I am a United States citizen and voluntarily wish to maintain that citizenship.
However, there are many people living outside the United States who the U.S. deems to be United States citizens — who had this “citizenship” imposed on them without their consent.
For these people such citizenship is unwanted, and all would agree that they should not be citizens of the United States. A strong case can also be made that they are not in fact U.S. citizens.
Many of these unfortunate people will comply with regulations, imposed by the U.S. Department of State and Internal Revenue Service, to free themselves, at high cost, from U.S. citizenship and associated obligations to the Internal Revenue Service.
This was just suggested to me as a possible position such people could take:
“The laws of the United States end at its borders.
I have never had any voluntary connection to the U.S. including: not living in the U.S., not born in the U.S., and if born in the U.S. not choosing where I was born.
I will not allow the U.S. to forcibly impose U.S. citizenship, (and the financial terrorism it implies) on me without my consent.
Because I have no voluntary connection to the U.S. I will pay not one penny to extricate myself from U.S. claims of ownership.“
It’s a catchy slogan.
The laws of US end at its borders. But it could create un-needed defensiveness. Maybe USA wants to put people in jail for other things, and they might get angry at people protesting.
Should be either or all.
USA’s TAX LAWS END AT ITS BORDERS, or
USA’s TAX JURISDICTION IS USA
USA’s TAX LAWS NEED TO END AT ITS BORDERS.
THE IRS NEEDS TO STAY IN USA
THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE IS NOT AN EXPORT
and for spouses and etc
Dear IRS and USA; KEEP YOUR PERSONHOOD TO YOURSELF
Pingback: $81,457 more needed to make the February 1 2015 payment for Canadian FATCA IGA lawsuit/ Il nous reste 81 457 $ à ramasser pour notre poursuite judiciaire | Maple Sandbox
In dealing with the question of “US law ends at its borders”, it should be recognized that a number of countries have laws affecting their citizens outside their own territory. There is more than one kind, but I note in particular laws concerning sex tourism. The following jurisdictions have laws that prosecute their own citizens in their own country for child sex crimes committed in other countries:
Australia
Canada
Hong Kong
United Kingdom
United States
(Source: Wikipedia “Child Sex Tourism”)
The challenge then is distinguishing extraterritorial taxation from laws of this kind. The other option is to oppose all laws with extraterritorial reach, not an easy way to win friends for our cause if it means annulling of sex tourism legislation.
EmBee: BRILLIANT! Absolutely BRILLIANT!!! 🙂
@NorthernShrike
“The challenge then is distinguishing extraterritorial taxation from laws of this kind. The other option is to oppose all laws with extraterritorial reach, not an easy way to win friends for our cause if it means annulling of sex tourism legislation.”
Nobody laws of universal jurisdiction for sex tourism, crimes against humanity, we oppose US sponsored fiscal rape, extortion, financial terrorism by the IRS acting as the enforcement arm of a kleptocracy
Thanks, Mark — all apply and should be added to to PROTEST SLOGANS / SIGNS.
This citizenship based taxation is the product of stupid, greedy, low I.Q. politicians who lie cheat and steal to stay in power. If I were an accidental citizen I’d tell the IRS to shove it and never pay a penny, never admit I was a citizen and fight to be a citizen of whatever country I had chosen of had chosen for me.
@Bubbles, “to defend yourselves of accusations of being American solely based on birth or registration”
You are falling into a symantic trap as sometimes happens at IBS.
The USA does NOT have registration of Citizenship like many Countries rightfully do!!
The citizenship is automatically bestowed upon someone at birth by action of law requiring no further action on the part of that individual. In a convulated way, they “think” they are doing a generous favor in this!!!
People use the wrong term when they say registration at the consulate, rather its getting a consular report of birth abroad which in reality is little more than an english style birth certificate.
@NorthernStrike, I assume that the prosecution only and solely occurs when you are within the territory limits of the designated country.
I.e. A Canadian outside of Canada will not be prosectuted in Canada if he/she has not re-entered Canada and is in some third country.
FATCA is mail order prosecution whilst you are not in the USA.
But I do have issues with ALL extraterritorial laws, always have, because of the slippery slope……
@USCitizenAbroad, “For an “accidental American” (who doesn’t believe he is a U.S. citizen) to pay money to the U.S. and/or the “Compliance Condors” is like being victimized by a “419 Scam”.”
Thats why we find ourselves in the hole…………….
Hundreds, maybe thousands, of persons fell for the “scam” instead of saying blow off………
If no one had co-operated, it would have already collapsed.
There were too many accidentals that simply rolled over…..
@NorthernStrike, “Ask yourself the question, what if it were Iran, not the US? What if Iran said”
Many moons ago, pre-FATCA, I posed that question to State.
Their reply was that a foreign government laws (Iran) had no power over a Citizen of Iran who was an immigrant to the United States, even if that person was not a US Citizen.
Thanks for the correction, George. Do you know of any instances where a citizen by descent, living outside the US who has not done anything to reaffirm US citizenship has had the responsibilities of US citizenship forced on him? I haven’t, but it’s expected the rounding up of all Americans for FATCA will change all that.
I remember a story about someone who applied for a visa to go to the US was told to get a passport instead because he, unbeknownst to him, was in fact a U.S. citizen.
@Bubblebustin, you do know that your name constantly reminds me of Finding Nemo. 🙂
“Do you know of any instances where a citizen by descent, living outside the US who has not done anything to reaffirm US citizenship has had the responsibilities of US citizenship forced on him?”
First, I know of such persons who voluntarily entered OVDI having newly discovered they were considered by a foreign government to be USC (Foreign Government) and wrote checks in the six figures.
Second, I know of FIs that have ferreted out such persons in the EU. Both young University types and well established business people. Basically they did not know the lay of the land and self incriminated.
@George
I don’t know about Finding Nemo, but apparently Sponge Bob’s got a Bubble Bustin game. I actually came up with it as a moniker when watching the Republicans-in-a-bubble that Bill Maher used to have on his show.
Funny, as it turns out, they seem to have the better grasp of things – at least as far as the issues that affect US persons broad go.
@StephenKish “What should be the position of people living abroad with unwanted United States-deemed citizenship?”
Its actually rather simple……..
1.) If you are an immigrant to a Country and your migrant status is based on a US Passport, then while USC might be unwanted its all you got, sorry nothing more.
2.) If you reside in a Country and are a national of said Country and said Country is a signatory to the “CONVENTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CONFLICT OF NATIONALITY LAWS
THE HAGUE – 12 APRIL 1930” then the idea that you may or may not be a USC is entirely moot! It does not matter if USC is wanted, unwanted, hoped for, the bottomline is that you do not have it in that Country.
3.) If you reside in a Country that has not signed the 1930 Convention but have committed a relinquishing act under 8 US Code then you already got rid of that unwanted USC.
4.) If you reside in a Country that has not signed the 1930 Convention and you have not committed a relinquishing act under 8 US Code then you need to renounce that unwanted USC using the required forms as stated in 8 US Code or commit a relinquishing act under 8 US Code.
5.) If you reside in a Country that has not signed the 1930 Convention and you have not committed a relinquishing act under 8 US Code and you do not want to renounce that unwanted USC using the required forms as stated in 8 US Code or commit a relinquishing act under 8 US Code, then said USC is likely wanted and you are an American Citizens Abroad and should become a dues paying member.
The US doesn’t care about Int’l Law or Treaties it does what it likes.
Also if you go to a US embassy website to renunciations (the very bottom of citixen services although I would argue it should top the list now) the US stays in control until the very end until they ‘approve’ your renunciation!
@Don, I’ve often wondered if at some point the USG might even declare many CLNs null and void just to throw its weight around.
Thanks for this, George.
…and for the distinction of when a CLN should and *should not* be required for our banks in your comment to “notamused”: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/consulate2/comment-page-35/#comment-4357925
YogaGirl continues to think very clearly about all this — and what you have emphasized is important: if we expect to / want to be able to travel into the US, that has to influence our decisions on what we must do for ourselves and our families regarding obtaining that CLN.
@monalisa, Yep I have no doubt that a Court could create some right and make all those CLNs null and void. On that I have no doubt plus they would see no problem with it and think they were doing all a great favor.
It truly is Hotel California.
The boundaries of the United States are the boundaries of the United States.
Extraterritorial jurisdiction is imposed by the New Hampshire Legislature:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/625/625-4.htm
If you call in a bomb threat to any foreign legislature’s capitol building you are breaking that country’s laws. This means you are required to obey the laws of all countries of the world. However, the bureaucrats tend to limit apprehensions of persons and seizures of movable property at the boundaries agreed upon, lest they get in trouble with the bureaucrats on the other side, or with the bureaucrats on their own side.
One unfortunate side issue is that some Canadian citizens can fly from Toronto to Halifax whilst others would be at risk for doing so and, unlike being required to sit at the back of the bus, would be required to take the bus, as even the CN rail goes into Maine. It is unlikely that Air Canada will offer flights that take the long way (make everybody suffer equally)
@George
Hotel California, as quoted from the U.S. Joint Committee on Taxation 2003 report:
“… if a CLN has been issued but the Department of State later discovers that such issuance was improper … the Department of State could initiate proceedings to revoke the CLN”.
“To the extent that the IRS believes that a CLN was improperly issued, the IRS could present such evidence to the Department of State and request that revocation proceedings be commenced”.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CPRT-JCS-2-03/pdf/GPO-CPRT-JCS-2-03-7-2.pdf
@George
Further to my Hotel California comment above, please note the JCT report was issued in 2003. That pre-dates the time when citizenship for taxation purposes was split from Department of State citizenship.
For the post-2004 taxation citizenship, THERE IS NO CLN. That implies the IRS can ignore the State Department CLN and do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, with tax citizenship.