The FBI has released its latest report on Active Records in the NICS Index as of 31 July 2013. NICS now contains the records of 22,908 renunciants who have been stripped of the right to purchase firearms in the United States. This is an increase of 298 since last month and 2,254 since December last year; this compares to 1,184 renunciants recorded by the FBI in January–July 2012.
Based on past trends there should be about four or five relinquishers for every six renunciants, implying that somewhere around five hundred people gave up citizenship last month in one way or another, and four thousand so far this year, if the FBI didn’t miss any — though since only registered gun dealers & FBI employees can access the list, it’s rather difficult for ordinary members of the public to verify whether it’s complete or not.
Upcoming data releases
We are still waiting on other data releases to provide a basis for comparison. Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Treasury Department missed the deadline last Tuesday to publish its list of names of renunciants, relinquishers, and ex-green card holders for the second quarter of 2013. From past experience, Treasury will probably publish its delinquent report within the next few days, though the law specifies no punishment for the agency or any of its officers if it fails to do so — meaning we have become accustomed to reports which are not only late but grossly incomplete as well.
The South Korean government has also not yet published its annual Diplomatic Whitebook, which in past years has usually come out in July; this report is significant because it contains statistics on the number of people who gave up U.S. citizenship or green cards to restore South Korean resident registration during the previous year, and in the past these statistics have sharply contradicted the Treasury figures.
Alleged renunciations by “sovereign citizens” not included
Some lawyers and mainstream news sources have begun to notice that the NICS count of renunciants and the number of names in the list that Treasury publishes in the Federal Register do not match. However, less-well informed commentators still try to defend the Treasury’s figures as a complete count of Americans abroad giving up citizenship; one suggestion I’ve seen floating around online, though I don’t recall where, is that the discrepancy can be explained by “sovereign citizens” or other domestic protestors and criminals who allegedly renounce their citizenship while continuing to reside in the Homeland. For two reasons, however, this cannot possibly be accurate. But first, some background.
Renouncing your citizenship on U.S. soil?
Surprisingly, it is theoretically possible to renounce U.S. citizenship while on U.S. soil. For this you can thank the World War II anti-Japanese American hysteria embodied in the Renunciation Act of 1944, which created the paragraph which is today located at 8 USC § 1481(a)(6). This law can only be used during a “state of war”, but three years ago a federal court ruled that the U.S. is indeed in a “state of war” for purposes of the 1944 Act. As a result of the ruling the U.S. government does seem to have created some rudimentary procedures for dealing with domestic renunciations — at least until they can get the 1944 Act repealed.
The 1944 Act requires that domestic renunciations be made “before such officer as may be designated by the Attorney General”; courts generally accept that these days this means U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services. However, USCIS doesn’t publish any procedures for such renunciations on their website. Instead, as a court case last year made clear, if the folks at USCIS receive an inquiry, they inform the would-be renunciant that he or she must attend an in-person interview at a USCIS office. This greatly decreases their workload: other than sovereign citizens, it seems that most would-be domestic renunciants are dual-citizen prisoners hoping that they might receive early release in exchange for deportation — but of course they can’t attend the interview.
Two federal judges have upheld the legality of this requirement for an in-person interview; one of them was Ellen Huvelle, previously noted on the Isaac Brock Society for her ridiculous obiter dictum that the State Department may legally deny issuance of a CLN to an overseas renunciant on the basis of pre-renunciation “affiliation with the United States”.
Legal and practical barriers to inclusion in NICS
As the FBI’s regulations make clear, NICS only includes those renunciants who meet the requirements of 8 USC § 1481(a)(5) or (6). However, alleged renunciations by “sovereign citizens” in the Homeland do not fulfill the requirements of those paragraphs; “sovereign citizens” don’t renounce at a U.S. diplomatic mission overseas nor “in the form prescribed by the Attorney General”. Instead, they generally purport to renounce citizenship by sending letters or affidavits to their state governments or to the media. Ignorant media reports like this one in the Washington Post or this one in the Los Angeles Times may erroneously claim that these people “renounced U.S. citizenship”, but in reality such documents have no legal effect.
Furthermore, even if a “sovereign citizen” or other Homelander were to successfully navigate the maze of bureaucracy and renounce his citizenship in the proper form under the 1944 Act, there’s no mechanism for the FBI to obtain information about these renunciations from USCIS; the State Department is the only agency which provides information to the FBI for that “Renounced U.S. Citizenship” category in NICS. On the other hand, a Homelander who renounced under the 1944 Act might show up in Treasury’s list — if he proceeds to file Form 8854, then Treasury obtains information about him under 26 USC § 6039G(d)(1): “any Federal agency or court which collects (or is required to collect) the statement under subsection (a) shall provide to the Secretary … a copy of any such statement”, and thus he becomes a person “with respect to whom the Secretary receives information under the preceding sentence” and whose name must therefore be published.
In other words, Homelanders who renounce citizenship will not show up in the FBI’s list, but they theoretically might show up in Treasury’s name-and-list — yet another reason why the FBI’s list should be smaller than Treasury’s list if the latter were accurate. Of course, in reality there’s no evidence that the U.S. government has actually accepted a single renunciation under the 1944 Act since the end of World War II, meaning this is a moot point: no “sovereign citizens” meet the legal definition of renunciation, and so they don’t show up either in NICS or in Treasury’s list.
Shadow Raiders Freedom of Information request for qty of CLNs is overdue. Let’s hope it arrives soon.
hi all IBSers. please advise how to make Freedom of Information request on Quantity of CLNs .. and pls advise how to phrase so that one can capture LPR (greencard) renunciants as well!!!! i feel this is the only way we can compel USG to give true stats on # of USPs that want NOTHING MORE TO DO WITH USA.
@crystal london, I made a FOIA request to USCIS and they released the number of people who abandoned green cards. I also made a FOIA request to both the Department of State and to USCIS asking for the number of CLNs, but they haven’t responded yet.
There is also a request pending at Data.gov, since last February, to make public the numbers of CLNs issued:
https://explore.data.gov/nominate/2412
http://www.foia.gov/how-to.html
While corresponding with Shadow Raider I thought to google how to do a freedom of information request. It ought not be rocket science if someone wants to know something. I doubt it works for the new non-citizens.
@ Eric
Thank you for the effort you put into your postings. Always very informative.
I’m curious about your classification of relinquishers. I’ve reread your previous posts and understand the methodology and assumptions used to classify someone as a relinquisher.
However, based on comments by others at IBS and elsewhere and the lack of information in the past about obtaining a CLN based on relinquishment, I do have some skepticism about the ratio of relinquishers to renunciants that you suggest.
Could it be that knowledge of relinquishment never made its way to Canada, but was commonly known in Asia or other parts of the world.
For my part, had I known of relinquishment , I certainly would have applied for a CLN.
as far back as 1976 when I became a Canadian citizen, fully believing and desiring that by doing so, I had lost U.S. citizenship.
@ Hazy,
That’s an interesting thought. Based on my experience, that of people I knew in the 70s, and people from that era who have reported to Brock, it seems that both the Cdn and US govts were routinely telling us that the citizenship loss was automatic. I remember the CIC officer telling me that upon naturalising I would lose my US citizenship and that CIC notified DOS of this.
This is just my gut feeling, but I suspect more USCs relinquished in Canada than elsewhere, as USCs naturalising in Canada were very comfortable with jettisoning their US citizenship as they assimilate quite seamlessly here, and with Canada being quite stable felt no reason to hang on to a extra citizenship “just in case.”
I saw in the 2006 census that approx 115,000 US-born persons identified themselves as “Canadian citizen only,” but it appears that virtually no one heard of a CLN until 2011 (and I’d bet probably a lot (most?) still haven’t).
@Eric,
Thanks from me, too! I’ve been getting a lot of insight from your research and writing.
Yes, Hazy and pacifica777, who among us 1960s and 70s relinquishers thought we should apply for a certificate from the US when we became Canadian citizens? Why would we have thought we needed one?
They were poorly informed even in the early 80’s. When I landed here *NOT a citizen yet* I was repeatedly told by the officer who dealt with my paperwork that day on the U.S. side “You realize you may lose your U.S. citizenship doing this.” Over and over she said that “Are you SURE about this, you may lose your U.S. citizenship.” I was only landing as a PR! I didn’t think she was right but, wasn’t sure. I then just proceeded to live my life here thinking “I hope the U.S. doesn’t think I have lost my citizenship.” This border official was clearly very poorly informed and then was telling others her FALSE information. They were terribly irresponsible giving out bad information for many years. Now we’re the ones to blame for that?
It wasn’t even until after 2001 when we had to get a passport that I was sure I was still a U.S. citizen as I never even thought about it seriously again. Even THEN no one mentioned taxes or told us anything. I would never have got a U.S. passport were we not told we HAD to have it to cross the border. To me it was a formality one had to go through to be able to visit family back there but, I sure didn’t consider it held any other purpose. In fact I didn’t even know I couldn’t cross on my Canadian passport for a long time. They just didn’t care about us here and never said a word about what we were to do and not do.
The U.S. has given out contradictory and in some cases false information to those outside the U.S. for a long time. Now there is false information about how many are renouncing and relinquishing. Can they do anything right and not blame their mistakes on others?
@Atticus: The ignorance of the law by magistrates is violation of English law tradition since the time of Magna Carta: “We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.”
The violation of liberty begins the moment that those who make and enforce the laws no longer understand the principles of justice, freedom and law.
@shadow raider -thanks so much for the link to LPR abandonments (I-407 stats) ….eye-watering and eye-opening!
@Petros
“The violation of liberty begins the moment that those who make and enforce the laws no longer understand the principles of justice, freedom and law.”
True words, eloquently spoken.
On the Treasury list: Could it be that the Treasury list only contains those who have social security numbers?
I know of two individuals who renounced their citizenship at the same consulate within a few months of each other, both “minnows”. Minnow A had a SSN and appeared in the Treasury list, long before filing the final expatriation tax return. Minnow B had no SSN and never did appear in the Treasury list.
As if anyone needs one, but here’s a pretty good summary of why is sucks to be a USPerson living abroad:
http://aaro.org/taxation
@Sally, you could be right that people without SSNs or TINs (Taxpayer Identification Numbers) won’t appear on the list. Who knows what Treasury does with names of people who renounce but have never been US taxpayers? — for example, people born in the US or to US parents but who have lived outside the country since infancy.
On the other hand, I know some people who do have SSNs but who have not appeared on the Treasury Department list. So the criteria for inclusion in the list are still mysterious.
The IRS “Quarterly Publication of Individuals Who have Chosen to Expatriate” for 2Q 2013 is available at this link:
http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2013-19224_PI.pdf
It is to appear in the Federal Register for August 9, 2013.
Based on a quick count, there are about 1,131 names on this list.
Congratulations, Innocente. You just beat me to it. It’s quite a long list this time, but I still know personally three renunciants/relinquishers in the past year whose names have not yet appeared on any of the lists.
@Innocente, I count 1130 names on the list (nit-picking, but for the record). One name on the list, with surname “HENRY” takes up two lines in the report.
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society
I’m there! (Grin)
So with 1,130 from this quarter plus approx. 680 from the 1st that’s a total of 1,810 so far this year and counting. Could this be a record-breaking year for losing your American burden?
@AnonAnon, it’s possible, though a bit odd. I haven’t done my final expatriation tax forms yet either. They’re not due until next year.
Really want an edit button for corrections/additions.
Hi all, I’m not on the list, although as you know, I expatriated on June 11 and have the CLN to show for it. Wonder how many others there are like me? Does it make any difference on our side? Or does it just make the IRS/Justice/State look better? Do they ever catch up on omissions later?
@Rev Susi: Congrats on the CLN! Usually it’ll take at least another list or two for your name to show up in the list. It shouldn’t make any difference for you: the CLN should be the only thing you ever need to prove you’re no longer a US citizen.
“Do they ever catch up on omissions later?” Interesting question, that. Back when the list first got started, some people renounced in Germany (e.g. Shere Hite) but their names didn’t show up until 6 years later in 2001. However, pretty much everyone who gave up citizenship back in those days did eventually show up (I’ve only been able to confirm two pre-2006 cases of people whose names never showed up). These days, in contrast, if your name hasn’t shown up by about four or five lists later, it seems to be a pretty good bet it’ll never show up. Most famous people (actors, politicians, etc.) seem to show up about two lists later than their renunciation/relinquishment.
Pingback: Cooking the Books at the Federal Register: What Has the Executive Branch Been Feeding You? | Banc Centrale de l'astéroide B612