Global Seagulls and the New Reality of Immigration: http://t.co/CW5d8cQ8Dq – 2011 @CAFreeland article suggests shifting def of citizenship
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) November 10, 2013
In view of Isaac Brock Society interest in the Toronto Centre by-election, the invitation to certain Toronto Centre candidates to align themselves with the anti-FATCA movement at the protest, I post this 2011 article by Liberal Candidate Chrystia Freeland.
Who is Chrystia Freeland?
According to a Government of Canada site -as of April 25, 2013:
Chrystia Freeland was born in Peace River, Alberta, in 1968, and attended the United World College of the Adriatic before studying at Harvard University, from which she received a B.A. in History and Literature. She was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to continue her studies at St. Anthony’s College, Oxford University, where she earned a Master’s degree.
Freeland began her career in journalism as a stringer in the Ukraine writing for the Financial Times,The Washington Post and The Economist. She then worked for the Financial Times in London as its deputy editor, editor of its weekend edition, editor of FT.com, UK news editor, Moscow bureau chief and Eastern Europe correspondent.
From 1999 to 2001, Freeland was deputy editor of The Globe and Mail. More recently, she served as the US managing editor of the Financial Times, whose American edition became the FT’s single largest edition under her direction. She was also responsible for the editorial development of US news on FT.com.
Chrystia Freeland is now global editor-at-large, Reuters. She serves as a key figure on Reuters Insider, and as Reuters principal on-air pundit for other external broadcast partners. Freeland is a senior contributor to Reuters.com and plays a leading role in Reuters Summits and in Thomson Reuters global Newsmaker series. She appears frequently on television and radio news programs in the US and globally.
Freeland is the author of Sale of a Century: the inside story of the second Russian revolution (2000), which details Russia’s journey from communism to capitalism. Her profile of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which appeared in the FT Magazine, won a Business Journalist of the Year Award in 2004. Freeland is currently writing her second book on the global super-elite for Penguin Press.
Freeland sits on the advisory board of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto and is a board member of the Women’s Refugee Commission and the Overseas Press Club of America. She has been honoured as a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum.
A Canadian citizen, Freeland currently lives in New York City with her husband and three children.
The fact of residing in New York City suggests that she may be a “U.S. person” who is subject to the rules of U.S. citizenship-based taxation and could be directly affected by FATCA. Should U.S. persons be able to hold “political offices” in Canada. Remember the experience of New Brunswick Premier David Aldward.
In any case, the article is very interesting. Includes:
In the age of the Internet, the jet airplane and the multinational company, the very concepts of immigration, citizenship and even statehood are changing. …
“Citizenship law is struggling to catch up with the new realities of global work,” he told me. “It is still based on the notion of a sedentary population, rather than the nomadic population that many of us have become.”
One of the biggest shifts is in the thinking about what we used to call “brain drain.”
“Increasingly, immigrants who live elsewhere are being viewed as assets,” Mr. Boyle said. “This is a paradigm shift; this is a seismic shift. The notion of brain drain is ridiculed — instead, it is ‘brain circulation.’ The notion is that people can return as tourists, that people can be ambassadors for their home countries, that people can serve as business agents.”
“It is no longer about brain drain, or even brain gain,” Dr. Wang agreed. “It is about global brain circulation.”
One of the countries that uses its diaspora most effectively, Mr. Boyle says, is India. “India is increasingly looking to its diaspora as an asset,” Mr. Boyle said. “Many people argue that India’s technology development would not have happened without the overseas population, particularly in Silicon Valley. So the government has had to rethink its attitudes to its citizens. India has set up a whole government ministry solely to look after the expat Indians.” …
Attitudes toward these global citizens can get more complicated in the countries they live and work in, even as they retain their ties and emotional connections to their original homes. The cherished American idea of the melting pot, after all, is largely about cutting ties with the old country.
But Mr. Boyle said that in the age of globalization, a diaspora closely connected with its country of origin could be as economically valuable for its host country as it is for its native one: “Diasporas are a win-win. Silicon Valley wins, and the home country wins.”
That’s a big shift. But some countries and policy makers are predicting our concept of citizenship will soon be stretched even further — that we will go from Dr. Wang’s seagulls to thinking of countries as virtual, rather than physical, communities. In a presentation to the Canadian government in 2008, Alison Loat argued, “Canadians can no longer be thought of as only those living in the territory above North America’s 49th parallel, but more accurately as a potential network of people spanning the globe.”
It would be interesting to hear her views on citizenship- based taxation and FATCA.
Freeland is big on the wealth redistribution idea. She wrote and spoke quite about about the income gap and inequity of have and haven’ts.
She’s one of JT’s economic wonks, who are supposedly working on some way to save the “middle class” (pretty sure it’s not a time machine) and somehow keep Canadians (or get us back, depending on where you live) to the first world standard of living we’ve become so accustomed to we’d borrow ourselves into massive personal debt to avoid the downgrade.
Her bio makes no mention of her status in the US. Her husband is from the UK. And it doesn’t say how long she lived there but she has a few kids, so even if she isn’t a USP, her children might be.
She appears to be a big Obama lover.
In light of Ms. Freeland’s history with ThomsonReuters, I think that this TR blog entry is a good one to ask for her opinion on the issues it raises, as it mentions Canada and the Charter conflict:
http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/as-automatic-exchange-of-information-proliferates-tensions-surface-on-adequate-taxpayer-protections/
‘As automatic exchange of information proliferates, tensions surface on adequate taxpayer protections’
I posted that on another IBS thread, but it is still an important read if you haven’t already. And, again, it would be great if anyone has access to read and comment on the other newsletter it cites;
“……..Thomson Reuters Checkpoint/RIA Observation: Although not discussed at the panel, another concern raised by the automatic exchange of information is whether certain immutable personal characteristics such as citizenship or place of birth is appropriate criteria for the basis of exchanging information. For example, under many FATCA intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) with U.S., financial institutions are required to review all of their accounts for U.S. indicia, including U.S. citizenship or place of birth. Such discriminatory criteria may violate some countries’ human rights principles. (See e.g. Where is the FATCA IGA with Canada? Model agreement could violate Canada’s Charter of Rights, International Taxes Weekly, 03/19/13)”.
The Liberal Party is very aware of the issue. I got an email after their last live chat with JT assuring me that my question about FATCA was read and that they are taking the matter seriously – for what that is worth.
Canada has a US citizen problem with the USG that, imo, isn’t really about filing taxes with the IRS. The USG has zero idea of where the people it considers USC’s are in Canada and how many there are. FATCA is a great way to get Canada to track down US diaspora with the added bonus of legally spying on financial info of any Canadian only spouses, business partners and employers to boot. Best of all, Canada pays the cost of the “compliance” or head count (depending on your pov).
But the Libs are being very careful in terms of letting others bring up the potentially sticky topics and do the nasty fighting in the public eye. If they can continue to duck FATCA, my guess is they will.
The media is on the side of keeping the public ignorant and until FATCA breaks in a major way so that more Canadians know about it, pols like Freeland can keep side-stepping.
Personally, I have trouble warming up to the idea of her being a player on the Lib team. I can’t put my finger on why either. Too American? The Ted talks? She just seems … packaged and insincere.
Like, yeah, I was doing the American upper class NYC thing and dabbling in American politics via their endless talk show commentary and selling my books that are largely American economy-centric. But then I got the chance to be an MP – how cool is that? Quite the upwardly mobile opportunity. So I decided to come home.
Probably being too hard on her.
I agree with you YogaGirl, re; “But the Libs are being very careful in terms of letting others bring up the potentially sticky topics and do the nasty fighting in the public eye. If they can continue to duck FATCA, my guess is they will.”
I think that as a party, (with some exceptions for individual MPs) overall that is their strategy – look at NAFTA, GST and other programs like the Mike Harris cuts in Ontario to education, overall funding formula, and cuts to social programs. The Liberals as a party didn’t reverse things that they said they strongly opposed. They just deflect responsibility by saying that it was the Conservatives put them into place. They then just maintain them.
@Yoga Girl.
you wrote:”Personally, I have trouble warming up to the idea of her being a player on the Lib team. I can’t put my finger on why either. Too American? The Ted talks? She just seems … packaged and insincere.”
As a fraud analyst, I used my gut feeling, intuition and also checking facts and data trails…I share your feeling of warming up to her….You described what I felt when reading her bio.
No you are not too hard on her..
Sorry to go off topic, but it appear Michael Flatley may have given up his US citizenship. If this is true, the US has lost another high worth individual. His fortune is estimated to be $500M. The article claims that he’s done because he’s getting a British Passport.
We all know the real reason is most likely FATCA.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Michael-Flatley-star-of-Lord-of-the-Dance-drops-US-citizenship-for-British-passport-208542261.html
Here’s another link concerning Michael Flatley –
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2327313/RICHARD-KAY-Its-great-British-says-Flatley.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Last night I watched the Rogers TV Toronto Centre debate.
http://www.rogerstv.com/page.aspx?lid=12&rid=16&sid=6035
Note the repeats – you can watch it too.
A couple of interesting things:
1. At the end Chrystia Freeland says (confirming the information in the post) that she has lived in the United States for the last 6 years – strongly suggesting that she has or had a U.S. Green Card.
2. She talked about the fact that one of her children was born in Toronto Centre. She said nothing about the others – strongly suggesting the possibility of one or more of them having been born in the U.S.
So, what does all this mean? It is very possible that she and at least one of her children are U.S. persons. What does this mean? Well (other than the horrible inconvenience for the child) she – Chrystia Freeland is running for public office in Canada.
Given what we know about FATCA, FBAR and all the requirements on U.S. persons, one needs to ask the question:
Should a “U.S. person” be permitted to be a member of Parliament? As the post notes – there is what I would call the David Alward problem. Can we have as a member of the Parliament of Canada a person who is required to turn Canadian financial information over to the U.S.?
Again there are two questions:
1. The general question – should a U.S. person be elected to public office in Canada?
2. The specific question – Chrystia Freeland needs to answer:
“Are you or were you ever a U.S. person?”
(Sounds like something out of the 50s, but that what’s the U.S. is today.)
@USCitizenAbroad, I strongly believe that there will be exceptions for these types of persons.
Does anyone really believe that the UK is going to send info to the IRS about the city of London bank accounts, since the mayor Boris Johnson is American (unless he formerly renounced since his Mexico trip incident)? And I am sure that applies to some politicians around the world.
But you’re right. Your question is a very valid one.
@USCitizenAbroad
These seem to me to be questions about Chrystia Freeland’s private life. Voters can, of course, ask a candidate any question they want but the candidate isn’t required to answer personal questions and I hope she doesn’t answer intrusive questions of this nature.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it is my understanding that a Member of Parliament, especially in a third party (the Liberals’ current status), doesn’t exactly have their hands on the nation’s purse strings. Her tax affairs are therefore an entirely private matter.
The only concern could be that if she chooses to defy US tax law (her right given that she is now in Canada), travel to the US might be difficult for her. So if an MP needs to travel to the US as part of their job, she might not be able to do so, making it harder for her to do her job. That’s the only risk here that I see and it is up to the voters to decide how big a risk that is.
Now, if the Liberals were to be returned to government in 2015, and she is re-elected as an MP–should she be allowed to become Finance Minister? That might be a trickier question but it is a hypothetical question which (possibly) may come up in the future. Right now I see no serious problem.
@Chris
What about the Queen for that matter? Wasn’t her late aunt (Wallis) a US person?
@USCitizenAbroad
I guess to put it more plainly–there seem to be enough politicians in Canada actively disobeying Canadian law that I don’t see why Canada needs to concern itself with a potential politician potentially defying U.S. law.
@Dash1729,
How would the Queen be affected by this? Wallis was married to her father’s brother, but I don’t see how that would transmit US status.
@pacifica777
I wasn’t being serious. The Queen isn’t affected. But neither is Chrystia Freeland. At most Freeland would have a green card–she wouldn’t be a naturalized US citizen. You can only keep your green card for a limited time while outside the US. By the time she would have any real power–after the 2015 election and assuming the Liberals stage a comeback–her US personhood will be well and truly behind her.
Oh, thanks. I was really puzzled — it’s been a long day, I guess 🙂
@pacifica777
Also, it is by no means certain that Freeland would even have a green card. People who are in the US for only six years often don’t have green cards–especially if they switch employers often as Freeland has done. Her husband isn’t American so she wouldn’t have gotten a green card through marriage.
@Dash 1729
Isn’t the issue more one of whether the Canadian politician obeys the law?
@Tricia
First, there’s no evidence that I’m aware of that Freeland intends to violate any law–Canadian or US. So concerns about her candidacy remain a red herring as far as I can see.
However, the concern should be whether a Canadian politician obeys CANADIAN law. I would go even further than to say that a Canadian politician might be allowed to violate a foreign law. I would say that if it will somehow serve the interests of Canada for that politician to violate foreign law, it is their DUTY to do so.
Moreover, I don’t see how you can possibly hope to defeat something like FATCA if you won’t support a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil in defying US law if necessary. Sometimes it seems to me that verbally Canadians are acting like US doesn’t apply but when it comes right down to it they don’t feel they can ethically defy US law. As long as Canadians act like that I assure you that bullying laws of this kind will continue.
Thought experiment: suppose some Middle Eastern country passed some law that bikinis or pretty much anything more revealing than a burka are inappropriate clothing for women anywhere in the world to wear. Such a law might cause Western women to be cautious about travelling to that country but such a law would certainly be completely ignored outside of that country. It shouldn’t be any different with FATCA. An unjust US law should be completely ignored outside the US. No one should feel any ethical problem whatsoever about ignoring a country’s unjust laws when they haven’t even set foot in that country.
@Dash
I meant obeying US law. Reporting signing authority on CDN accounts at that level. I don’t see any indication anyone intends to disregard the US’s overreach.
@Tricia
I’m not sure what “level” you are referring to. A Member of Parliament isn’t in charge of any monies except their own personal money. They don’t have signing authority on the government’s purse strings.
Now, that may change in a couple of years if the Liberals win election in 2015 and she is appointed Finance Minister or, perhaps, to some other cabinet role. But I expect she will have cut her ties with the US long before then. As such, her abiding by US law until then seems an entirely private matter for her.
Now–I’m not recommending that anyone vote either for or against her. That is everyone’s own decision and it will be based on many factors. I’m just not seeing how her alleged “US personhood” is a significant factor for her prospective election.
@Dash1729
I agree with you that Ms. Freeland’s tax status and her status as a potential U.S. person are private matters. But, the fact that they are private matters is exactly why they need to be addressed. There are many “private matters” that can affect one’s performance in public life.
It’s reasonable and normal for people who enter public life need to disclose certain things that are otherwise “private matters”. This is why for example, it’s normal for certain financial affiliations, memberships, etc. are disclosed. It’s why judges should be subjected to public hearings, etc.
When people seek elected office, they are warranting that they will exercise their judgment and loyalty for the benefit of those they represent. People have a right to now if their representatives have divided loyalties or obligations to foreign governments. They need to know whether there are any people or organizations that can exercise influence over them. Furthermore, voters have a right to know if their elected representatives have any legal obligations to foreign governments and exactly what those obligations are.
In this case, U.S. personhood, means that one has obligations to the Government of the United States. These reporting obligations include reporting information about Canadian citizens who are NOT U.S. persons.
Therefore, she needs to tell the voters of Toronto Centre:
1. Whether she has any obligations to the U.S. government; and
2. If so, what those obligations are.
The fact that these obligations are a “private matter” is precisely why the existence of these obligations needs to to be disclosed.
As a general principle any U.S. person living in Canada has legal reporting obligations to the U.S. If such an obligation exists, this should be disclosed.
Once these disclosures have been made and the people of Toronto Centre understand their implications, I suppose they can vote as they see fit.
@USCitizenAbroad
Well, it seems to me that you and Tricia have a very different philosophy about this. It seems that you are advocating the very discrimination against US persons that you claim to vehemently oppose.
You claim in protests that US law has no validity in Canada but you seem to be advocating that Canadians act as though US law does matter on Canadian soil. As long as the USG sees that it can influence the behavior of Canadians on Canadian soil in this manner, this type of bullying law will continue.
Where we seem to fundamentally disagree is in the suggestion that she has obligations to the US government. My philosophy is that, by definition, as a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil no such obligations can exist because US law has no applicability on Canadian soil.
Now an argument could be made that a politician–unlike, perhaps, other jobs–should not have dual citizenship because of the possibility for divided loyalties. Canada has no such law although Canada’s former governor general, Michaelle Jean, did renounce her French citizenship–the role being mostly but perhaps not always ceremonial. Australia does require that its politicians renounce all dual citizenships as long as the other country allows one to renounce. Again, Canada has no such law but perhaps such a law would be reasonable.
If you started basing eligibility to serve in Canadian politics on the vague concept of “US personhood”, don’t you see that that would give the USG great and undue influence on Canadian affairs? If some Canadian politician started advocating views that the USG disliked, all the USG would need to do is define that person as a “US person” and they could end that person’s Canadian political career.
In any event, dual citizenship concerns are not relevant here–even if Canada had such a law–as Freeland is not a dual citizen. She is an alien–a foreigner–on US soil. Period.
Also, I think you may misunderstand the nature of what a green card is. There is no loyalty to the USA created by having a green card. It is a 10 year work visa–nothing more, nothing less–that can be renewed but that can also be cancelled by either side without notice. A green card holder is 100% a foreigner on US soil and 100% a citizen of the other country. The moment a green card holder establishes residence back in Canada, the green card is null and void. There IS the exit tax provision for long term green card holders but she didn’t live in the US for long enough for that to kick in.
Simply put–there is nothing here to be disclosed beyond the fact that she lived and worked in the US for a few years, and she’s already disclosed that. The media may refer to politicians such as Freeland and Ignatieff previously as “just visiting” Canada but such a status exists only in the media–it has no meaning in Canadian or US law. From the point of view of both Canadian (relevant) and US (not relevant) law she is a Canadian citizen living in Canada–period.
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society
Dash1729, my reservations about Freeland are more to do with the fact that her “paper trail” seems to suggest that she is very American in her economic policy views and the USG, as we know, are very much about spying on people’s personal finances and throwing good money after bad on failed or failing social programs meant to prop up their economy so they can avoid fixing it.
As far as I can tell right now, the Liberals stance on FATCA is that the USG has the right to enforce their reporting and tax laws on those they deem USP’s regardless of local law. As someone who might be subject to FATCA, herself or her children, it would be helpful to know where she stands personally. I say that last bit realizing that in Canada, party members are expected to tow party line no matter what.
And yeah, she is Canadian, but as I mentioned, her ideals are very American in terms of the economy and if the Libs should gain ground in 2015, she will be key in their economic policy.
@YogaGirl
I guess for me I’m having a REALLY difficult time figuring out where Chrystia Freeland stands on these issues. The views expressed in the article (on immigration) which was quoted starting this thread seem to me almost diametrically opposed to the views she expressed in her book, Plutocrats. In the book, she seems quite critical of the ultra-rich Plutocrats who seem to be running the show whereas in the article she seems to be gushing about the opportunities that immigration creates in the new global economy.
My own take would be that immigration is encouraged by the rich plutocrats in certain–and only certain–circumstances because it serves their interests. It is the rich plutocrats who benefit from immigration–not the poor, middle class, or even upper middle class immigrants–in general.
Having been through the immigration process myself (Canada to the USA), I can definitely assure anyone including Ms. Freeland that immigration is not universally of benefit to the immigrant. It can put one, for many years, at the mercy of the government of a country where one has no democratic voice–as such, I see immigration as a huge step backwards for democracy. Immigration forces people to give up their democratic rights for years as they work their way through the immigration process.
And, of course, if you go through the immigration process in the other direction, from the USA to Canada or anywhere else, you find yourself at the mercy of a country which applies its tax laws in a far harsher way to its expatriates than to its residents.
Ms. Freeland gushes, in the immigration article, about the opportunities created by immigration between the USA and China while quietly overlooking the fact that it is far, far from a symmetric relationship. According to Wikipedia 14.3% of the US population is foreign born whereas only 0.1% of the Chinese population is foreign born. Clearly immigration is being encouraged in one direction but not the other. Of course, CBT is one–but not the only–means by which immigration from the US to other countries is being discouraged. And–I would suggest–it is the plutocrats who have made the determination that immigration should be encouraged between certain pairs of countries, in certain occupations, and in certain directions–and not in other circumstances. And this is done for the benefit of the plutocrats, not the immigrants–even though there may be times when there are some benefits for individual immigrants.
Back to Ms. Freeland–my difficulty remains in reconciling what seem to be very different views expressed in the quoted article versus in her book.