“I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital and there’s capital controls and there’s people controls. Every time you think about the fence, think about the fences being used against us, keeping us in.” Ron Paul
“A Canadian Citizen living in Canada with clinging US Nationality is solely and absolutely a Citizen of Canada whilst in Canada. The US has no claim to that person unless that person voluntarily agrees.”
The problem is that’s no longer what Canada recognizes, and it’s going to get harder to get around that fact. Ever since Canada agreed to FATCA and all the language about what constitutes “US persons” for IRS purposes, woe to the Canadian citizen residing in Canada who gets that dreaded label attached to him or her. 🙁
YogaGirl,
I agree. I’m glad to be on this side of that wall.
Human rights is the soul of our foreign policy, because human rights is the very soul of our sense of nationhood.
Jimmy Carter Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail.
Abraham Lincoln I wonder if Obama even has a clue what the United States was built on. Obviously, he does not and is the most sinister and evil president the USA has ever known!
“If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law”
― Henry David Thoreau, I fully agree with this…. and I think many others will follow…..
Don, I agree that this is a citizenship issue so perhaps one step to take is when “debating” or “educating” in the comment sections of articles here or there and in the interviews that some of us give, we should be very precise with our language and message.
The issue isn’t whether the US has a right to tax its citizens wherever they live. The issue is that the US is forcing citizens of other countries to also be US citizens and therefore under US jurisdiction.
The US can have whatever rules it likes about inheriting citizenship but other countries are not obliged to recognize possible second citizenship claims of their own citizens – especially if said citizens don’t recognize them (ie: make a formal claim).
Birthplace citizenship is trickier but again, it is incumbent on the US to prove that a Canadian or a Brit has claimed US citizenship also. Absent that proof, the US should be politely but firmly rebuffed.
And I agree. If you don’t hold citizenship where you live (and granted this gets trickier given the rules surrounding naturalization with wait times and such), you are – unfortunately – subject to the US, but imo, only when in their jurisdiction, so they should have to appeal through legal channels if they believe that a USC resident somewhere else has broken rules.
The Canadian lawsuit, as far as I understand it, is really about citizenship at its heart and is demanding that the Canadian govt do its job in protecting its citizens from the laws of another country.
I know that in Canada, we are big – very big – on the idea that no one should have to shed their birth citizenship to become Canadian. It’s a lovely idea but it’s basically impossible to “stand on guard” for more than one country at a time. You simply can’t serve two masters unless one of them is okay with it.
For Canadians who have a claim to US citizenship, this is not the reality. Canada willingly throws you under the bus because it only pays lip service to the idea that you can hold two citizenships at once and the US is of the same mind but on a markedly more punitive scale that extorts you for the right to live “aboard”.
Am I the only one who gets tired of repeatedly talking about what the issue is?
It amazes me that we have to keep talking about the same thing, over and over, and over again, and yet here we are, all a bunch of ‘tax evaders’ according to US law. And the Canadian government by its acquiescence, apparently agrees.
USA can go fuck itself! No one over there is listening. And the Canadian government can also go fuck itself, because it has shown us that Canadian citizenship means fuck all. And that is the thing that drives me the most crazy. I could give two shits about the USA, yet I am a leper in my own country where I have lived since I was one year old, and where my parents and grandparents were born. Thank you very much Canada!
@WhiteKat,
My sentiments exactly x 100!!!!!
After the last round at the Guardian I am starting to bore myself. You keep repeating the same thing day after day, week after week. I haven’t been at this nearly as long as so many of you and I am ready to stick needles in my eyes. I have never, ever experienced being filled with so much hatred.
I just keep buying lottery tickets with the dream of handing Stephen a big fat check of a million or two. I feel like I am stuck in a very bad dream that doesn’t go away when I awake.
@Charl,
Everywhere you comment, you do an awesome job of explaining how things hurt not just those on the outside of the wall, but also those on the inside.
And you explain again and again and again and the next comment is: pay your fair share, leave who wants you anyway, But thanks, I keep tryin’. It is just that I get sooooo pissed off. I keep trying to find their “buttons” but man, some (most) of them just don’t seem to have any. Some of the garbage that comes out of me trying to pretend I actually care about what happens down there actually makes me laugh at myself. Savage amusement but hey, this is actually making me crazy! (Actually I do care but only in regards to the impact it might have on Canada).
Between Obama and Harper it is a toss-up of who I would like to sic my dogs on. Maybe they could both come over for a one way “visit”.
What we all need to realize is that the Canadian government created an “unjust” law in this. Yes, we talk about it over and over as it infuriates those who thought Canada stood for more than money. Well, This government NEVER answered any of my letters or requests to explain itself regarding this law. I think, most will not follow this law and just stay silent and when the time comes, tell the government of Canada to go fuck itself. The Natives know how to get answers from this government and I don’t have to tell you all how, it seems pretty clear. Canada will turn into a bloodshed, turmoil country soon enough with scoundrels and liars at the wheel. Lets hope, Canadians get up and actually do something before it is too late. ADCS is only just the start.
We know what the issue is. The main issue at hand is that if you hold US citizenship, you are chattel to the US government. Period. Full stop.
If you have US citizenship, bottom line, you’re in trouble no matter where you’re at in the world, because when push comes to shove, no other nation on the planet can withstand having the shit freed out of them by an angry, and vengeful ‘Murica. We have seen for ourselves how our US citizenship status is but a symbol of our financial, and psychological imprisonment.
I think the duals on this board that can dump their US citizenship need to stop loathing like chattel, schedule an appointment, and renounce at the first opportunity, rather than wait for a miracle that will never come.
Speaking for myself, I have only a few months to go until I can apply for Canadian citizenship. What I need to do, and what I continue to do, is, stop living in fear, stop whining like chattel, demand from myself my own self respect, keep my eyes on the frigging prize, and then relinquish at the first opportunity once I have my Canadian citizenship.
So help me, these chains will come off my neck!
@
WhiteKatBlaze, I remember your ‘What does the Canadian Government Want with a Cop’ article and saw videos of you presenting to Parliament (that video will no doubt cause those Parliamentarians present to end up with “egg on their faces” when ADCS prevails as quite clearly the prospect of legal action based on Charter Rights was discussed).@Charl – I read the Guardian article comments and I especially like yours. I copied a few:
“Fair share of what? What do these people get for their taxes? The answer…absolutely NOTHING. They do pay their fair share of taxes where they live. They also bank at their LOCAL banks, they are not off-shore to them. Believe me no one appreciates tax evasion. The US needs to be looking at their RESIDENTS off shoring funds, not their deemed citizens living off-shore. Big difference.”
“No one gives up their citizenship to avoid taxes. They give up their citizenship to avoid being penalised for being American, in the countries where they live, work, pay taxes, and can’t use the banking system because of their nationality. Do try and keep up.”
“The remainder of the world understands the value of resident based taxation, why does the US struggle in finding this same understanding? They once did understand and wanted it for themselves, fought a war over it. How, my dear USA, have you lost your way? Lost your very own foundational principles.”
This is what I observe over the past few months: Charl and others are getting better at commenting. There is anticipation of the naysayer comments and pre thought out responses. The comments reflect the discussion and comments of others – for instance that there are a lot of other types of income and gains on assets other than earned income (that gets some treaty protection).
I wonder if some naysayers work for the IRS as what could motivate them to stay at it for hours and days. As far as the passion exhibited by those on the Brocker side, I completely understand this. I would say that Brockers are gaining the upper hand and will prevail from sheer passion.
The Democrats Abroad research was picked up by Laura Saunders in a WSJ article. I would like to see letters and stories from US persons abroad published by Americans Abroad, AARO, Republicans Abroad and others. More research projects will no doubt get picked up by the press. I like the idea of some sort of Democracy Wall of such letters.
There was one comment to the WSJ article that I sent direct to Laura Saunders (if she did not read it in the comments section). I post here:
11:22 pm September 23, 2014
NOSTALGIC FOR DEMOCRACY wrote:
Enough WSJ articles about the “devastating” and “intense” consequences of FATCA. I have read tens of them over the past two years, yet I have never once read that the WSJ confronted a U.S. Senator, a U.S. Treasury official, an IRS official, Obama, or any key government person and ask them to justify the outrage that their FATCA law is causing to hard working, law abiding U.S. citizens living outside of the U.S. Why are you not interested in doing this most basic journalistic duty, namely questioning those responsible? To just write the same article over and over telling how FATCA is ruining the lives of millions of U.S. expat citizens without challenging those responsible for this insanity is poor journalism at best and complicity with those responsible at worst. Enough is enough, the WSJ should urgently interview key Senators, Treasury and IRS officials and ask them directly what are they going to do to remedy the problem, or allow them to try to justify their totalitarian laws. Some real serious journalism is now long overdue concerning this insane situation. Is the WSJ capable?
I sent the above to Robert Wood as well. These journalists have expert knowledge then why not use it in an interview format of government officials to justify laws they approved and pursue.
I’ll end the post with this article I tweeted today:
“Obama’s wrong about our go-it-alone, imperialistic, America-first tax code” http://ti.me/1v5uYGO
I enjoyed your link at the end, JC. It’s right on the money.
http://samuelclemmons.wordpress.com/2014/09/01/economic-patriotism-is-the-berlin-wall-rebuilt/
Same concept in my article.
“Economic Patriotism” was delivered from the despot in the Whitehouse, with a backslap to US citizens abroad.
@ JC Thank you for that link http://time.com/3430921/obama-tax-inversion/
An excellent, cogent article.
George: What about the hapless souls who were denied entry to the land of their birth for lack of a US passport? A US passport was a document they neither wanted nor thought they should need but in order to maintain a way of life that included travel to the country where their family lived they applied for, and received, a passport. These poor people took this action under the impression that they were applying for a simple travel document. Years later they found out it was a ticket to tax hell.
Surely you don’t mean to withdraw your sympathies from this group of “US Persons”. These people are amongst those who are both most profoundly hurt and most profoundly in danger in the FATCA/CBT world.
@mjh49783
I need to go to the U.S. and check on my elderly parents. Also, I need to protect the interests of my son, who doesn’t consider himself at all American, but who is too young to renounce. I can do that much better as a citizen, although I hate having to give everything over to my husband. Mostly I see myself as riding shotgun for my son. I never thought much of Sarah Palin, but feel that the phrase ‘momma grizzly’ describes me well. I am also frankly mortified by the way that policies in this area violate alleged American values (hence the choice of screen name).
@JC
I have wondered about the motivation of the people who argue for the policy. Sometimes I think that they just don’t know that much about the situation. I hope they aren’t Treasury, since they have a very poor command of the facts. I suspect that they are probably people who are frustrated by the way things are in the U.S. now (like a lot of people) and buy the line that the problem is Americans overseas.
@JC
I too would like to see more articles written by Americans advocating for us, as all if this is going to blow back on the homeland. I’m happy you’ve written what you have to Laura Saunders and perhaps the letter I only recently wrote to her co-author Liam Pleven about helping us find someone to advocate and do PR for Americans abroad will get them thinking about it.
@JC, I think you have WhiteKat confused with Blaze!
@Publius
A lot of my family is stateside, but my overriding concern is to care for my disabled wife, and that is my biggest reason for heading to the exits. Besides, my country has left me before I left my country.
It really sucks when family concerns make the decision to relinquish, or not to relinquish, all the more difficult, but, speaking for myself, I can’t worry about that anymore. My marriage comes first.
So, if you have to hold on due to having to care for someone, I can understand that. I just don’t understand why some people would want to hold on to the damned blue passport, for what I can only think to be of sentimental value, and maintain a link to a nation that treats us with such utter contempt, simply for residing outside of it. It’s not like it will ever get any better.
One of the struggles I’ve always had with this debate is the language / words used.
Citizenship involved responsibility, privileges, rights, and burdens. What’s a responsibility and what’s a burden yes can come down to someone’s opinion. However burdens can nullify responsibility, privileges, and rights if allowed to go unchecked.
For example 90% of Canadians are allowed to roam the land without the FATCA burden. Do all these Canadians thinks it’s right to burden 10% for the greater good?
Is military service a responsibility? Most people probably would say yes if there was a draft. Others in the 1960s thought of it as a burden and ended up in Canada. However the argument is different for every conflict.
Often on this blog you see “solving the problems of US citizenship,’ would ‘solving the burdens of US citizenship’ be more emotive?
The word burden usually conjures up a negative feelings about something bad that happens to people through no fault of their own. Did I just describe US ex-pats?
The word burden may elicit more help from people. People feel good about lifting ‘burdens.’
Would Mr Harper have a more difficult time defending the burden he has imposed on a significant number of Canadians rather than ‘Harping’ on about chasing tax evaders?
Lifting a burden may be an easier sell than trying to re-impose someone’s rights. Although in the end the result is the same.
Perhaps people would more easily contribute money if they thought about lifting a burden than solely arming for battle at a court.
So perhaps instead of ‘Solving the problem of US citizenship,’ perhaps consider ‘Lifting the burdens of US citizenship.”
I found this while surfing the net. It does a nice job of summing up our dilemma.
This Appalling Practice Is Only Used in Two Nations—And the US Is One of Them
by Nick Giambruno, Senior Editor to International Man
[Article removed by editor because of lack of permission to reproduce here. See link. Petros.]
@ Don
Good comment. I agree “burden” is a better use of words. A “problem” is something that might evoke nothing more than a ho-hum reaction; whereas “burden”, at least among those with some empathy, evokes the need to do something. And we really do need to do something.
@charl & WhiteKat
You two (and many others) have done great work with all your article comments. Don’t let the trolls get you down – your comments are likely influencing lots of silent readers.
Mr. A and others,
Only Petros can guide this blog, and there is no other Petros in another country. We are uniquely Canadian.