us ordinary people give up (“renounce”!) citizenship. Those of us who have given up US citizenship must be prepared for the possibility of being denied re-entry in retaliation for the insult of being “disloyal”.
As a side note, I have found a couple of web sites that explain how to find out one’s US “citizenship number” and “alien number”:
http://www.ehow.com/how_5669632_out-american-citizenship-number.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_7655277_alien-number.html
I had a brief hope that the latter site would number citizens who have become aliens, but alas it only provides numbers for aliens who have applied for citizenship but have not yet been granted it. Also interesting is that the “American citizenship number” is only for naturalized citizens.