I received a phone call this afternoon from a concerned Brocker asking if I’d seen the discussion at Isaac Brock about whether it was ok to lie to the bank on the various self-certification forms. Specifically he asked my opinion about the ethics of lying. He said of course that the nuns at his parochial school said one should never lie, not even to save the world! But of course, as a theologian, the story of Rahab the Harlot came to my mind. She lied, and for that both Jews and Christians consider her a great heroine. Here is the main story of her boldfaced lie (Joshua 2.1-6; RSV):
1 And Joshua the son of Nun sent two men secretly from Shittim as spies, saying, “Go, view the land, especially Jericho.” And they went, and came into the house of a harlot whose name was Rahab, and lodged there. 2 And it was told the king of Jericho, “Behold, certain men of Israel have come here tonight to search out the land.” 3 Then the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, “Bring forth the men that have come to you, who entered your house; for they have come to search out all the land.” 4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them; and she said, “True, men came to me, but I did not know where they came from; 5 and when the gate was to be closed, at dark, the men went out; where the men went I do not know; pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them.” 6 But she had brought them up to the roof, and hid them with the stalks of flax which she had laid in order on the roof.
Now the New Testament remembers Rahab in Matt 1.5, as a great-great-great-great etc. granny of King David and Jesus; and as a woman of faith in Hebrews 11:31: “By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given friendly welcome to the spies.” James 2.25 also says, “And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?”
So it would seem that the Bible, as one the great foundational texts of both law and ethics in the Western world, has no problem with lying under certain circumstances. She lied to save the lives of two men who would soon become her new compatriots. Moreover, she’d seen that God was with the Israelites and Joshua, and she thus knew her city, Jericho, was doomed. So to protect herself and her family she decided to relinquish her Jericho citizenship under INS 349 (a) (7)–and become a daughter of Israel. She exercised her universal human right to change nationalities.
Yes, the King of Jericho would have severely punished her if he had found out her lie. And the homelanders of Jericho would have considered her a liar, traitor and tax cheat. But they didn’t write the history of the battle. Rahab had to do what was best for her family, and for that both Old and New Testaments praise her.
Hard times create unconventional heros.
@Bubblebustin
I THINK I see your point–I hope I’m not missing your point. As far as I can tell, I think you are saying that because Ginny and Gwen have now publicly disclosed their status, they are pretty much forced to tell the truth from here on in. So others–in solidarity with Gwen and Ginny–should also tell the truth. Again–I hope I’m understanding you correctly.
I would note, however, that the claims are actually quite silent on whether Ginny and Gwen consider themselves to be US citizens. So it seems to me that they–and Arvay–have left open the possibility to deny that they are US citizens–both later in court and in dealings with their bank. So I think that others are ethically entitled to do the same.
Gwen and Ginny DO disclose their US place of birth in the claims but I’ve never considered it a good idea to lie about birthplace.
@Bubblebustin
In fact, reading the claims again, it is noted that Gwen–although not Ginny–has described herself as Canadian only in dealings with US government officials. So I feel that other Canadians should feel free to follow Gwen’s lead and describe themselves as Canadian and nothing else when dealing with their banks.
But–again–birthplace is a trickier issue.
I found the book, The Yellow Star, through our library (check the children’s section). It won’t take you long to read. It’s told as a simple story, with a voice that rings true. I won’t ever forget that father and the little girl among the few children who survived. http://www.jenniferroy.com/yellowstar.html
I’ve always admired the heroes who hid Jews or who smuggled slaves in the Underground Railroad. (My sister in the U.S. actually works in a late brick house downtown that was used in the Underground Railroad.)
Although we don’t live under the extreme situation they did, the reality is that being a female in this culture means you have to keep the truth from strangers on the phone and on-line and in public areas. You have to say, “He’s can’t come to the phone right now” to a stranger on the phone, even if your husband is going to be away for days (or even if there’s no “he” in the picture). You leave on lights and the T.V. when you go out, to make it seem like someone’s around. You hide things in the trunk before you go into another store, so your car looks empty, and then you lock it. You pretend you have a change of plans and have to leave, if someone is making you feel uneasy.
I remember one college student’s story of being stalked by a strange man when she was walking back to her dorm with a (girl) friend. No one else was around. So she pinched her friend’s butt and wrapped her arm around her, pretending to be a lesbian, and the man left. Wasn’t that brilliant of her?
No one wants to lie to their banks, and you want to be able to trust them. I too hope it won’t come to this and that “our” lawsuit does make it possible for none of us to feel we have no other choice.
@Bubblebustin, re: ‘How is lying standing up for your rights?’
Protecting oneself, and one’s family from something that violates one’s rights, is a form of standing up for your rights. Of course there are lots of different ways to stand up for one’s rights (write letters to your politicians, public protesting, suing the government, etc), and on the surface, lying sounds like a ‘bad’ way to do this. But when taken in the context of FATCA and CBT, and the immoral IRS, lying is not ‘bad’ if this is how you think you can protect yourself. Who are your hurting with such a lie? – certainly not your bank!
Anyway, we all lie all the time. If you say otherwise, you are a liar. Are you going to tell me I look fat in that dress? The context of the lie, the effect on the person you are lying to, and the reason for lying make the difference between a just lie and an unjust lie.
@ MuzzledNoMore
An alias or nom de plume is not a lie unless someone purports it to be their true name. Just for the record, EmBee, is my alias. Did anyone ever think otherwise? Not likely. Even if everything was all settled — no more FATCA, FBAR, CBT with complete “amnesty” and a sincere apology — I would still use something other than my true name on the internet. It’s just the prudent thing to do.
As an aside and a twist, I read recently that facebook deleted the accounts of a native American couple by claiming they used “made up” names. They hadn’t of course but the real reason for the deletion was most likely someone didn’t like their “activist” leanings. I think native American (and Canadian) names are quite fascinating and I admire their activism.
http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/10/facebook-deleted-accounts-of-native-americans-on-columbus-day/
@ Bubblebustin re: lying …continued.
Our parents, teachers, children’s television shows, etc, drilled it into our heads that ‘lying is bad’, kind of like how many think ‘prostitutes are bad’ (and thus less trustworthy, etc), and how some pro-FATCAnatics (along with average Joe’s who are not us!) think we should have no issues with the loss of our financial privacy because if we were ‘good’, we would have ‘nothing to hide’.
Lying is fine and should be supported (not condemned) when done for ethical reasons. Of course, individuals will stretch that to include selfish reasons and convince themselves they are justified in their lies, but that is not what I am talking about.
Canadian (and American) law will not condemn you for killing another person if you genuinely and reasonably think your life is threatened. Lying to protect oneself from thieves (i.e. the IRS) is also perfectly justifiable, even admirable and ethically responsible – certainly not ‘bad’.
@Whitekat
I guess we have different interpretations of what it means to stand up for our rights. I can appreciate that it means to protect your family’s financial interests. I suppose mine’s a more literal interpretation, in that I actually want those who threaten them to know that I object to what they’re doing by “standing up” to them. No harm, no foul.
@Dash1729
Yes, I believe that if anyone like Gwen and Ginny believes that they deserve the rights and protections of all Canadians then they should do as these two ladies are doing. Again, no harm, no foul.
Isn’t whether anyone considers either ladies a US citizen irrelevant to the lawsuit?
@Bubblebustin,
Re: ” I suppose mine’s a more literal interpretation, in that I actually want those who threaten them to know that I object to what they’re doing by “standing up” to them. No harm, no foul. ”
So, when Ruth and I stood outside Ottawa Trailers with our ‘FATCA sequel to the war of 1812’ signs, what do you think we were doing? And do you think that this action is mutually exclusive with telling our banks that ‘no I am not a US PERSON’?
Seriously, give your head a shake. LYING IS NOT ALWAYS A BAD THING. Neither is prostitution.
Why should any of *US Persons* living abroad HAVE TO lie? It is law that needs to be changed, not someone’s method of living their lives (now by lying, which we never had to do before). The law should not be such that people are forced into even thinking about having to lie to protect themselves and their families. We need to get further, with the lawsuit, so people are not forced into having to lie. It’s bloody absurd. All need to be protected so all don’t HAVE TO lie.
Having to lie, the successful will be those who are the better liars. What a way to have to live — we must have fair law! It’s absurd that we are even having to have such a conversation.
Why won’t the US do the right thing and fix this? Why is the US only focused on punishment? Why does the US have no common sense? Why doesn’t our own Canadian and other government do something to protect its people when the US is forcing clear human rights abuses on people? Why?????
@Bubblebustin,
re: “@Dash1729, Yes, I believe that if anyone like Gwen and Ginny believes that they deserve the rights and protections of all Canadians then they should do as these two ladies are doing. Again, no harm, no foul. ”
No offense to Gwen and Ginny whatsoever, but Bubble we cannot all play their role! This is an unrealistic goal. They are figureheads. Yes, they volunteered (as did others whose names never get mentioned who are just as brave), but point is that WE CANNOT ALL BE PLAINTIFFS.
The rest of us have to find other ways to fight the beast, and maybe the only way some of us can do this is to LIE THROUGH OUR TEETH. Koodos to the liars who refuse to admit they are ‘US persons’ to the nice lady at the bank. You are all heroes too!!!!!!
Of course an obvious way to fight the beast, (besides being a plaintiff, and/or lying which is a bad thing, etc,etc,) is to support ADCS-ADSC with real (as in literal) cash.
We agree on that right Bubblebustin?
Ginny and Gwen are indeed valiant plaintiffs but I feel like all of us are silent-partner plaintiffs, playing different roles in what I like to refer to as “our lawsuit”. I’m pretty sure that they realize and appreciate that there is a firm base of supporters beneath them. Many people go into a lawsuit with nothing but immediate family and their lawyer on their side. Ginny and Gwen have so much more than that. Every activist deed we do is helpful. I hope I don’t get asked a difficult question by my bank but if I do I won’t rule out any response which protects what I believe to be vital to my well-being. I’m certain of one thing — having my financial data in the hands of a foreign country is very detrimental to my well-being.
@Calgary411, re: ” Why won’t the US do the right thing and fix this?”
Dream on. FATCA enforced CBT is war.
I realize that “Why won’t the US do the right thing and fix this?” is a illogical question.
I’m right now listening to Joseph Arvay in front of the Supreme Court of Canada and am trying to visualize how the subject of “US Persons Abroad having to lie to protect themselves and their families” might be argued by Mr. Arvay before that Court.
@Calgary, read the comments in this thread to get an idea how Arvay might argue this, although I cannot imagine WHY he would have to argue that particular question.
@Calgary,
…my point being, that WE are not on trial for lying.
@Whitekat @Bubblesabusting @Brockers et al…….
I am probably close to the position of bubbles…… No good will come from this business of lying or not lying for whatever reasons. Ultimately the truth is your ally.
The core point for the two plaintiffs is that they are Canadian Citizens under Canadian Law resident in Canada and they do not consider themselves to be US Citizens, Greek Citizens, Iranian Citizens or any other nationality irrespective that some FOREIGN GOVERNMENT considers them to be one of their own!!
I have been harping on these boards for awhile that this is NOT a tax problem its a Citizenship problem. Further if you research which Petros did a few years ago, one finds that these issues were hammered out in the 1930’s!!! Multiple citizenship has never worked and will never work, allegiance can only exist to one.
At some point the Plaintiffs will be under Oath and they will be asked under Oath, Are you a US Citizen? I am not trying to put words in their mouth but suspect they will say NO. That is the whole crux of the issue.
The other sides lawyers will then say “But you were born in the USA?” I would then suspect they will say they have never exercised the benefits of Citizenship of ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY.
This is why I believe the lawsuit will rightly need to morph into the question of nationality and by default bring up dominant nationality, effective nationality and the master nationality rule. Plus the Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Law.
http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3b00.html
Here are several scenarios and comments. If a person answers NO to the question they had better have a sound and logical reason for answering NO;
1. A landed immigrant resides in Canada and was admitted to Canada on a US Passport. This individual has no other citizenship. If this individual is presented with a form that asks “Are you a US Citizen?” they may only answer YES otherwise they are clearly lying.
There are many Brockers who will fall into this catagory and I have sympathy for them however, they are US Citizens and their government created a law applicable to its citizens. The most I can say is if you do not like their rules, you need to get rid of the blue book membership card.
2. A Canadian Citizen resident in Canada for whatever reason is a US Citizen under US Code and they dutifully renew their US Passport every ten years. If this individual is presented with a form that asks “Are you a US Citizen?” they may only answer YES otherwise they are clearly lying.
3. A Canadian Citizen resident in Canada became a Canadian Citizen with the intention of relinquishing US Citizenship under US Code. They do not have a CLN but they have not renewed their US Passport, nor voted in the US or done anything that a US Citizen would be entitled to do since they relinquished. If this individual is presented with a form that asks “Are you a US Citizen?” they may only answer NO otherwise they are clearly lying.
4. A Canadian Citizen resident in Canada became a Canadian Citizen at birth by descent from parents but themselves were born in the US. They have never had a US Passport, nor voted in the US or done anything that a US Citizen would be entitled to do since they relinquished. If this individual is presented with a form that asks “Are you a US Citizen?” they will answer that question based on dominant nationality, effective nationality and/or the master nationality rule.
I suspect this is the position of the two plaintiffs, they do not consider themselves to be citizens of a foreign country regardless of what said foreign country thinks of them.
Because of wide ranging nationality laws it is not uncommon for a person to have two, three or more possible nationalities. Just because some country calls you one of their own does not mean you have to agree outside their borders.
The answer to the question would be different if it was worded, “Does the US consider you a US Citizen?”
With that you might answer, Yes, NO, Do not know.
5. A landed immigrant resides in Canada and was admitted to Canada on a Irish Passport. This individual was born in the US but has never had a US Passport or exercised any trappings of US Citizenship. If this individual is presented with a form that asks “Are you a US Citizen?” they would answer it based on their understanding of dominant, effective nationality and the master nationality rule. Regardless, the Government of Canada under the immigration laws of Canada solely recognizes this person as Irish.
George: I disagree with your conclusion about the situation you describe in your second point:
“2. A Canadian Citizen resident in Canada for whatever reason is a US Citizen under US Code and they dutifully renew their US Passport every ten years. If this individual is presented with a form that asks “Are you a US Citizen?” they may only answer YES otherwise they are clearly lying.”
I know someone in the exact situation that you describe. This person applied for a U.S. passport after being informed that he was required to use one to travel to the United States. The consular official who served him *volunteered* the information that while in the United States he would be considered *solely* a U.S. citizen and that the Canadian government could not help him if he were to get into trouble in the U.S. Conversely, while in Canada he would be considered *solely* a Canadian citizen and he could not claim a right to assistance from the U.S. Again, those words were spoken by a U.S. consular official.
Therefore, the person you describe in #2 would *not* be lying if, on the stand in a Canadian courtroom, he said he was not a U.S. citizen. You have said it yourself. You cannot be a citizen of two countries at the same time. The consular official effectively defined “dual citizenship” (that hated expression) as conferring a right to citizenship in a second country when and if you travel there.
@George, MuzzledNoMore; Excellent comments. I think MuzzledNoMore is correct about whether US citizenship laws in the US are relevant to a person who is Canadian citizen living in Canada. The US may not offer protection, and therefore has no right to tax (Cook v. Tait).
So this post only applies to the person who is not a citizen of another country yet, but must lie to the bank to protect the financial affairs of the family.
Not knowing exactly what I will do when confronted by the bank even at this late date combined with the previous discussions on this thread regarding the ethics of lying and the concept of courage was starting to make my head spin. I agreed with everyone, on both sides! Knowing I will eventually have to take a firm stand I am struggling. It soothed my ego a bit to see that philosophers through the ages have also been struggling with this concept. Both sides have their valid points:
Deontology is an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (Consequentialism) or to the character and habits of the actor (Virtue Ethics). All lofty terms that only confuse my decision making.
If I conclude that what the US is doing is immoral than my response to the bank will be guided by this statement: “It would satisfy a well-formed conscience, to permit the speaking of falsehood when it is the only means we can think of to prevent someone from committing an immoral act.”
Then I think of Snowden and Mandella……can I have it both ways? Be courageous in some venues when I am not directly threatened yet with moral conviction speak a falsehood when I am directly threatened by an immoral act? I’m going for a long nap under a very large chicken coop. This is all pushing me to the edges of my fragile sanity. At my age I should only be thinking about mastering crochet patterns.
Petros
The problem I have about a person lying about their nationality is that they have the option of obtaining a new nationality and relinquishing their own and or invoking the master nationality rule
I have met far too many us citizens in the Eu who did not take on another nationality after living here decades These same people are now crying the fatca blues
Muzzled
I too know people in that scenario but I have to say if you keep that blue book you have to follow the masters rules
Fatca and cbt are not justified but you have to make a decision on that blue book
Imposing fatca based on place of birth violates discrimination laws worldwide
Imposing fatca based on active passport is a different ballgame
George: Well, not everyone pays attention to great fall of the United States the same as regular readers of Brock. It may be possible to lie in some cases: A US person in Canada as a permanent resident could self-certify not American–in some cases, provided he has a provincial drivers license when opening the account. I am not sure that any law is being broken at this point. But even if there is one, that is one of the risk factors involved. I’m saying that it is not necessarily unethical to lie in such a case if the it means being able to protect oneself and one’s family.
It is more difficult to come up with some reason why someone is no longer a US person, when they have opened an account with a US ID card or passport.
@ George We still need to consider that the US did not inform their passport carrying citizens of their tax obligations. I know someone living in Canada that has lived here for almost 40 years and had no idea he should have been filing tax returns in the US. He is a permanent resident of Canada. He said: “they know where I live, why did they not tell me anything”. No reasonable person would expect to be required to pay taxes to a country they do not live in. Now many are in the same boat as those being claimed as citizens because of circumstances of birth who have nothing to do with the US.
FATCA is not fair for any of us. Yes they need to make a decision now as to whether or not to keep the passport but they still face the unreasonable penalties that FATCA will bring on. If they don’t have another citizenship, it will take some time to aquire another one. Procrastination is likely the cause of not have a second passport or restrictions in obtaining one in the country they live in. Let’s not forget, the US passport used to be “valuable”, now it is a curse. They also face the punishing tax requirements and possible exit taxes to renounce. Not easy for them, they are entitled to complain along with the rest of us.
Yes, this! – And amazingly, the words of a theologian! How does this mesh with all our childhood Sunday school lessons?
Petros says: “I’m saying that it is not necessarily unethical to lie in such a case if the it means being able to protect oneself and one’s family. “