Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 40 Comments

A lovely tax writer, Kelly Philips Erb, has written an article for Forbes magazine suggesting that Edward Snowden would have to pay taxes in to the United States if he were to work in his country of refuge, asking a presumed expert Richard S. Goldstein:

For now, Snowden remains a citizen. And so long as he remains a citizen, he is subject to our laws – and that includes our tax laws. He still has to file and he still has to pay any applicable tax. Goldstein agrees. But, he chuckled, “Good luck trying to collect it.”

She maintains that he would have to renounce his US citizenship if he wants to avoid US taxes and filing requirements.  This entails paying the $450 dollar renunciation fee to the US consulate.

Philips Erb discusses the possibility that the US could strip him of his US citizenship for treason.  Thus, she asks the question of his on-going citizenship status.  First she addresses the issue of his passport:

The revocation of Snowden’s passport by government officials “is separate from revoking citizenship” according to Elena Park, an immigration attorney at Cozen O’Connor. “Passport revocation,” she explains, “deals more with limiting travel and can be initiated by law enforcement.” But merely pulling the right to travel is not the same as stripping citizenship.

It is interesting then that the US can deny a passport can to a citizen in order to restrict their travel.  Several of us who have gone into the Consulate to relinquish have been told that because we have used a US passport since becoming a foreign citizen, we did not actually relinquish our citizenship.  This is not true.  The use or non-use of a passport is not definitive of citizenship because it is about travel not necessarily citizenship.  Thus, the US may deny a citizen a passport, but they may, in some cases, grant a passport to those who are not citizens.  It is all a matter of arguing one’s case effectively.  Be that as it may, it is interesting that the US feels it can restrict the travel anyone it feels, at any time for any reason at all, without due process of law.  I think this is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which restricts the power of the Federal government to deny life, liberty or property without due process.

Next, Philips Erb asks if the US could strip Snowden’s citizenship because of his alleged act of treason:

Snowden, I noted, has been charged with crimes against the government. Could that result in a loss of citizenship? Not without a formal prosecution, posits Goldstein. A simple claim or charge of treason – as opposed to a formal conviction – is not going to be sufficient.

Ok.  So Goldstein maintains that the US government at least cannot strip a person of US citizenship unilaterally without an actual conviction of treason.  Yet let’s look at the appropriate law and see if Snowden would have to renounce, as Philips Erb suggests:

(7) committing any act of treason against, … (b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

Snowden would only have to demonstrate with a preponderance of evidence that he has committed an act of treason.  Sufficient bi-partisan accusations from notable political figures have accused him of treason that he should be able to make such a claim.  The downside would of course be that an attempt to relinquish in this manner would be tantamount to a confession to the alleged crime, but I think he could avoid the $450 renunciation fee.

I wrote a blog post in February, 2011, explaining that those who relinquish citizenship should be able to avoid the new $450 renunciation fee that the State Department had begun to assess to renunciants.  Later, I learned that I was right and I and many other readers of the Isaac Brock Society have been able to avoid the $450 fee by making a claim to have already relinquished their US citizenship.  This is a good route to go if you begrudge even paying one red cent to an evil regime that persecutes its expats around the world.

Finally, if Snowden wishes to follow through on this suggestion, he should indicate his loss of citizenship at a US consulate not an embassy.  Philips Erb suggests that Snowden must enter an embassy to renounce or do so on US soil.  This is actually a factual error in her otherwise only sometimes misleading article.

40 thoughts on “Edward Snowden can relinquish his United States Citizenship and thus avoid $450 renunciation fee”

  1. Keep an eye out for StartPage’s new secure e-mail service called StartMail. It is in the process of being beta tested. I’ve used StartPage for searches ever since it began and find it more than adequate for what I need. I’m seriously thinking about StartMail, despite the monthly fee (not determined yet). The e-mail account I have now was “improved” awhile back and ever since then it has been as slow as molasses.
    https://beta.startmail.com/

  2. Blackberry – BB10 and BBM (video, voice and instant messaging over internet and security as well so far)

  3. I have used hushmail for important information but, still have gmail for twitter and other things. I mean I’ve made it well known how I feel about FATCA all over the place. I have no doubt they know who I am and frankly I don’t care. I can’t do anything about it now and I’m not wrong! I know I’m on the side of right and I didn’t owe them any freaking taxes. Maybe if someone is reading my remarks they can get someone to come forward and help us with this disaster of their making.

  4. Hushmail had at least one instance where they were compelled by Canadian authorities to turn over content and identity if emails which as I heard was then provided to the US- that’s what u heard but check it out yourself. I have now signed up for Cryptoheaven – also in Canada – but the email content is encrypted on their servers using a key you keep on your laptop. They can be compelled to turn over what they have but it will all be strongly encrypted.

  6. Regarding mail services, one weak link which is often overlooked is the connection between the client (i.e. browser web page on a PC) and the mail server. Some use SSL, some don’t. If you want to enforce it (given that the mail server supports SSL in the first place) you can use, for example, Mozilla Thunderbird and configure the incoming/outgoing traffic to always use SSL.

    Also, if you really want to be sure that messages don’t get decrypted somewhere along the way, you’d need to encrypt them yourself (PGP or S/MIME – before they get anywhere near the Internet!) and not rely on the mail provider. Of course, in that case the recipient would need to be able to decrypt them as well. And as someone else mentioned, the header info (address, subject, etc.) is always sent as clear text.

  8. @ Hazy
    WOW! Thanks for that link — fascinating stuff there. George Orwell (i.e. Eric Blair) meant 1984 to be a warning not a blueprint. At least I hope that was his intention.

  11. Good find, nervousinvestor.

    Some congress critters should understand the converse: How many “US Persons” were BORN in the US to Canadian parent(s) and do not consider themselves American? Why would there be a difference? Can a person born in the US to Canadian parent(s) but never actually resided in the US (or for a very short time, similar to Mr. Cruz’ time in Canada) run as a US Presidential candidate?

  12. @Hazy

    Here is another discussion about Laura Poitras and the issues surrounding PGP email… This was from “On The Media” this weekend.

    http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/aug/16/role-model-security-savvy-journos/

    and this…

    http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/aug/16/annoying-technology-journalists-should-be-using/

    Finally, and I should post this over on some New Zealand Thread, but I see that the 3rd reading of their new spying law on Kiwis has passed 61-59. So, they too follow the Yank Lead and continue their sheep like following. Any wonder that they will give in meekly to FATCA?

    http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/18584691/gcsb-bill-becomes-law-on-a-61-59-vote/

  13. @nervousinvestor

    Some of the comments on the article are absolutely ludicrous.

    “JohnofOregon
    Aug. 19, 2013 at 10:09am

    At the time it was legal for a us citizen to be in Canada .

    Also at the time claimed by birthers it was illegal for a. Us citizen to be in Kenya.

    The later makes the person not born “under us jurisdiction” as written in the constitution.

    Most media people do not know what is in the constitution so the get confused.”

    I hope JohnofOregon doesn’t breathe with his mouth. It might be difficult to do so with his foot stuck in it. Since when is it “illegal to be in another country” unless you’ve done something to break their laws? Some people are terminally stupid. I guess he can’t tell the difference between eligibility and legality. Hope he doesn’t breed.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: