Are you an emigrant from the United States — a young adult getting your start in life, an elderly retiree on a fixed income, or just an ordinary person down on your luck — who can’t afford the world’s most expensive fee for renouncing citizenship? Has the State Department arbitrarily refused to recognise your clear relinquishment of U.S. citizenship under 8 USC §1481(a)(1) through (4), knowing that you don’t have time or money to take them to court to assert your inherent right to change your nationality?
Well, here’s another option for you to get the Homeland off your back: vote Scott Brown (R-NH) for Senate! (Though of course, don’t do it if you are in the process of trying to convince the State Department that you relinquished U.S. citizenship.) A recent article in The Hill explains:
New Hampshire GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown unveiled a new video hitting President Obama on his foreign policy and pressing Congress to revoke the citizenship of Americans who join the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria …
Brown cited two bills he introduced while serving as a senator from Massachusetts that would have stripped U.S. citizenship from those “providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization” or “actively engaging” in hostilities against the U.S. or allies.
Brown’s two earlier bills on this topic were S. 3327 in the 111th Congress and S. 1698 in the 112th, both co-sponsored with Joe Lieberman (I-CT) . They were similar in intent to Canada’s more recent Bill C-24, which we previously discussed here, here, and here.
Unfortunately, Brown’s bills as written — aimed primarily at members of ISIS and similar groups — might be a bit too narrow to support automatic revocation of U.S. citizenship for Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty donors. But that shouldn’t be too hard to fix — after all, ADCS donors are people who deliberately consort with America’s ancient enemy, lionise a notorious anti-American military leader, and are now offering material support to a hostile foreign campaign to defeat U.S. government policy abroad!
Citizen for tax purposes but not for citizenship purposes
To help American emigrants, Brown’s proposal might require some technical amendments to the tax laws, for example 26 USC § 877A(g)(4):
Relinquishment of citizenship— A citizen shall be treated as relinquishing his United States citizenship on the earliest of—
(A) the date the individual renounces his United States nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States pursuant to paragraph (5) of section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481 (a)(5)),
(B) the date the individual furnishes to the United States Department of State a signed statement of voluntary relinquishment of United States nationality confirming the performance of an act of expatriation specified in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481 (a)(1)–(4)),
(C) the date the United States Department of State issues to the individual a certificate of loss of nationality, or
(D) the date a court of the United States cancels a naturalized citizen’s certificate of naturalization.
As you can see, certain expatriating acts are absent from this list: renunciation of citizenship under the Renunciation Act of 1944 (8 USC § 1481(a)(6)), or conviction for treason or similar crimes (8 USC § 1481(a)(7)). Similarly, if Brown’s bill succeeds in adding a new numbered paragraph to 8 USC § 1481(a) to strip citizenship from Enemies of the State automatically, the IRS would not be required to recognise the resulting loss of citizenship either.
In short, even if you commit one of those acts, you remain a citizen for tax purposes, despite your loss of citizenship for citizenship purposes (26 USC § 7701(a)(50)), at least until the State Department issues a CLN to you. And not only has State proven itself to be rather slow at issuing CLNs, if you were in the U.S. rather than outside of it when you committed your expatriating act, State has no authority at all to give you a CLN in the first place (8 USC § 1501).
So if you’re on holiday in the U.S. and planning to make a donation to ADCS in hopes of being stripped of your U.S. citizenship, better wait until you get back to the comfort of your own home before you whip out your credit card. And hopefully Brown will update his bill to account for the amusing technical details discussed in this section — unless he thinks that the U.S. should strip citizenship from terrorists but then keep pursuing them around the world for future taxes, the way the country already does with normal people who want to get rid of U.S. citizenship but can’t.
Bipartisan agreement on exile for certain ex-Americans
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who formerly owed allegiance to the U.S.’ northern enemy until he renounced it for a fee of CA$100 (about 4% of the U.S.’ new fee), supports Brown’s position and has introduced a bill to give it legal effect:
There can be no clearer renunciation of US citizenship than going to Syria or Iraq to fight w/ ISIS terrorists: http://t.co/6WqgPUadmq
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) September 5, 2014
Of course, writing “I renounce U.S. citizenship” on a piece of paper with your identifying details, signing it in the presence of a witness, and mailing it to the nearest U.S. consulate along with your U.S. passport (if any) makes your intent just as clear, but the State Department refuses to recognise this anymore either, even though they used to back in the 1970s and normal first-world countries like Ireland and Australia and indeed Cruz’ old country of Canada continue to recognise this procedure today.
Update, 8 September: Temple University law professor Peter Spiro, who earlier did an in-depth analysis of the constitutionality of previous legislative proposals along these lines, disagrees in general that findings of loss of citizenship under these proposals would be constitutional. However, he suggests that shredding your U.S. passport on video (as did Adam Gadahn) might be sufficient for the State Department to infer your intent to stop being a U.S. citizen. In a post a few hours ago over at his group blog Opinio Juris, he wrote (bold and italics mine):
The problem: as per the Supreme Court, any expatriating conduct must be undertaken with the specific intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship. To strip an ISIL fighter under this amendment, the government would have to show not just that someone had fought with ISIL, but that he consciously intended to give up his citizenship by so doing. That would be impossible to show in the ordinary case. Al-Qaeda operative Adam Gadahn is the only notable case from the post-9/11 era in which it might work: in a jihadist youTube, he shredded his U.S. passport.
Note that being designated as an Enemy of the State under these proposals would probably have some negative effect on your ability to visit friends and relatives in the U.S.:
He urged Congress to take action. “We need to keep our country safe by stopping these American ISIS fighters from re-entering the country,” Brown said.
But the other side of the political spectrum supports a permanent ban on re-entry for ex-Americans too. In other words, there’s bipartisan consensus for an acronym: Exile and Punishment for American T-s Residing In Other Territories — they just have to come to an agreement on whether the “T” should stand for “tax filers” or “terrorists”, or maybe both.
And Brown’s opponent Jeanne Shaheen in particular is a major supporter of Carl Levin’s efforts to make living & saving in other countries even more difficult for people tainted with a U.S. place of birth. So it’s not as if voting against Brown would solve any problems either.
Vote Scott Brown for Senate and renounce and be free, for free!
So, to renounce US citizenship, all that one will have to do is to donate $1 to IS, get a receipt and to then send the receipt to the State Department. Easy enough!
Wait…. is that the sound of a drone coming I hear?
“actively engaging” in hostilities against the U.S. or allies”
So does telling them to kiss my butt or waving the bird at them count?
I am pretty sure if they are supporting or fighting with the terrorists.. they are telling u already to f* off…. What are the chances they are worried about taxes such as capital gains, retirement, or better yet… death tax, fatca or getting CLN? Bunch of idiots running the gov’t… they got nothing better to do but this… I guess taking away citizenship from terrorists are more important then making sure *US persons* can live a regular life…. hey… why don’t they have a pending bill to get better paper goods for the wash room? Idiots… sorry bitterness is oozing…
Oh, I’m definitely “engaging in active hostilities against the US or allies”
With both middle fingers up in the air, in the greatest of contempt possible.
1) I’ve called Stephen Harper our PM a “sellout traitor to Canada as well as the entire retinue of the Conservative party and their leech-followers and voters.
2) I’ve called Bernard Whitman (the Democrat strategist): “I hate scumbag liberal homelander leeches like #bernardwhitman who view expats as walking purses for his benefit. FUCK U, #bernardwhitman” & “Calling individual expats ‘tax cheats’ and that ‘they should pay fair share’. 0% use and benefits. Shut your fucking mouth #bernardwhitman” – Sorry, I’m not as “eloquent” as John Patrick Kisumi
3) I’ve called the President of the United States several nastily disparaging names that if I were in the military of the United States of America that I would be hauled up in front of a military courts-martial and tried under Article 88 and Article 117 (provoking words or speech) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for short
4) I’ve called homelanders who support Obama’s position on FATCA “scumbag liberal homelander leeches” and worse.
5) I’ve threatened to take up arms and defend my country should the United States decide to invade Canada.
6) I have gloatingly referred to in contemptuous speech towards the White House with regards to the burning of it during the War of 1812.
I’m hoping that should be enough to give them pause that I am “actively engaging” in hostilities against the U.S. or allies.
Even as an IS terrorist, I`m pretty sure 3-5 years of back taxes would be due.
^ what Polly says. ^
I’m sure they would.
My response:
http://pic.twitter.com/w9FLm8mwTJ
USA: – created by geniuses run by idiots. It has never been more true (except perhaps when they passed Prohibition)
USA: – created by geniuses – run by idiots. It has never been more true (except perhaps when they passed Prohibition).
BTW – both the Democrats and the Republicans are idiots as far as I am concerned, but at least the Republican Party platform is to repeal FATCA, whereas the Dictocrats (like Obama) passed FATCA and pushed it down the throats of the rest of the planet. Q.E.D. = vote Republican and there is at least a chance FATCA, CBT might be changed.
The New Hampshire primary is coming up this Tuesday.
I doubt that American emigrants vote in mid-terms, even Americans Abroad types. This is one of the reasons why the tax code just gets increasingly intolerable even though Americans abroad have had the right to vote for nearly thirty years. Bad provisions like the non-resident alien spouse rules have been shoved into omnibus bills in the House and Senate and have received minimal attention before passage. By the time the president gets the bill, all he can do is veto or sign. He can’t take stuff out. For things to get better, we need to start voting against problematic members of Congress.
Those of us who have reasons for not relinquishing any time soon and have been voting in presidential elections need to start voting in the mid-terms, and specifically in the primaries of sitting members of since that will have a much greater effect on Congress. Charles Rangel was predicted to win his primary hands down, but came within 2,000 votes of losing, meanwhile there are probably at least 2,000 overseas voters in his district who are suffering with FATCA. So I have just voted against my district’s sitting Democrat representative who has been a leader in getting rid of the FEIE. I probably will vote for the Republican representative in the general election, to send the Democrats a message (it is not a bad time for overseas Democrats to do this since the Democrats have pretty much no chance of getting the majority back in the House of Representatives anyway).
With bills like this and C-24, I can’t help but feel that it will only serve to devalue citizenship in the long run when it can be used for a political end.
Scott Brown was of the ONLY Republicans to vote for the HIRE Act back in 2010. By some account he was the “lead” Republican in trying to get GOP support for the HIRE Act.
John McCain III has been vocal in his support of FATCA (calls for CRIMINAL prosecutions of non filing non resident dual citizens) and he is a Republican.
As far as I’m concerned, both the Democrats and Republicans can hang.
One thing I will add is in the US at least this type of legislation has generally been held to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in Trop vs Dulles
Here’s the link for the resulting article from my conversation with the Telegraph journalist earlier this week.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11077310/No-Isas-for-Americans-Post-Office-overreacts-over-hated-US-tax-law.html
The banks are not being as gracious as they seem allowing US citizens with dual nationality to open ISAs (Individual Savings Account which is tax free into he UK) as it may seem. Under the UK US IGA these accounts were deem not reportable for now.
However ISAs are restrictive and not a viable option to a normal bank account to live a normal finance life.
Other things achieved by this article is tying Boris Johnson to FATCA as a US citizen.
The UK press is behind the curve compared to Canada, but things are starting to move along somewhat with the great public awareness starting to move in the right direction.
Next step is television to heighten awareness of FATCA and its damaging effects.
@Don
I saw the article this morning. Nice job. More negative FATCA press in the UK is no bad thing. I keep pushing forwards with Treasury through my MP. So far three months and no response to why NS&I has a blanket ban on US citizens in contravention of the 2010 UK Equality Act. Prodded every month. I wonder if they are ashamed or embarrassed about something.
@Watcher – I had a conversation with a UK civil rights group. There may exist a possibility, depending on your financial situation, to get one of them to help you mount a legal challenge against FATCA discrimination issues and legal aid may be available – so get the UK Government to pay for the legal challenge against FATCA.
Any EU citizens can petition a case in the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights I believe once the Member State’s domestic court options have been exhausted. Obviously the UK government will defend the IGA to the hilt.
In Europe we don’t need to sue in the same way as Canada if legal aid is available. One determined person seeing this through to the European Courts could take some legs out of these IGAs for resident dual citizens.
Of course a European court doesn’t change the US’ perspective, but if the IRS has no data at least there’s a stronger case to tell them to pound salt while living abroad.
Cruz said he plans to file the Expatriate Terrorist Act as a reaction to threats posed by ISIS in order to help keep extremists from re-entering the United States.
The bill would result in such people renouncing their citizenship “with the intent of supplanting his U.S. citizenship with loyalty to a terrorist organization,” said Cruz, and the legislation would apply to people who provide support to foreign terrorist groups.
The Cruz proposal would amend a current federal law passed in 1940 that allows the government to strip the citizenship of any person who votes in another country’s elections or who joins the military forces of countries at war with the United States.”
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/cruz-bill-citizenship-terrorism/2014/09/06/id/593014/#ixzz3CZKV6Ac3
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Updated the post with a quote from Peter Spiro on the constitutional issues (emphasis mine):
http://opiniojuris.org/2014/09/06/ted-cruz-moves-strip-citizenship-isil-fighters/
People should be free to renounce their citizenships but I will not support taking citizenship away involuntarily whether by Harper’s C-24 or Brown’s proposed action.
I doubt that Brown has enough brain cells to understand FATCA or to make technical adjustments. He seems to have the capability however to be a centrefold.
I’m an American living abroad, originally from Massachusetts. The good people of Massachusetts were glad to get rid of Scott Brown, so now he’s trying to get a job in New Hampshire. Frankly, I wouldn’t rust him to deliver assistance to Americans abroad.
Jayne, Tongue in cheek?
Well, just to update things, my representative, John Tierney, a leading champion of the repeal of the foreign earned income exclusion, lost his primary by a surprisingly wide margin. All of the polls of the likely voters showed that it was going to be neck and neck down to the wire, but he was very clearly removed. It may have been his wife’s conviction for abetting illegal overseas gambling and tax evasion or his own lackluster performance that did it rather than anything to do with Americans abroad, but it is a relief.
What this article overlooks is the constraints placed on the U.S. courts. There are plenty of people who regret having given up U.S. citizenship. The U.S. Constitution, Article XIV says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This was intended to extend citizenship to freed ex-slaves. It was passed 3 years after the War of Secession. It has been a very useful clause for persons born to undocumented immigrants who entered the USA without reporting at the port of entry and for the sole purpose of having a baby born in the USA for citizenship purposes. The problem is not the imposition of citizenship but the imposition of taxes and reporting requirements. The U.S. Constitution, Amendment XVIII imposed alcohol prohibition during the 1920’s and it was in effect in USA, not on USA citizens in Mexico or St. Pierre and Miquelon Islands.