UPDATE: Well, crap. I think Pacifica just blew this post out of the water with her comment below.
In the series The Vikings, Rollo becomes a Christian (see below). Afterwards, his Viking companion Floki reproves his abandonment of the gods of the Vikings. Rollo protests that it was just a joke and he wasn’t serious. So is Rollo a Christian or not? Floki says that the Viking gods didn’t think it was much of joke. The attitude of Floki harkens to an ancient view that oaths made before men and gods are serious business, and one cannot enter into them casually or lightheartedly. For him, this baptism is no joke but a formal and solemn oath, a clear change of allegience.
US immigration law states the following:
A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years;
Now it is unlikely that a person claiming the singing of “O Canada” as an expatriating act will easily persuade a US State Department official. However, I would argue that it is, that a person could indeed claim the singing of “O Canada” as an expatriating. Many border babies have been trapped in a situation in which they have not had to swear an oath to the Queen of Canada because they either were born Canadian citizens or they became naturalized citizens before the age of 18. Yet it is unlikely that any Canadian citizen has never had an occasion to sing “O Canada”.
The singing of “O Canada” is a formal affirmation of allegiance for the following reasons:
(1) It is the officially recognized National Anthem of Canada. Upon swearing my oath to the Queen, we immediately sang “O Canada” in both French and English. When it is sung, it often serves to make an event more solemn and formal, e.g., a hockey match.
(2) People sing it in front of witnesses. Likely, other people saw me actually singing “O Canada” at the Georgetown Rotary Club on Saturday evening.
(3) Body posture is important. While we don’t put our hands on our hearts here in Canada when we sing, we do take off our hats (gents) and turn towards a Canadian flag if one is present.
(4) The words of the song presuppose sole allegiance to Canada. True Patriot love indicates something which is undivided with the love of another country, including the United States. We sing that we will defend Canada, and this means against any invader, even if it is the United States. This is our duty as Canadians, and we should take it as seriously as did General Isaac Brock who sacrificed his own life defending Canada. This is a potentially expatriating act in and of itself.
(5) It is common to sing “O Canada” as a regular part of school curriculum in Canada, to inculcate a love of country in Canadian youth. This means that it is a formal aspect of Canadian nationalism and thus teaches the exclusivity of Canada’s role as protector.
(6) “O Canada” is in lyric and verse, and the intention of this poetical form is to aid memorization and to stress its solemnity in formal situations.
(7) “O Canada” invokes God. Thus, it follows a very ancient form of an oath, which calls on a god or gods to help or to act as a witness. Webster’s dictionary, for example, states that an oath is “a solemn usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says … “
Perhaps we overlooked the singing of “O Canada” as a formal declaration of allegience because it is so common. It is the 400 lb gorilla in the room. But just because it is such a common occurrence in Canada does not mean it is not a formal declaration of allegiance. It is indeed a formal oath before God of exclusive allegiance to Canada, and I mean it every time I sing it, even if Stephen Harper doesn’t.
Now, the only other really important aspect of this formal affirmation of allegience is whether the person sings it with the intention of relinquishing US citizenship. Look in your heart and ask yourself if you ever sang “O Canada” and really meant it. Or did you sing it like Rollo, with no intention of being an exclusive defender of Canada? If you did mean it, rejoice! For you are not a US citizen–at least under the correct spirit of the meaning of US law.
@petros
Can you provide a ‘citation’ for:
A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years;
Thanks for all you do…
H
8 U.S.C. 1481, Section 349(a).
@ Hieronymous,
And some more information in the Department of State Manual on s. 349(a)(2). “Taking Oath of Allegiance to a Foreign State,” FAM 1252, describes the conditions of such oath.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/120544.pdf
I dunno. I sing the Marseillaise in the shower now and then, but as far as I’m aware if hasn’t made me French.
Okay, so for people who did that, but then voted in the US or renewed their passport unwittingly, can re-singing the anthem in another context also be an act of renunciation?
Thanks, Pacifica. So much more my theory having any validity in US law. However, folks can still rejoice, as they are by right not Americans in any case, unless they want to be. Changing citizenship is a choice belonging to the person not to the state.
@Pacifica, I think however that my post, which is not valid by US law, however, still has an important point: we sing O Canada to express formal allegiance to Canada, and it is improper to throw true Canadians under the bus in the manner of the Harper government. This much remains.
@ Petros, Yes, I was definitely thinking “inside the box.” Which is useful when applying for a CLN. But I do believe the person controls the termination of their US citizenship, and once they intentionally perform a relinquishing act, they are no longer a US citizen. As I see it, FWIW, even without a CLN the person is not a US citizen — worth rejoicing about — but a CLN provides them with expedient and easily-recognised proof of it.
Petros, re your 2:03 comment. I agree, it’s completely improper. This government is acting like an extension of the US government — I see it like a war, not a traditional war, but the US taking over Canada (and the world) through the internet (eg data transfer not easily possible pre-internet), and our government put up no resistance to the invaders and acquiescing in having Washington DC make laws for Canada.
So both of these citations hang on the notion of ‘voluntary… with the intention of relinquishing US nationality’.
And it seems that all one can do after the fact (after becoming a Canadian citizen) is to stumble around saying: I’ve sworn allegiance to a foreign sovereign; I’ve lived as a citizen of Canada for xx years, never lived or worked in the US again, blah, blah… You would think that that would constitute voluntary intent, no?
US: “Not so fast pal… How do we know your intent at the time?”
H: “Um… Ask me?”
US: “Sorry, not good enough”
H: “Hooped — don’t shoot”
@ Hieronymous,
I recall you wrote in another comment that you became a Canadian citizen 40 years ago. That’s a relinqushing act under s. 349(a)(1)., so you could get a CLN based on that act. If you to want to do that, your intent at the time of your relinquishing act would be obvious from your life after that date, as would be illustrated in your answers to the DS-4079 questionnaire and then you would get a CLN backdated to the date of your relinquishing act.
@ pacifica777
Thank you for your response. I’m afraid that I couldn’t file for a CLN as like many others, I have not, and will not, submit to the FBAR nonsense. To do so, would be to drink the Kool-Aid and admit that the US crazies have some legal jurisdiction over us.
I will carry a copy of ‘8 USC 1481, Sec 349a’ with my Canadian passport when next I cross the border. If asked, I am a citizen of Canada. Period.
If, in the end I can no longer cross the border, then so be it. I will be content with my lot. The Harperites will eventually be written into dustbin of history, and good sense will again prevail. That is something we DO have control over.
I will join whatever Charter challenge emerges, for I believe as you do, that we are in a war-like battle for our rights and dignity. I will vote in such a way as to maximize our chances to have our privacy rights restored. I will agitate in every way for the notion that all Canadian citizens deserve to be protected by the Charter equally regardless of national origin.
More than that, I cannot do.
H
@hironymus, No need to file FBARs. Just go get your back dated CLN. It is your get out of jail free card, as it were. No one needs to file FBARs to expatriate. Never has been the case. In fact, expatriation and tax expatriation are separate events. One can expatriate, obtain the CLN without tax expatriation. One may also tax expatriate without filing FBARs. But you, you don’t have to do anything except get the CLN back dated 50 years ago.
@ Petros
So, I just show up at the US consolate with appropriate ID, my Canadian citizenship documents, my Canadian passport and tell ’em I need a CLN, and see where that takes me?
H
Pacifica said:
“I see it like a war, not a traditional war, but the US taking over Canada (and the world) through the internet (eg data transfer not easily possible pre-internet), and our government put up no resistance to the invaders and acquiescing in having Washington DC make laws for Canada”.
We should remember that “the Internet” was borne out of US military research and therefore was likely ALWAYS thought of in terms of its surveillance and data-mining potential and, ultimately, as an enabler of both domestic and extraterritorial coercion and control. As they say, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and now it’s payback time. In a classic bait-and-switch, the promise of an open and free Internet is giving way to the reality of a worldwide virtual Panopticon unimaginable even by George Orwell himself.
Oaths are Sacred.
I only make them before my Gods, not before bits of colored cloth on high, or the fictions known as nations, governments or Royal Blood.
History shows full well how temporary and fictional each of these fictions truly are.
The Boot-Strap Expat
http://thebootstrapexpat.com/
Oh please, you’re all becoming nuttier and nuttier with each passing month re the FACTA controversy. This kind of post just makes your cause look ridiculous with increasingly irrational and ill-thought out ‘proof’ and ‘cases’ to justify some dual American-Canadians lack of planning and self responsibility for their finances.
Does FACTA have negative implications in some key ways for Canadians and former residents/citizens of the USA/dual citizens of both countries? Of course. But that doesn’t mean some of the folks complaining using such dumb ‘examples’ as this made mistakes and didn’t bother to find out about the possible or actual consequences of their US ties.
But please spare us such childish arguments as singing the national anthem of another country somehow means you have renounced your own. What a wonderfully simple world it would be if this kind of thing had one tiny piece of truth to it. But all it does is show how much you’re reaching for anything to get out of a situation that many of you should have dealt with a long time ago or at least thought of.
If you really want to, tell the IRS about this novel way to escape your US ties. They need a good laugh in between finding people who have refused to follow US laws for some time and are now panicking as it comes to bite them.
@You’reReaching, this might help you comprehend better. See the definition of ‘metaphor’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
And, re;
“Oh please, you’re all becoming nuttier and nuttier with each passing month re the FACTA controversy. This kind of post just makes your cause look ridiculous with increasingly irrational and ill-thought out ‘proof’ and ‘cases’ to justify some dual American-Canadians lack of planning and self responsibility for their finances….”…
I wonder then that you’ve been following for “months”.
I’m guessing you’re a US resident homelander. I would have thought that there were more pressing instances of US citizens not paying up right there in your neighborhood – among the US officials appointed to apply US tax laws, and those representative tasked with making them:
For example;
You’ve got a Commerce Secretary who keeps her ‘unique’ family trust invested the Caymans http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-21/pritzker-s-54-million-family-trust-fee-seen-as-unique.html , a multimillionaire head of the IRS http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/obama-irs-nominee-john-koskinen-net-worth-96471.html , and a Treasury Secretary who chose to have an Ugland House account in the Caymans http://billmoyers.com/2013/03/08/jack-lew-citigroup-and-the-ugland-truth/ . Not to mention US Representatives with a spouse and in-laws involved in offshore gambling and IRS issues http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/06/28/kin-says-tierney-threw-wife-under-the-bus/ http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/07/22/gambling_charges_against_rep_john_tierneys_family_threaten_his_political_future/ Tierney isn’t the only US representative with a family member whose knowledge of US tax laws was far greater than ours. How about Robert Creamer – the husband of U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky – who “…….oversaw a check-kiting scheme so elaborate that his employees followed a written manual — complete with detailed instructions on when and where to float checks totaling millions of dollars…” http://archive.is/W7iCn
Then there is Charles Rangel:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704700204575642934114599478
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/05/IRS-Chief-Campaigned-With-Tax-Cheat-Rangel
And the White House aides http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/congress-taxes-irs.html
In light of your problems closer to home you’re really quick to criticize those living entirely – and often BORN or naturalized OUTSIDE the US, who’ve ALREADY paid a FULL SET of TAXES where we actually live:
“…made mistakes and didn’t bother to find out about the possible or actual consequences of their US ties.”
“…They need a good laugh in between finding people who have refused to follow US laws for some time and are now panicking as it comes to bite them…”
But then, if you were at all fair minded you’d also have made a point of noting that the last Secretary of the US Treasury – “Give Me a Break ’cause I didn’t Know Better and I’ll pay it back now you’ve made Me Head of the Treasury” – Timothy Geithner was a US RESIDENT with a background and education in banking (“…previously the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 2003 to 2009… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner) and finance, yet he apparently did not know what his proper US tax obligations were. “… During his confirmation, it was disclosed that Geithner had not paid $35,000 in Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes from 2001 through 2004 while working for the International Monetary Fund.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner ) :
“Timothy Geithner didn’t pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for several years while he worked for the International Monetary Fund”……….
“…….In 2006, the IRS audited Mr. Geithner’s 2003 and 2004 taxes and concluded he owed taxes and interest totaling $17,230, according to documents released by the Senate Finance Committee. The IRS waived the related penalties.
During the vetting of Mr. Geithner late last year, the Obama transition team discovered the nominee had failed to pay the same taxes for 2001 and 2002. “Upon learning of this error on Nov. 21, 2008, Mr. Geithner immediately submitted payment for tax that would have been due in those years, plus interest,” a transition aide said. The sum totaled $25,970.
The Obama team said Mr. Geithner’s taxes have been paid in full, and that he didn’t intend to avoid payment, but made a mistake common for employees of international institutions. That characterization was contested by Senate Finance Republicans, who produced IMF documents showing that employees are repeatedly told they are responsible for paying their payroll taxes.
As to why Mr. Geithner didn’t pay all his back taxes after the 2006 audit, an Obama aide said the nominee was advised by his accountant he had no further liability. Senate Finance aides said they were concerned either Mr. Geithner or his accountant used the IRS’s statute of limitations to avoid further back-tax payments at the time of the audit…”
That is in addition to:
“…. Mr. Geithner used his child’s time at overnight camps in 2001, 2004 and 2005 to calculate dependent-care tax deductions. Sleepaway camps don’t qualify.”
He was apparently in good company because: “.President Bill Clinton’s first and second choices for attorney general both withdrew amid allegations they failed to pay taxes for household help.”
from: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123187503629378119
By Jonathan Weisman Updated Jan. 14, 2009
Note that Geithner didn’t apologize and pay up until after he was audited by the IRS for a period covering several years and tens of thousands of dollars worth of taxes. He didn’t fess up or pay up for the earliest years until nominated for the Secretary of the Treasury position.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/21/obama-treasury-secretary-geithner-taxes
So, President Obama can make Geithner a Treasury Secretary, he can be confirmed for the post by both parties, and receive NO penalties from the IRS, for tens of thousands of US taxes not paid over a period of years, but you’re taking to task children and others born or naturalized abroad, whose only connection to the US is a US parent, or a long ago US birthplace?
Maybe those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
And we’d like “A Geithner” pass from the IRS too.
Good work badger! As always.
@You’reReaching,
As a first time commenter on this blog, I’m going to cut you some slack. Your rude remarks toward me are a sign that you are from the plantation. I will give you some time to get a acquainted with our posts on the side bar, most of which if refuted are done so by one of us. But few offers of actually any kind of rational or even legal refutation have ever been offered to them.
I don’t know if you noticed, but I put a disclaimer at the top of this pointing to Pacifica’s comment. Perhaps you did and that is why you felt safe to ridicule me, because I had already accepted that this post was not going to work and even before that pointed out that it was unlikely in the first draft. But I will point out that Pacifica has done the work for you and she did it with no malice because she is a noble Canadian. My immediate retraction when confronted with contrary evidence should shows that we are not nut cases as you suggest. We readily back off of proposals if they turn out to be wrong. This website has helped countless people to relinquish their US citizenship. So comments like yours are actually condescending, mocking and not very mature. We have done quite well for people who have to come to this subject only three years ago as complete novices with a huge learning curve. And we have to do this because the Americans who get paid to know, the cross-border lawyers, the US border guards, and even the US consular officials, actually are themselves incompetent.
When you say, “Spare us”, who are you referring to? I must assume that you are an espèce d’Americain.
Just remember this point if you take nothing else away from your visit to Isaac Brock: Citizenship based taxation is an abuse of human rights and the United States is a serial human rights abuser. You seem also to be one of these abusers by the paternalistic tone of your comment.
@Badger, not in the US. More likely, a plantation supervisor working in an Embassy or Consulate. Or perhaps a cross border specialist who benefits from putting people into OVDP.
An AssHat in any case
@You’reReaching,
I am so glad you waited until after the full moon to comment here at Brock. Then you really would have seen nutty! Erin really did fall into a snake pit, but you, but you are a snake.
Anyway, just curious how you think I should have known that USA considers me a taxpayer since I have lived only in Canada since I was one year old, and both my parents (as well as their grandparents) are Canadian born and raised. You do realize that USA is one of only two countries in the world that taxes people who do not live within its borders and do not earn within its borders, just because they happened to have been born there?
Since USA does not follow the international norm of residence based taxation, and did not give my Canadian parents a manual when I was born there, or when we left back home for Canada, just how was I to know that this was something I “should have dealt with a long time ago or at least thought of”.
I mean I know USA is special and all, but I always heard USA was the land of the free, not the land of the slaves, so had no reason to suspect USA had the same barbaric citizenship based taxation laws as only one other country – the dictatorship called Eritrea.
@You’reReaching,
Maybe if you were the rabbit caught in the hole through no fault of your own, you’d be ‘reaching’ to find a way out too. This is a blog where people are free to discuss their thoughts, opinions, rants, and ideas. No one ever said that every post, or every suggestion was 100% bang on. Petros had a thought, he likely knew it was a bit of a stretch, and very quickly, Pacifica caught that. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Regardless, Petros is not an ‘American’, and has no reason to make up excuses for not filing.
Didn’t bother to find out consequences of US ties?!?
When I became a Canadian citizen in 1973, the US Consulate told me clearly, firmly and directly I was “permanently and irrevocably” relinquishing US citizenship. They insisted there was no turning back. They said I would change my mind because I was young (22).
As bizarre as it may seem to you, I believed them. I had no reason to think otherwise. For 41 years, I have lived my life as a Canadian only. Not once have a changed my mind or even thought about changing my mind.
It may also seem bizarre to you, but I am not in the habit of following the Supreme Court decisions and tax laws of a foreign country that I moved away from at the age of 18 in 1969 after that country told me I was losing that citizenship forever.
I have been too busy leading an honest productive, financially responsible life in Canada where I lived, worked, own a home, saved, invested, retired and paid taxes.
Silly me. It was “ridiculous” for me to believe what the US Consulate told me.
I have no idea why the US Consulate did not issue me a CLN 41 years ago. I would suggest they are the ones who were “irresponsible”–not me.
For obvious reasons, I don’t trust US Consulates. I will not go near one.
Fortunately, my Canadian citizenship oath contains a statement renouncing any other citizenship. A copy is in my safety deposit box. Another copy is with my accountant and one is with my lawyer.
I hardly call that “irresponsible.”