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.
Isn’t it interesting that someone has been reading this message board for apparently months and their first post here is to lash out at us? This person is clearly frustrated. I think we must be doing something right if someone from the other side has decided to engage us with so much anger …
We are a team of thousands who have been dealing with this made in the USA nightmare for years, he/she is a team of one. Or maybe they are a team of many cowards who elected one of them to post here.
I think just the fact that this person decided to post all of a sudden should be seen as a sign of victory for us. The US system of taxation is wrong, it has no basis in justice and will eventually be changed just like countries like the UK and Japan changed their tax systems to be rational.
This upstart message board has had almost 6.7 million page views. Must be alot of nutty people out there : )
Thanks for your kind words, Petros. Yes, absolutely no malice intended.
I posted the DoS manual excerpt in response to a question in the comment stream about INA s.349(2), because if someone is thinking they may have relinquished under that sub-article, it’s very useful to know the context in which DoS is interpreting s. 349(2) – no matter how formal the oath, if the oath didn’t change their legal status with the country, they’re going to have a problem with criteria 4.
I didn’t post the DoS excerpt as a response to the original post at all. I thought, and think, that the original post brings up some valid points worth discussion. The post didn’t come across to me at all as saying that singing the national anthem would result in a CLN – it came across to me as food-for-thought.
@Pacifica, charitable interpretation. Thanks.
Note that the State Department’s manner of interpreting the formal affirmation language has the effect of trapping people in US citizenship rather than allowing them the benefit of the doubt. I wonder if this could be challenged in court, in which case, my post becomes less nutty. Even I was not quite sure what it was you were quoting in your comment: was it actually a DOS manual? If so, it only has the effect of interpreting the law for the State Department’s purposes and is not itself law, which becomes a matter for the courts to decide or Congress to clarify.
@You’reReaching
re”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.”
i have in no way shape or from refused to file anything since i left the good old homeland in 1989. I DID NOT KNOW i was susposed to file. when i filed my last tax return i used my canadian mailing address….nothing back from the irs suggesting i should continue to file, upon many many border crossings nothing was ever said to me about filing taxes, when in school in the homeland nothing was ever taught to me about citizen based taxes and how the us was only one of 2 countries that practiced that misguided taxation program.
it is a bit of an asumption on your part that we all who did not file anything did so because we refused to do so. i believe in most cases it was a situation of not knowing we were susposed to and then when we did we viewed it with contempt based on stories we were hearing from people who got caught up in the various programs and had it cost them huge sums of money.
i am in no way shape or form panicking about this thing called fatca. i am choosing to draw a line in the sand and say come and get me if you really want me. i am not going to make it easy on you by showing up at the border or giving you any indication as to who or where i am.
i am going to keep living my life like i have always have and if america is really that interested in me well bring it on then 🙂
Well, I never thought your post was nutty. I thought it brought up some good food-for-thought. And you even said in it “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.” So, I read it as thought-provoking not as a how-to. But I felt that the DoS manual excerpt was relevant to Hieronymous’ question about s. 349 (2) as it’s happened already that a formal (completely formal) oath was not accepted under that sub. So, better to be aware of point 4 early on than be surprised at the consulate. Although one might have a good argument to make against it, if it ends up having to be made through the courts, it could be a long haul.
@pacifica, yes, the long haul, but may be someone has deep pockets. Actually, “nutty” was “You’re reaching”‘s word, not yours, and I was using it as an attempt at humor and self-deprecation.
Court cases can be overturned, even at the level of SCOTUS, but it is a long shot. If you were referring only to a manual,which bases its procedure on court decision, then the singing of “O Canada” in the original intention of the authors of the law, would indeed be an potentially expatriating act. I therefore stand by my post. For what it is worth. The title of the post has validity for the reasons I have given. You’reReaching was again taking the standard paternalistic approach of belittling a position of someone considered inferior. But I’ll tell you what: I affirm my original oath of Canadian citizenship every time I sing “O Canada” and my affirmation is truly exclusive of the USA, which has become my enemy over time.
@mettleman, good for you.
Many American who came to Ontario shot at their former country men when they invaded in 1812. History may repeat itself.
@ Petros & ALL
When do we start raising funds for a court challenge? I already have a war chest ready to go. From your recent TV interview, Petros, I remember one of the hosts mentioning Kickstarter. I have a feeling this challenge is going to be very, very expensive though, so I hope there are some people who are wealthy enough to contribute significantly (perhaps inclined to help because they are FATCA fodder too) but not so wealthy as to have already paid for their own solutions. Anyway, here’s a G&M article about Kickstarter which unfortunately is US based and has complications:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-digital/web-strategy/a-kickstart-to-raising-funds-on-kickstarter/article4105948/
I once heard a version of “O Canada” which began with children signing and ended with a full chorus, a blend of adults and children. It was the best version of our national anthem I’d ever heard. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to spot it in any of the youtubes.
The greatest threat to human beings historically is their own government.
Yeah, we may shoot at each other over fictions known as “Nations” or “Borders,” but historically the true evil is expressed in the name of government.
Stop grovelling.
The Boot-Strap Expat
http://thebootstrapexpat.com/
@you’rereaching
When exactly did you learn about citizenship based taxation?
@Alex Z, who is groveling? When the US invaded Canada, Canadians shot back. That’s called war. The invaders raided farms, stealing from them. Was that the action of government or of undisciplined soldiers wanting what they could get? No man is an island. This nation that those brave people defended is called Canada today. It is the only thing standing between me and your IRS.
YOU are groveling.
You bow before bureaucrats that have no clue or regard for Human Rights or Natural Rights.
Canadians shot back? Nice history. They’d be lucky to whip out a BB Gun at present.
Why? Because you’ve allowed yourselves to be neutered.
I lived in TO for two years. I’m not impressed by your collective grovelling.
That’s what YOU do.
I do as I will.
The Boot-Strap Expat
http://thebootstrapexpat.com/
@Alex Z. What are you talking about? The people who contribute to this site are actively fighting government, not grovelling beneath its feet. The Canadian government who just sold us out to the USA, is worried about us – as it should be, and we intend to keep up the pressure. Now if you have anything helpful to aid in our fight, please do. Otherwise go away. We have work to do.
As am I.
My “reply” was directed to the “reply” of Petros.
We are on the same team so to speak. The governments are not our friends.
Yet some folks bow to the fictions of governments and imaginary lines on the ground.
Some of us are more “aware” than others of the realities we face.
Some of us need to be roused from our “slumber” that governments don’t really matter.
They come, they go. Borders shift. But the lives of individuals are all that matter in the end.
I meant no offense. Forgive me if I did offend.
The Boot-Strap Expat
http://thebootstrapexpat.com/
And if ANYTHING I post is less than true, feel free to call me on my bullshit.
If you just want to be “pleasant,” you deserve what you wind up with.
“Bueller?
Bueiller?
Bueller?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zyjLyBp64
That’s what I thought…
It seems that the Kanadian contingent would rather bow than assert their innate Natural Rights. They are called “Human Rights” in the United Nations.
If I’ve pissed you off, you have a chance of survival.
If I haven’t, I’ll do my best to wake your flaccid ass up!
Get a pair.
Grow a pair.
Fondle a pair.
At least get a clue.
The Boot-Strap Expat
http://thebootstrapexpat.com/
Hey White Kat!
How d’you like your fur being brushed against the grain?
Keep reading and you too can have half a clue.
I apologize for not having a Tim Horton’s ad on my site.
Neither the coffee or the donuts are worth the effort. Kanada loves the cast offs of the USSA.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
@ Alex Z
Sounds like you’re having one of those days that I had awhile back. I was mad at everyone and everything. I acted badly. It happened just after I found out about the IGA announcement. Most of us have never experienced anything like this FATCA attack in our lives and we are having to learn skills we never knew we’d need — ways to cope, ways to defend, ways to fight. Some of us are struggling with new revelations about how the world really works and yes bubbles have been burst but if there is a “there” to get to we’re trying for it at least, all in our own ways and together too. Peace?
You all are sharing FACTS with “reaching” and some people don’t want to know the real facts. If they did want to know they’d have to accept that the U.S. is completely wrong headed in what they are doing to families all over the world. For some that’s just too painful. They don’t want to admit that spouses, children, the disabled and elderly, those who never considered themselves American at all are all being harmed in very severe way by FATCA.
No, it’s much,much easier to blame the victims and say they “should have known” I find that interesting since just yesterday I learned that there are some representatives in Washington who still do not know that the U.S. even has CBT!! If they don’t know how were you supposed to? No other nation does it and when you don’t live there it is certainly not a topic that comes up in a foreign nation among your fellow citizens. Whoops! More facts.
All people like “reaching” are doing is making the U.S. look even worse than it already does in every foreign nation all over the world. It’s bullying and we know it and so do the citizens of every other nation. Talk about not being able to accept responsibility? The U.S. and people making such comments as “reaching” show such a myopic view and they are alone in it. I hope reaching will read this site a lot more completely than he/she apparently has. There’s no way to justify what some of the people here have been put through. No way to call it “right” Unless of course you enjoy beating up on the innocent. Perhaps that’s the way some people want the U.S. portrayed these days. If so they are doing a bang up job.
Why not participate in a reaffirmation ceremony sponsored by CIC? See their website for information. I’ve participated in one in Ottawa as part of the RCMP Musical Ride. It was beautiful. Any citizen can participate.
@aaa123, See Pacifica’s comment above http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/02/18/the-singing-of-o-canada-is-a-formal-declaration-of-allegiance-to-canada/comment-page-1/#comment-1119721
It seems unlikely that the State Department would accept a reaffirmation oath since they require a change of status.
However, if you wanted to take this to court, and had millions of dollars to mount a court challenge, you would be able to do it.
It does seem kind of stupid. Suppose someone joined Al Qaeda and but did not want to relinquish. Later, he shoots and kills a US serviceman. Later, he enters a US consulate to relinquish claiming that he recently killed a US soldier. Then, the US consulate says, (1) prove that it was you who killed him–meaning he has to show a government document that says that he killed the GI and that this document officially accepted it; (2) No you can’t use that as a relinquishing act because there was no change of status: you joined Al Qaeda, an act of treason but without the intention of relinquishment, and when you killed the US soldier you were just continuing your status as a terrorist. CLN denied.
That is the logic of US bureaucrats. It takes away our freedom to determine what citizenship we want to consider our dominant and effective nationality.
If omgheesstillanamerican bothered to do any research he or she would find out that other countries do indeed tax their citizens based on citizenship even if they have lived for a considerable time in another country. You and others need to get with the program.
Instead of thinking something is true because you say and type it often enough, you should aquaint yourself with the increasing number of countries who tax their expat citizens whether they are taking a couple of yrs away from their home country or have been residents/dual citizens of other countries for 20 yrs or so, even more in some cases.
This is how it works in some countries. The tax system of those countries somehow feel it is unfair that their citizen abroad pays a lower tax rate in an Asian country for example. Do they care that their citizen abroad actually receives little in the way of benefits from the country they are working in and that is why the tax they pay is lower? No, they don’t.
They don’t care that their expat citizen in some cases while paying comparitively less in income tax is actually paying substantial amounts of money into the health and social benefits systems of the country they work in. Sometimes their citizen will never be able to collect the benefit they pay for in the country they are working in or if they can get some kind of refund it is often less than what they paid in.
Therefore they are paying a lot of tax, it is just collected differently and it is labelled differently. So when John Expat goes home to his country, he is told that if he had lived in his own country he would have paid such and such percentage of income tax on his salary.
So he is actually told to pay tax to make up the difference if the tax he paid in the foreign country he worked in seems lower. Even if John Expat is not paying into the health and social systems in the country he works in, the fact that his income tax there is lower reflects that he receives very little in the way of services there. Taxes there are low because services especially for foreigners working there are low or non existent.
The USA should not be singled out the way you are doing it. Other countries behave in the way I mentioned above. As for your comment about the wonderful Japanese tax system which supposedly has been changed and is better – you really are ignorant. Japan is less reasonable than the USA regarding its citizens’ savings abroad and no we are not talking about rich people here.
Japan also discriminates against foreign residents regarding its taxation system’s definition of permanent residency. In western countries including the USA permanent residency means that. It means you have residency rights and legal rights, working rights etc that go along with it.
For some time now Japan has had its cake and eaten it with regard to so called ‘permanent residents’. For taxation purposes only you are a ‘permanent resident’ if you have lived in Japan for five yrs out of the previous ten years at tax time. This does not have to living continuously for five yrs out of the last ten.
Therefore in this way by classifying you as a ‘permanent resident’ Japan gives itself the right to demand you give them your bank account information etc from your home country.
You have to report financial information, private information that they really have no right to as you have no genuine legal permanent resident status unlike in the USA and other western countries.
You are simply classified one for taxation purposes – without having any of the legal and other benefits you are given as a true permanent resident in other countries.
You have to still carry around an ‘alien card’ with you at all times otherwise the Japanese police can and will detain you until you can get somebody to fetch your card for you. It is an offense not to have this ID on you at all times. You are not really a permanent resident – you have been classified like that so the Japanese govt can demand your private information in your home country and lay claim to whatever they can.
Before you diss the USA, get your facts straight.