A Must Read from Shadow Raider’s IssacBrockSociety.ca comment:
I just sent my suggestion for tax reform to the Senate Finance Committee. You can read it here.
A Must Read from Shadow Raider’s IssacBrockSociety.ca comment:
I just sent my suggestion for tax reform to the Senate Finance Committee. You can read it here.
Polly What Maz says is frightening, but very true. I came to Canada as a spiritual draft dodger.
US Congress has shown over and over they simply do not care. It is not their sons and daughters they are sending off to fight in unjustified wars, It is not them who are being called tax evaders, tax cheats, criminals, traitors, terrorist financers, drug trafficers, money launderers, etc.
It is not their private financial records that are being seized.
CBT is NOT about taxes. Since the Civil War, CBT has been about power, punishment and control.
I hope Congress will come to their senses and adopt Shadow Raider`s proposal. But I am not optimistic. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.
Dreamer, I’m with you. I was never anti-American, but after seeing what they’re capable of, and seeing them cheered on by so many brain dead homelanders, I only need to see a trickle of light slip through that door, and I’m outta here. I would go today except for that financial suicide thing they’re offering. It’s been a long time since I’ve felt like one of them anyhow.
Thank you so much Shadow Raider, and all you other busy Brockers.
@Bubblebustin
Isn’t that a typo above? You wrote that nobody would want to renounce if America “did the right thing and went to CBT.” Shouldn’t that say RBT? And people subsequently made the same mistake. Just for the record….?
@Blaze
True!
@ Polly What a good eye you have. Yes a couple of us slipped with the wrong letter, myself included. Maybe the moderator can fix the error please. I try to proof my posts but typos and mistakes do slip in sometimes.
@ Blaze, you are so right about this not being about taxes, especially since the majority of the people filing owe little. However in order to owe little, they have to avoid government tax advantaged savings accounts in their own countries, this is where the control comes in. Those living abroad are not allowed the same investing opportunities as those living within the US borders.
Yes, of course, Polly, I meant to write “RBT”. Moderators please correct, thanks.
I also would like everyone to know that I am aware of the distinction between relinquishment and renunciation in my comment that CBT is the cause of the current number of renunciations. I would imagine that there are all kinds of reasons that people might want to rid themselves of US citizenship other than CBT, but if you left under any of these other circumstances, wouldn’t you then relinquish vs renounce US citizenship?
bubblebustin,
I changed CBT to RBT in one comment from you and one from heartsick. Haven’t looked for any others. Reasons for anyone leaving would be simplified with change of the *C* to the *R*.
@heartsick
It took me a couple of rereads too! LOL
If only it was that easy, Calgary411!
@ Bubblebustin,
Good point. I think it’s possible that a person might opt to be a dual citizen at the time of their relinquishing act, but over time get disturbed by political policies that developed in the US (after their relinquishing act) and decide they don’t want any association with the country anymore and decide to renounce. Also a person might feel more estranged/disconnected from the US with the passage of time (in this case, were it not for CBT, I think most of these would not bother with renouncing, but I think it likely that some would want to make it official). So, I think there’s probably some people renouncing for non-CBT reasons, but I think the vast, really vast, majority of the renunciations are driven by CBT.
I think that probably a lot more relinquishments now (such as persons choosing to relinquish upon naturalising this year) are CBT-driven than was the case in previous decades, although I believe people would still choose to relinquish in a relatively significant number even were there not CBT. No clue what the percentage would be, but I’d bet it’s probably a lot more than would be the case with renunciations.
Yes, Pacifica, I suppose there are naturalized Canadians (or even duals at birth) who in their growing dissatisfaction with the US’s many subsequent policies have chosen to renounce in rejection of those policies, but do you think it was all that common prior to the last few years? Certainly someone denouncing those other US policies today is going to add CBT to their list of reasons for renouncing now that the ramifications are more clearly known.
Unfortunately there’s no way of knowing what factors attributed to the number of people renouncing prior to the recent drastic increase, but it would be fair to say that many of them could be due to the knowledge of CBT, as the policy had been in place for years.
@Pacifica777
I believe what you say is no doubt true that the number of relinquishments, past and present, have and are going to increase due to CBT, even though some of the past relinquishments (documented or not) must have been made with CBT in mind. I also believe that the State Department, made wind of this, is going adopt more stringent guidelines in determining past relinquishments – the mean-spirited jerks they’ve already proven themselves to be with the renunciation fee hike.
@Bubblebustin,
I wouldn’t know. I’m thinking one example from the past would be the Vietnam era. Some people had very strong feelings about being associated with the US then (and, in the case of young male dual citizens, the practical matter of draft itself would have probably been a big motivator for renunciation.) I have the feeling (just my feeling, don’t know) that there’s always been some dual citizens who found themselves really seriously opposed to policy both before and since that era. I don’t think, though, that policy-motivated renunciations have generally been in large numbers – except possibly for practical reasons during the Vietnam draft era — that’s just what I’m thinking, don’t really know.
I have the impression there just weren’t many renunciations, period, prior to recently. Not exactly scientific, but over the years (prior to this current situation) I’ve known many people who relinquished but never knew anyone who renounced.
Agree. Some dual citizens would have found about CBT (prior to the mass awareness of the past few years). So, it seems very logical to me that that would have been motivating renunciations even before this current tidal wave.
@ Bubblebustin,
Re:
Did you mean must have been made without CBT in mind? I think most of the past relinquishments were made without CBT in mind because almost no one seemed to have been aware of it years ago. But it probably was a factor (even the factor) for some of the people who did know about it.
Re:
A definite possibility. I also would not be surprised if all methods of relinquishment end up with the same fee as renunciation.
@Pacifica777
What I meant to say is that many of the past relinquishments and renunciations prior to the current surge could have been made to escape CBT also.
I would like to make a revision to my other statement that all the renunciations are due to CBT, by saying that virtually all of today’s renunciations are due to CBT, although not perhaps always entirely. As others have pointed out, some may have other grievances. There also may be the odd CBT supporter who has to renounce his US citizenship, to say hold office in another country for instance, but what’s the likelihood of that? (And, yes, I did mean to write CBT :-))
For what it’s worth, when I became a dual citizen I did not intend to give up my US citizenship. Now, due to events, I have no choice but to plan for a future renouncement unless things change
I completely understand and agree with maz57’s comments yesterday afternoon. Like him, I came to Canada initially because of the Vietnam war, fell in love with Canada as it was then (and I hope will return to being after this year’s election), and had absolutely no regrets about losing my US nationality on becoming a Canadian, willingly and intentionally. CBT had absolutely nothing to do with my decision to relinquish forty years ago. I was in fact tax-compliant with the IRS at that time, filing from Canada because the personnel department at my Canadian place of employment warned me the IRS expected returns from non-US-resident US citizens, and I filed every year while I still was a USC. Never owed them a dime, thanks to FEIE. Thought it was absurd that I had to file, gritted my teeth and grumbled about it, but did it anyway to avoid giving the USG another reason to try to extradite me (which they couldn’t have done anyway but I didn’t know that at the time).
I think CBT is an abomination, RBT is the only approach that makes sense from any perspective other than raw imperialism and birthplace-slavery, but the taxation issue had absolutely nothing to do with my decision to move to Canada and to become a Canadian. And I very much doubt anyone in my situation who came here during the Vietnam war era gave a nickel’s worth of thought to the taxation issue. That wasn’t a top-of-mind issue back then, even if you were aware of it (as I was and very few other US-origin immigrants were at that time, at least those whom I have known over the years).
Today is perhaps different, I agree, though I wouldn’t care to speculate as to what percentage of people wanting to ditch USC are doing it because of CBT. I can think of a whole slew of domestic, foreign, and military affairs issues with the US of today that are just as outrageous as was the Vietnam war, and ample justification in my view for no longer wanting anything to do with the USA.
That being said, I wish to repeat my comments over at Sandbox, admiring ShadowRaider for his superbly written and structured argument against CBT and the impressive amount of work and research put into it. Well done!
… and FTR I’ll echo Maz57’s and Blaze’s skepticism that Congress will ever change from CBT to RBT. The Exceptional States of America and their exceptionalist-koolaid-drinking politicians are incapable of recognizing or admitting their country can be so utterly wrong and hypocritical about CBT, as it is about a lot of other things. I wish for all of you CBT-affected folks on this website that there is hope for real change on this issue, but I’ll once again echo USXCanada’s cry “sauve qui peut.” Or in American, “trust in God but keep your powder dry.” Don’t bank on either party in Congress ever changing the US tax system in any significant way, CBT or otherwise. Too many vested interests, and two centuries of “log-rolling” aka “omnibus legislation” is too much for them to overcome. Even if they weren’t mired in their so-called exceptionalism.
@Pacifica777, you said “I also would not be surprised if all methods of relinquishment end up with the same fee as renunciation.” I’m not so sure about that. I’ve been wondering why there has been no fee for relinquishments done other than by renunciation, and I think that it may be illegal under international law for the U.S. to charge a fee for those. For example, when a person voluntarily relinquishes U.S. citizenship at the time of becoming a Canadian citizen, how could the U.S. charge a fee for that? The U.S. would, in effect, be charging a fee for the person to become a Canadian. That would certainly violate Canadian sovereignty even more than CBT and the FATCA IGA do.
pacifica777 said :”I wouldn’t know. I’m thinking one example from the past would be the Vietnam era. Some people had very strong feelings about being associated with the US then (and, in the case of young male dual citizens, the practical matter of draft itself would have probably been a big motivator for renunciation.) I have the feeling (just my feeling, don’t know) that there’s always been some dual citizens who found themselves really seriously opposed to policy both before and since that era. I don’t think, though, that policy-motivated renunciations have generally been in large numbers – except possibly for practical reasons during the Vietnam draft era — that’s just what I’m thinking, don’t really know.”
Like Schubert 1975,my husband and I came to Canada during the Vietnam era, and my husband’s company told their American employees that they were required to file IRS forms. He filed these forms for both of us until we became Canadian citizens 6 years later, and therefore lost our American citizenship under U.S. law, as was our intent when coming to Canada. At that time dual citizenship was not possible (except from birth), so receiving Canadian citizenship was the practical equivalent of renouncing. For American war resisters who had received a draft notice or who were eligible to be drafted, the process of official renouncing at the embassy would mean entering U.S. soil and identifying themselves as violating American law by having left the United States for the purpose of avoiding a military service obligation. They could be detained on the spot and sent back for prosecution. Even appearing at a consulate would be risky, and the renunciation might not even have been accepted if it was considered to be for purposes of violating American law, and could also expose their family in the States to harassment, In any case, it’s quite doubtful that any American was resisters or their spouses would want to risk officially renouncing when they would automatically lose their American status by becoming a Canadian citizen. After 1986, I believe, Americans did not automatically lose their citizenship by becoming naturalized in another country, so renunciation would then become necessary to remove the American taint.
And in pre-internet days, just getting information about U.S. policies generally required direct contact with the American government, which many American political refugees felt was extremely risky.
@Queenston Your comments about what might have happened during Vietnam if an indicted draft-dodger or deserter had set foot inside a US embassy or consulate anywhere in the world, is also my understanding. Also family harassment — after my indictment, the local FBI goon visited my father (who worked for the US post office) and threatened him with loss of his job and pension if he didn’t tell my address in Canada and report me if I ever showed up on the doorstep. My father got into a roaring argument with the guy (who had been his high-school classmate), comparing the FBI to the KGB and the Gestapo. And my Dad had up until that time always been a Republican and had served in the US armed forces in WWII. (He then telephoned me, reported this to me, and ordered me never to come to his funeral when he died, because “sure as hell those bastards will be waiting for you behind the grave stones.” He died long after Carter granted the amnesty to draft dodgers, so I did attend his funeral years later, with no problems.)
I got my CLN my mail from the US embassy in Ottawa after I wrote a letter to Henry Kissinger on the occasion of the US Bicentennial, telling him I’d become a Canadian and why. The embassy sent me a questionnaire a couple of months later, which I filled out and returned by mail, and I got my CLN about six months after I sent my first letter. Until that time I’d never heard of a CLN, was a bit taken aback by the questionnaire but returned it with a few blunt comments along the lines of “of course I became a citizen of Canada voluntarily, and of course I intended to lose my US nationality, just read the damn letter I sent it’s pretty clear and blunt on those points.” Never had to set foot inside the embassy, and if they’d asked me to I would have laughed and not done it … and would probably have to apply for a CLN today. Different times, I guess. I always figured the State Department thought they were “punishing” me by sending me a CLN. Ironic, that. That piece of paper is literally worth more to me than its weight in gold, as I’m sure most of you on the site can appreciate.
Also ironic that writing an angry letter to the US Secretary of State could have such helpful (to me) unintended consequences. I just assumed somehow the US would have known I’d become Canadian and I was just rubbing their noses in it in my letter. I’ve recently thanked my lucky stars that I wrote that angry letter … and I still write angry letters to politicians in Canada today, on various issues (including FATCA of course!). We still have freedom of speech in this country, as long as you aren’t a charitable organization liable to be audited by Harper’s CRA goons, so why not exercise it responsibly? The “worst” that can happen to you might one day become a blessing in disguise!
@ Queenston,
Thanks for shedding some light on that. I do think that as a policy issue, it motivated a lot of relinquishments in the Vietnam era (and probably some renunciations by some females and older males) by persons wishing to sever their connection with the country. But if renunciation (physically appearing at a US consulate) could have been a very dangerous step for a draft resister, it makes sense one wouldn’t renounce, that one would want to steer as clear as possible from the US govt as one could. And come to think of it, expatriation wouldn’t have terminated one’s draft obligations (or an indictment), so that wouldn’t be a “practical motivation” to renounce anyway.
The biggest difference between leaving the US in protest of anything vs renouncing US citizenship in protest to CBT, is that no one would leave the US in protest of CBT 😉
I was a spiritual draft dodger. My 1973 canadian citizenship oath required me to renounce American citizenship. I informed the U.S. Consulate by telephone. They insisted my loss of U.S. Citizenship was “permanent and irrevocable.”
Schubert, they did strip us of our U.S. Citizenship as punishment. Then the Supreme Court reinstated our citizenship without our knowledge or consent. Now the U.S. tries to force the citizenship back on us as punishment.
And people wonder why I refuse to go anywhere near a U.S. Consulate to apply for a backdated CLN! I do not and never will trust them again. I will not play the game by their rules only to have them decide once again to unilaterally change the rules in any way they want.
@Schubert We have more in common than I previously knew. Both of my mother and my stepfather were Post Masters for the U.S. Postal Service. My grandmother and uncle both worked for the Post Office. Today we would call that nepotism.
The FBI arrived at the Post Office one day in 1969 looking for me. My mother said “Oh my God, what’s she done now?!?”