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.
Now I realize the registration of foreign birth abroad at the Vancouver Embassy will take a big hit on my three kids. The oldest could not believe. They are only 20ish and CAN$ 3000 would deplete their bank accounts. Shame on America for abusing the children that could have contributed to that failed place. I will contribute a portion of the money I saved by renouncing last year to the fight against FATCA.
@Oddlynamed…..if it would work I’m in!
@Tricia. & all with CLN…you are VERY lucky campers. it is looking bleaker every day for the remainder of us. (Is there any way nursing can be construed to be a government job in Canada? An NDP poster on the lawn?) I’m scratching here for a relinquishing act, I need one BIG TIME at these prices.
An earlier comment of mine:
Why could this not be made to work though? Our re-affirmation of our Oath of Canadian citizenship would be even more meaningful than the first one if we knew we had the same rights as ALL other Canadians. What would be the difference in value of our intentions as it is the affirming of our Oath of Canadian citizenship?
@calgary411, it does seem bizarre that there are some Canadians who can claim their citizenship (oath of allegiance) as a relinquishing act, while those of us who were born Canadian citizens have no such ability to affirm such allegiance.
I realize that the pretty certificates available for download from the Government of Canada web site are not official documents in themselves, but it seems to me that they affirm actions which should be considered relinquishing by the US. It says “This certificate is presented to those Canadian who, having reflected on the values, rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship, have demonstrated their commitment to Canada by reaffirming their citizenship. Canada’s Citizenship and Immigration Minister, Chris Alexander.” Add a public oath of citizenship, some official witnesses, and as much publicity as one can possibly gather……
OddlyNamed,
I LOVE the idea, especially with as much publicity as one can possibly gather!!!!
The re-affirmation ceremony meant so much to me — almost four decades after my naturalization in 1975. The tears freely flowed. Why couldn’t this be done for all “Accidental Americans” especially, persons who had no CHOICE at all where they were born or to whom. They did not have a CLAIM to U.S. citizenship if they wished to do so; they were, especially as we see now, entrapped into US citizenship by their “free gift”. My son is even more entrapped as there is no way out for him — born in Canada, raised in Canada, never registered with the US, never lived in the US, never had any benefit from the US and cannot renounce something that he was never registered for in the first place as he has a ‘mental incapacity’ to be able to understand the concept of citizenship — and U.S. citizenship is such a privilege that a parent, a guardian or a trustee does not have the right to renounce on behalf of such a person, even with a court order.
Who do we appeal to for some common sense and justice? The Conservative government didn’t listen.
My answer: donate to Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty: http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/ — now more reason than ever!!!!
My husband spoke to at length over two days with Jason Kenney”s office when he was head of CIC. Born in US, birth registered in Canada, Canadian parents repatriated me in infancy. CIC said I could not swear an oath of citizenship or affirmation so that I could use that for relinquishing instead of renouncing because I was BORN Canadian. My Con MP provided zero help. My Mayor, despite knowing my husband, refused on advice from city legal dept. as she didn’t have ability to give citizenship.
I finally found an Ontario Justice of the Peace that would allow me to swear the oath. It was rejected by the Toronto consulate. I did not push to send to DC as I wanted the hell out of their Fun House.
Oh, and that was Kenney’s ministerial office (CIC), not his constituency office.
@TheMom: that’s a very helpful, if somewhat discouraging, bit of information.
However, several people in the relinquishment story archive note that their consulates were inclined to reject an action that later the State Department in D.C. was in fact willing to accept. I wonder if D.C. would have accepted your oath. It’s good to know, at least, that we might be able to find a J.P. who would be willing to accept an oath.
Thanks!
I am sick to my stomach with this fee increase – not for me but for my daughter. I renounced last year and have my CLN in a fireproof safe. The fee plus the cost of an airline ticket to get to the Calgary consulate added up but well worth it for me. My daughter wants to renounce but keeps putting it off thinking I am being an alarmist with all my dire warnings to her. Being right brings me no satisfaction.
@Shovel
What about that extra buck they plan to make with each renunciation? What do they hope to subsidize with that?
@OddlyNamed
Intriguing. Unfortunately doesn’t help double-citizens at birth 🙁
@BubbleBustin: Well, that’s what I’m wondering. I am a dual-citizen at birth as well (born in the US to two Canadian parents, returned to Canada when 1.5 years old). But if we have some reasonably official, public oath of affirmation, a binding oath (that might be the sticking point), taken as adults (18 and over) with the clear and stated intention of losing US citizenship, would that be sufficient from a State Department vantage point?
Maybe the onus should be on the US State Department to prove that an affirmation of citizenship is NOT a relinquishing act! Can double citizens at birth get in on the action?
Bubblebustin, gotta pay for all that golf, and the first wifey’s trips around the world.
It is absolutely ridiculous that someone can live their life in the US, move to another country, take citizenship, then relinquish for no fee. Meanwhile someone else born “accidentally” in the US returns to their country as an infant, lives their life in that country until the US reclaims them, and they must pay a $2,350 US fee to get out from under it!
Most corrupt country EVAR!
This will cost my family an extra $3,800 a few years from now when my 2 kids reach the age of majority and are forced to renounce due to the fact that they were registered as births abroad before this jihad began. They are smart, talented kids and a few years ago I might have suggested that they consider a University education in the US, and they may have even gone on to live a significant portion of their lives there, contributing to the society and paying their taxes.
Instead, one of the most important tasks I have as a parent is to counsel them to remove this cancer at the earliest opportunity and I will pay whatever fee is necessary to perform the surgery on their behalf.
Good job USA, you must be very proud …….
@usxcanada
The maximum of renunciations the State Department claims it can process in a given year will be taken by non-relinquishers who can pay the revised fee? WOW!
For those on the waiting lost, it could be cheaper to take a vacation to a consulate abroad while the fee is still $450
So along with a university fund my kid also now needs a renouncing fund? Nice.
But not surprising. We knew this was coming. First the long waits for CLNs, consulate appointments and stepped up media propaganda. Now raising the fees to basically match the expense of getting to a consulate to renounce in the first place.
It isn’t fair either. People who take on citizenship in another country now know they need to document their intent to relinquish and in doing so avoid (for the moment) huge (and probably unconstitutional fees) but duals from birth and minors who naturalize are majorly fucked over.
I agree that the onus should be placed on the State Department to prove that a reaffirmation oath isn’t a valid relinquishing act. But that doesn’t go far enough. They should have to prove how it is constitutionally possible for them to force birthright citizenship on people who were born in another country and never sought to claim US citizenship.
Make them prove we are citizens rather than the other way around.
This flatulent exorbitant fee does affect children. While I can pay it, my kids have their own bank accounts. Unlike the USA which relies upon borrowing, I will never have my kids borrow money to renounce. It is their money and they know how to spend it.
Oddlynamed and others: Unfortunately, if you are already a dual citizen, the State Department says that taking an Oath of Allegiance to your country of other citizenship is not meaningful enough in those circumstances to constitute a potentially expatriating act. You are not swearing a new allegiance with the intention of giving up your US citizenship. I know of someone who tried what you are suggesting in the late 1980s, and also someone who tried to document relinquishment because of an oath of allegiance to his other nationality just 2 months ago. Both failed.
Why is there still no fee for relinquishment, considering that they are much more costly to process than renunciations? Clearly this is primarily about punishment of those who dare to exercise their constitutional rights, plain and simple. Of course there are additional benefits for the USG as well, e.g. increased revenue as well as a means of throttling the numbers who can afford to get in line.
In a few years time they’ll surely have translated the interpretation of the statistics into newspeak, saying that the spike in numbers up to 2014 was just some insignificant statistical anomaly.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
“Other steps include … conducting a minimum of two intensive interviews with the potential renunciant ….”
The only possible purposes of this are to talk the renunciant out of renouncing, and to make the renunciation process more troublesome. It’s a clear violation of the intent of the 1868 Act: “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”
I wonder if the U. S. government is running scared, or perhaps just afraid of looking bad because of this rising statistic of renunciations. Perhaps it believes that it can curtail this through an increased fee.
I renounced this spring from the consulate in Jerusalem. I paid the $450 fee. However, since I paid in Israeli sheqqels, I was forced to pay more due to the sheqqel-dollar rate (3.6:1) posted on the Consulate’s website, rather that the real rate (3.47:1). Sorry but I don’t like the idea of paying even a penny more to the U. S. (or any other) gov’t.
It took a couple of weeks to get my certificate. When I was told that I had to come back in a week after some “time for thought and reflection,” I asked the vice consul to show me where this was written, that this was the law. She said she said it was just State Dept. policy. I was later told by another official that if I had brought a lawyer, I could have pressed the matter to get it all done in one visit. (sigh)
@Esser Agaroth: thanks for stopping by. Lots of us here read your earlier posts about your experience renouncing citizenship.
I suspect that this price hike will prove that CLNs are Giffen goods, with demand going up as price goes up. (CLNs might also have some elements of a Veblen good, but I’m less sure about that.)
1. A CLN is a cheaper substitute good for future U.S. tax compliance, even for people whose primary motivation in getting another citizenship is not to reduce their tax compliance costs.
2. As the predicted price of future tax compliance goes up, the demand for CLNs will go up as people do the math, turn down the thermostat, tighten their belts, and figure out they can afford the CLN but cannot afford future compliance.
3. State will respond to increasing CLN demand by making procedures more onerous, which will raise their own costs for CLN issuance; they will certainly pass those costs along to renunciants
The main question is whether the effect of #2 (people who can no longer afford future compliance) outweighs the effect of people who already can’t afford future compliance (even if they don’t know it yet) and now can no longer afford a CLN either. For people in that latter category, there might be two even cheaper substitute goods for a CLN, but they both have risks:
1. “Ostriching” behind documentation showing a non-U.S. birthplace. (But obviously it’s expensive to get these if you were not actually born outside the U.S.: you spend money purchasing the fake document and you accept significant risks by using it)
2. An ADCS victory (e.g. if it prevents you from needing to show your bank a CLN in order to get banking services)
Obviously this is outrageous as many have suggested here. Clearly this is a reflection of the ‘Market Value’ of a CLN. Just as clearly it is not a reflection of any reasonable cost to simply process a sworn statement that one is shedding their US citizenship.
It will entrap many or delay even further their ‘escape’. I agree with those who suggest that support for the Charter Challenge is one good response ( http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/ ) because if this is successful, then it should be a serious blow to CBT.
Please, everyone get behind this initiative.