Confirming reports passed on by commenters at the Isaac Brock Society, DiploPundit points to a State Department interim rule just placed on public inspection for printing in tomorrow’s Federal Register, which raises the fee for renunciation of U.S. citizenship (but apparently not relinquishment) to US$2,350, more than twenty times the average level in other high-income countries. As they state:
[D]emand for the service has increased dramatically, consuming far more consular officer time and resources, as reflected in the 2012 Overseas Time Survey and increased workload data. Because the Department believes there is no public benefit or other reason for setting this fee below cost, the Department is increasing this fee to reflect the full cost of providing the service. Therefore the increased fee reflects both the increased cost of the provision of service as well as the determination to now charge the full cost.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality”, while the Expatriation Act of 1868 says that renunciation of citizenship is “a natural and inherent right of all people” and that “any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government”.
As of press time, the State Department has not yet commented on whether it sees “public benefit” in other human rights such as freedom of election or freedom of marriage, or whether anyone seriously believes that charging people a month’s salary to get a ballot paper or a marriage certificate would not restrict or impair those rights.
Practical effects
Because this fee hike apparently does not apply to relinquishments, ex-Americans who naturalise in most other countries will still be able to obtain a Certificate of Loss of Nationality from the U.S. government for no more than the cost of taking a day off work and driving or flying halfway across the country to the nearest consulate which isn’t backed up for months with renunciation appointments. (“Most other countries” means those which allow dual citizenship, like Canada and France, or those which forbid dual citizenship but allow new citizens to submit proof of loss of their former citizenship after the naturalisation ceremony, like Japan.)
However, Americans seeking to naturalise in countries which require new citizens to give up their former citizenship before the naturalisation ceremony, like Taiwan, or those who have been foreign citizens for decades or all their lives and never exercised any benefits of U.S. citizenship but now need to acquire a formal CLN (for example because their bank will discriminate against them if they don’t have one), will feel the full impact of the new fee hike, and also have to wait for months or even longer than a year for the State Department to give them a CLN before they can get on with their lives.
What changed?
The State Department has always claimed that processing renunciations has a high cost, but four years ago when they first introduced the renunciation fee, they at least pretended to take a very different attitude to the cost:
The CoSS demonstrated that documenting a U.S. citizen’s renunciation of citizenship is extremely costly, requiring American consular officers overseas to spend substantial amounts of time to accept, process, and adjudicate cases. A new fee of $450 will be established to help defray a portion of the total cost to the U.S. Government of documenting the renunciation of citizenship. While the Department decided to set the fee at $450, this fee represents less than 25 percent of the cost to the U.S. Government. The Department has determined that it must recoup at least a portion of its costs of providing this very costly service but set the fee lower than the cost of service in order to lessen the impact on those who need this service and not discourage the utilization of the service, a development the Department feels would be detrimental to national interests. See 31 U.S.C. 9701(b)(2).
They also note the per-hour cost they use to calculate the new fee:
The Department previously charged a consular time fee of $231 per hour, per employee. This fee is charged when indicated on the Schedule of Fees or when services are performed away from the office or outside regular business hours. The CoSM estimated that the hourly consular time charge is now lower. Accordingly, the Department is lowering this fee to $135 per hour.
This implies that they take about seventeen employee-hours to process each renunciation (assuming that none of the fee goes to other expenses such as travel or printing). Oddly enough, in their 2012 Paperwork Reduction Act filings on Form DS-4079 (which is filled out by both renunciants and relinquishers), the State Department indicated that the cost for processing the form was just $33 per hour. I don’t understand how these two estimates relate to each other.
To explain the new fee hike, the State Department point to procedures (such as the pointless and repetitive double in-person appointment system) which are required neither by the Immigration and Nationality Act nor the Foreign Affairs Manual, nor used by any other countries:
For example, consular officers must confirm that the potential renunciant fully understands the consequences of renunciation, including losing the right to reside in the United States without documentation as an alien. Other steps include verifying that the renunciant is a U.S. citizen, conducting a minimum of two intensive interviews with the potential renunciant, and reviewing at least three consular systems before administering the oath of renunciation. The final approval of the loss of nationality must be done by law within the Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services in Washington, D.C., after which the case is returned to the consular officer overseas for final delivery of the Certificate of Loss of Nationality to the renunciant. These steps further add to the time and labor that must be involved in the process.
As demonstrated by the experience of other countries, the State Department could greatly lower their costs by simplifying their procedures, but apparently such a common-sense step has not occurred to them.
But look on the bright side! 31 USC § 9701 says that “[e]ach charge shall be … based on … (A) the costs to the Government; (B) the value of the service or thing to the recipient; (C) public policy or interest served; and (D) other relevant facts.” Given how valuable a CLN has become these days, imagine how high a fee they could charge for it if they set the price based on its value.
Timeline for fee hike and comments period
The State Department ends with an excuse for why they can’t be bothered to tell us about the fee hike more than two weeks in advance, while keeping renunciants waiting for dozens of times that long to get the CLNs in the first place:
The Department intends to implement this interim final rule, and initiate collection of the fees set forth herein, effective 15 days after publication of this rule in the Federal Register …. The Department is publishing this rule as an interim final rule, with a 60-day provision for post promulgation comments and with an effective date less than 30 days from the date of publication, based on the “good cause” exceptions set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3). Delaying implementation of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because the fees in this rule fund consular services that are critical to national security, including screening visa applicants.
You have until 4 October to submit a written comment on this rule. I will update this post with a link to the docket page on Regulations.gov once the fee hike is officially published.
@ All
Another part of the story I forgot to include was they asked me why of all days I picked September 11th to renounce. I told them because the fees go up on September 12. But they thought that maybe I was trying to make some sort of a statement. I wish I could say that I planned that. The irony would be absolutely delicious. But it was completely the first reason. Thanks to all for the congratulatory remarks. I still have some mixed feelings about it, but overall I feel much better. Now I am just waiting for my get out of jail free card (CLN) heck I would have even paid $200 to get out of jail.
@ Embee
I did receive a receipt of the fees I paid and they also gave me copies of each of the forms that I signed. Both the DS4080 and DS 4081. I have never had a US passport so travelling on it was never a consideration.
@ Bubblebustin
I would have to say other then that little bit of drama at the consulate which was mostly just me freaking out. It would be a pretty boring book. At least in my opinion. I thought I would keep everyone in the loop about what I was able to accomplish. It was totally worth it for me. The final straw was the increase in the fees when they announced them at the end of August. I had been hoeing and humming on the subject for the last six months or so. I figured at $450 I could do it anytime, but at $2350 it was stupid to keep it.
@ Domino
I have never had a US Passport so that wasn’t an issue for me. But to answer your question about the potential to have met up with the same border guard crossing into Mexico as I did coming back into the States it would not have happened. There are no guards going into Mexico. I crossed the border by walking down a long narrow sidewalk and then passing through a gate that only goes one way. So you have no formal process to get into Mexico you just walk across the border. I am not sure what the process is like when you fly into Mexico, but that has been my experience the couple of times I have walked across the border into Tijuana. Kind of the way it should be in my opinion for anyone who wants to travel, but none the less that is not the world that we live in.
@ RMA The thought had crossed my mind to say that, but I used what I figured was better judgement and said that I was visiting family in San Diego (which I was) and wanted to come down and see Tijuana. I also picked up some Vanilla while I was down there which made my wife happy. And having a happy wife is a great thing.
Cheers.
@ Krackerjack
Oh Mexican vanilla! We have a large bottle (part of my husband’s inheritance). It’s potent so we administer it with an eyedropper — it might even last our remaining lifetime. If not, we have made our own in the past and can always make another batch (takes months to brew but it’s good stuff). I was amazed at your ease of entry into Mexico. Very interesting.
@Embee–it’s really this simple..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8iKr7MmYzU
@ EmBee
My wife and step mother use it in there cooking all of the time. I picked up some clear vanilla this time around. As there is both a dark and a clear vanilla. The clear vanilla works much better in a white icing due to the lack of colour pollution. At least that is what she tells me anyways.
Cheers.
Fascinating account @krackerjack. Thank you for sharing.
Interesting and creative problem solving to meet that deadline. Stark picture of the lengths to which someone is forced to go in order to renounce. And that it was likely cheaper to fly and travel to another country to renounce by the deadline than to stay at home and pay 2350. US. Or at least it combined travel for necessity with connecting with family.
I read that the delay to get an appointment at the US consulate in Toronto is now in or after April 2015. And that is with the 2350. fee.
@badger
Some people have said that the fee hike is making them want to renounce! There must be some marketing principle at play here that an increase in cost compels people to ‘buy’. Care to speculate, anyone?
The US justification for charging expats $2350 is so pathetic that it is comical to the point of absurdity.
So let me get this straight, expats who receive “no public benefit” from the US have to pay the US $2350 to get rid of US citizenship because the US receives “no public benefit” for letting them go.
F%*king amazing!
@Bubblebustin
Economists call these Veblen Goods. Examples are luxury goods, like jewellery, designer handbags and sports cars. If any Brockers are teachers of economics you may now have a new example to present to your students.
@ricard
I knew that something like this existed, but didn’t know what itwas called, thanks.
I also think that renunciation sales might ramp up because people believe they’ll run out, knowing that there a limited number of renunciation spots available before they’ll have to file another years taxes, therefore costing them even more money.
People will probably do just about anything to get out from under the US government’s jurisdiction – quickly.
Oh, and let’s not forget the FU principle.
ricard,
“Economists call these [CLNs] Veblen Goods. Examples are luxury goods, like jewellery, designer handbags and sports cars.”
This is another indication that Certificates of Loss of Nationality have become more valuable than Certificates of Naturalization.
Comcast hits man with $2,789 fee for moving to area not served by Comcast
http://consumerist.com/2014/11/19/comcast-hits-man-with-2789-fee-for-moving-to-area-not-served-by-comcast/
Wow, even more expensive than cancelling U.S. citizenship after moving to an area not served by the U.S. government. But wn the bright side, Comcast waived the fee after seeing the public reaction.
So, the big question: will the State Department be as smart as Comcast?
The big difference here is that Comcast wants to keep their customers. The US can’t create enough doors to hit us on the way out.
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society | Bipartisan attempts to exile former U.S. citizens, 2002–2008
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society | IRS & State encourage ESL teachers abroad to join Streamlined?
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society | Obama FY2016 budget proposes limited relief for accidental duals-at-birth who give up U.S. citizenship
Germany does not normally allow those naturalizing to retain their old citizenship. There is, however, a hardship exception when the applicant’s country charges “unreasonable fees” to give up the old citizenship. According to a message board in Germany, “unreasonable fees” are defined as: 1) greater than Eur 1,279 AND 2) greater than the applicant’s gross income for one month ($2,350 = Eur 2,080). So, if an U.S. citizen applicant earns less than Eur 2,080 monthly, s/he would not have to give up U.S. citizenship when naturalizing under this hardship exception. Life is strange.
http://www.toytowngermany.com/lofi/index.php/t331751-90.html
@ Innocente
however the new German citizen could relinquish claiming to have become German with the intention of giving up USC
@ patricia:
Thanks for your feedback. You’ve highlighted the argument that the German bureaucrat could make, i.e., since relinquishment is without charge, the cost for a USC to renounce is irrelevant. I don’t know how this will play out, but it looks like an angle worth exploring in Germany and other countries with a law regarding unreasonable renunciation fees.
For those undecided about giving up US citizenship, a reasonable step is first to obtain a second citizenship. From there the next decision can be taken to expatriate based on the then prevailing circumstances.
Claiming that the $2,350 renunciation fee is “unreasonable” might also be an approach to be taken in Austria. Austrian naturalization law requires that applicants give up their current citizenship so long as it is possible and reasonable.
Relevant sentence in Austrian citizenship law:
“h. Ausscheiden des Staatsbürgerschaftswerbers aus seinem bisherigen Staatsverband, soweit dies möglich und zumutbar ist.”
http://www.staatsbuergerschaft.gv.at/index.php?id=5
I suspect that other countries that do not normally allow those naturalizing to retain their existing citizenship may have similar laws, e.g, Netherlands, Denmark, but I have not checked further.
Germany’s naturalizing American economic refugees. Nice optics.
The Netherlands normally require applicants for naturalization to give up their current citizenship. The Dutch immigration and naturalization authorities, however, may grant exceptions in some cases, including for economic hardship. Due to the recent significant increase in the fee for US citizenship renunciation, it might be possible for an American citizen to naturalize in the Netherlands without giving up US citizenship:
“Exceptions
You do not have to renounce your current nationality in the following cases when:
– You will have to pay a large sum of money to the authorities in your country of origin in order to renounce your current nationality. You must be able to demonstrate this.”
Whether the $2,350 renunciation fee would be considered “a large sum of money” is unknown.
Another exception that might be applicable to potentially “covered expatriates” is:
“- You will lose certain rights when giving up your current nationality leading to serious financial losses, for example with respect to laws of succession. You must be able to demonstrate this. ”
https://ind.nl/EN/individuals/residence-wizard/Pages/renouncing-nationality-and-exceptions.aspx
Does anybody know what the wait times are now in Vancouver, BC for US renunciation? I am inquiring specifically about wait times between when emailing for an appointment to renounce and receiving an appointment date AND the average time between when appointment is assigned and the actual appointment. I just sent an email last week requesting an appointment.
Thanks in advance.
Someone on IndieGogo claims to be raising funds for an elderly German man who doesn’t have enough money to renounce U.S. citizenship
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/elderly-american-living-abroad-needs-help#
Won’t Germany give him a get out of jail free card by letting him relinquish (by giving him German citizenship first) if he can show hardship?