Early last month, just weeks before the election, the husband of one of the candidates for president of the Philippines renounced his U.S. citizenship. As Rappler reported:
Teodoro Misael Daniel “Neil” Vera Llamanzares filed his renunciation of his US citizenship on Thursday, April 7, before Carlos Alan Tañada Yam, chairman of Barangay Greenhills in San Juan.
Llamanzares signed 2 documents: the Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States of America/Renunciation of American Citizenship and his Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines.
Llamanzares, in his affidavit, said “I…expressly and voluntarily renounce my United States nationality/American citizenship, together with all rights and privileges and all duties and allegiance.”
It would be interesting to know if Philippine banks would accept a certificate like the one pictured above as proof that one was not a “U.S. person”, but it looks like we’re not going to find out in this case: Llamanzares already went and paid the U.S. Embassy in Manila’s extortionate fee to obtain one of their CLNs as well.
Also, since Llamanzares is a Very Important Person and not just one of us tax-evading money-laundering drug-dealing America-hating terrorist bloggers, they gave him one of those rare, strictly-rationed appointment slots and processed his paperwork in record time — the same high level of service that Fauzia Kasuri of Pakistan enjoyed a few years ago back when the fee was less than a fifth of its present level. A few days before the election, the Philippine Inquirer revealed:
Senator Grace Poe said her husband Neil Llamanzares has completed his renunciation of his US citizenship and is expected to receive Friday a certification from the US embassy.
“I’d to clarify this issue once and for all, my husband has renounced before a public officer here in the Philippines and has done so also in the US embassy and he’s actually getting his certificate already today,” Poe said in an interview over ABS-CBN News Channel’s (ANC) Headstart program.
Unfortunately for Ms. Poe, she lost the election, but look on the bright side: at least she and her husband are both now free of any peeping foreign perverts invading the privacy of their marriage.
Oath of allegiance to a foreign state
In the U.S., the Expatriation Act of 1868 affirmed that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people”, and in the debate leading up to its passage, Senator Edwin D. Morgan (R-NY) pointed out that requiring a person to apply for proof from his former government that he’d renounced its citizenship was tantamount to admitting that renunciation was a privilege requiring permission for the exercise, rather than a natural and inherent right. Philippine statutes apparently also recognise this idea, though I can’t cite verse & chapter — I’m just relying on Rappler‘s description:
Under Philippine law, a person only needs to take an oath of renunciation of foreign nationality before a notary public to effectively reject it.
But under US law, one has to fill out a questionnaire at the US embassy to confirm the renunciation. After which, the consular officer would issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality.
Poe said her husband has already started the renunciation process before the US government but it would likely take a long time, just like her experience.
However, U.S. State Department officials clearly don’t share Morgan’s attitude, as seen in this response of theirs to another Filipino who tried to exercise his rights under both the Expatriation Act of 1868 and the laws of his own country to divest himself of foreign allegiances:
Even if the apparently-not-very-well-informed Ms. Graham had been aware that an oath of allegiance to a foreign state is an expatriating act under 8 USC § 1481(a)(2), her department has already made their best efforts to ignore Congress and make that provision of law into a dead letter by adding all sorts of nonsensical requirements which appear nowhere in the statute nor in the court case they cite in support of their position. 7 FAM 1252:
h. For an oath or affirmation to be potentially expatriating, it must be meaningful. A meaningful oath is one that is required by a foreign state. Such an oath reflects a transfer of allegiance to a foreign state and/or the abandonment of allegiance to the United States. Gillars v. United States, 182 F.2d 962 (DC 1950). An oath or affirmation will be found to be meaningful only if all four of the following criteria are met:
(1) The oath or affirmation is made to an official of a foreign state authorized to receive the oath or affirmation;
(2) The authorized foreign official in fact does receive the oath or affirmation;
(3) The oath or affirmation is made in a manner that is consistent with the foreign state’s law; and
(4) The making and receipt of the oath or affirmation alters the affiant’s legal status with respect to the foreign state.NOTE: For example, a person who has already acquired a foreign nationality may not expatriate herself by swearing an oath of allegiance to that same foreign state because she already owed that state her allegiance, unless the foreign state’s law specifically grants her a new right after making the affirmation not already conferred upon by virtue of her prior naturalization.
The Department determines on a case-by-case basis whether an oath of allegiance is meaningful for purposes of INA 349(a)(2).
What the DC Circuit Court actually noted in Gillars was that the paper that Gillars’ German boss made her sign after her little workplace spat was so vague and informal that it didn’t meet the bar of “to a foreign state”. The court made no mention whatsoever of the oath needing to confer new rights on or otherwise alter the legal status of the affiant:
There is no indication, however, that the paper which she said she signed was intended as a renunciation of citizenship; there is no testimony whatever that it was sworn to before anyone authorized to administer an oath or indeed before anyone at all; its exact content is uncertain; if it be treated as an affirmation or declaration rather than an oath it is informal rather than formal in character; and there is no connection whatever shown between it and any regulation or procedure having to do with citizenship or attaching oneself to the Reich or to Hitler. These circumstances preclude attributing to it the character of such an oath or affirmation or other formal declaration as the statute requires to bring about expatriation. We think the court was correct in not permitting the jury to speculate as to the effect of this testimony on citizenship and in ruling that as a matter of law the appellant at the times involved was a citizen of the United States and owed allegiance to her native land.
However, the paper that Llamanzares signed has none of the defects mentioned in Gillars: it contains language expressly renouncing foreign citizenship, he clearly signed it with the intent of divesting himself of foreign citizenship, and he signed it in the presence of officials of his govenrment authorised by their domestic statutes to administer such oaths.
FATCA IGAs & altering your legal status
And furthermore, even if you adhere to the State Department’s extralegal, ultra vires viewpoint on oaths of allegiance, there’s good news. FATCA Inter-Governmental Agreements create two classes of citizenship in every signatory country: those local citizens who are deemed U.S. persons and thus must forfeit their privacy rights so that the banks don’t get an extra 30% of their U.S.-source income stolen by the IRS, and those local citizens who are not deemed U.S. persons and thus get to keep their privacy rights. To swear an oath which moves you from one category to the other is obviously an “alter[ation] of the affiant’s legal status”.
As Isaac Brock Society commenter George has long suggested: every government on Earth should give their citizens an inexpensive and practical way to swear an oath to renounce all foreign citizenships, and should issue certificates to those who have done so. Call it a “Certificate of Loss of Nationality of [INSERT FOREIGN COUNTRY HERE]”. Thus they could issue Certificates of Loss of Nationality of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Iranians (turning them into ex-Iranians), Certificates of Loss of Nationality of the Republic of Korea to South Koreans (turning them into ex-South Koreans), and Certificates of Loss of Nationality of the United States of America to Americans (turning them into ex-Americans).
A person holding such a certificate should have the right to be treated solely as a citizen of his or her country by all public and private institutions, and the duty to conduct him or herself as such (for example, not using a foreign passport to travel to other countries, and not voting in foreign elections). This may require additional legislation, as it’s not an automatic consequence of the Master Nationality Rule (which only binds governments, not banks and their maximalist-extremist lawyers acting under fear of IRS penalties or DOJ investigations).
So in particular, your local government must pass legislation to ensure that banks accept these certificates as proof of non-U.S. personhood for FATCA purposes. Under the IGA, bank customers with U.S. indicia are required to provide a “reasonable explanation” of not having a U.S.-issued CLN; well, the obvious one is that the U.S. State & Treasury Departments have made such CLNs unreasonably time-consuming, expensive, and dangerous for ordinary people to obtain.
But as long as domestic legislation states that the holding of a domestic-law Certificate of Loss of Nationality of [BLANK] qualifies under the IGA as a “reasonable explanation” or even as a “Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States” (a term which is not expressly defined in any IGA I’ve seen), then anyone who swears the oath to obtain such a certificate has had their legal status altered by swearing the oath. Problem solved!
Conclusion
As certain Members of Parliament in Canada like to say: Congress has spoken! In fact they’ve spoken quite clearly, for nearly 150 years, with the Expatriation Act of 1868, and now it’s up to every other country in the world to jump up and implement it in their domestic laws, the same way they jumped to implement FATCA. Get moving!
Basically this takes renunciation from the US Congress back to the US citizen abroad, so if the US Congress doesn’t like it tough luck.
@Eric, I would carry this one step further in the interest of good will with our former american brethren.
I DO like this idea of a domestic renouncing CLN but I believe in the case of the Phillipines, a second version would be more suitable “Affadavit of Relinquishment of Allegience to the United States of America.”
The form would then have a line in which you fill in or tick a box as to what relinquishing act you performed and when.
That relinquishment CLN would then fullfill the requirement of reasonable explanation.
Would that be ultra vires? Congress would SCREAM but…..it would clearly be within the spirit of the Expatriation Act 1868.
How do we get such a program started in our home countries? We would need to urge the politicians to adopt such a protocal to aid people that fled from tyrants like Iran, Russia and N. Korea.
@ George
Here’s an idea: our very own gov’t in exile* + relinquishment/renouncing CLN. In other words, we issue it ourselves and cut out the easily manipulated (by the US) middleman of our countries of residence (remember, they’re the ones who sold us down the river.
* as mentioned by Alexander v. Pinoci on another thread (although the thought has certainly crossed my mind more than once)
@Eric, the DOS has generally taken the position that 349(a)(2) must have some meaningful change of status with regards to the status of the person vis-a-vis the foreign state. In this case, it doesn’t look like any change of status occurred by this act with regards to the Phillipines goverment. It sounds like this affadavit is just a meaningless statement of desire of intent vs. the foreign gov’t to declare loss of citizenship. Who said a foreign government can adjudicate citizenship status vs. a person of another state?
Really, I think this affidavit should state they intended to relinquish via 349(a)(1) by naturalizing in the phillipines, and that would be recognized by the DOS. Still, the administrative presumption of DOS’ policy, requires a potenial relinquisher to affirm to them their desire to relinquish by signing a DS-4079. The only cases where the administrative presumption of intent to retain citizenship doesn’t apply absent explicit affirmation are serving in a hostile army, treason, taking a policy making position of a foreign gov’t etc.
Regarding the expat act of 1868, you can blame the courts as much as the DOS insofar as present day policy is considered.
Interesting that the Phillipines used to but no longer does practice CBT. They have experience in these matters.
Eric,
What about your point applied to those Canadians (I have met) who spent only a total of three days in the U.S. (border babies) or only a few years as a child? The U.S., on its own, considers them to be U.S. citizens and also criminals should they willfully not file etc.
These people have no interest in renouncing what they never accepted or in spending time, money, or paperwork seeking permission from a foreign state to renounce what they feel they do not have. They won’t renounce “allegiance” to the U.S. because they never had any allegiance to that country. Signing off on such an affidavit would be untruthful.
Many would not be comfortable in filing an affidavit “of renunciation”. Perhaps reasonable for them would be filing a sworn affidavit to the U.S. DOS entitled with something like “Confirmation of refusal to accept United States citizenship imposed without consent” (with explanation and justification) with a copy to the appropriate FATCA-relevant offices in (for example) Canada. They are not seeking any “permission” from DOS which certainly will reject the affidavit.
Would Canada recognize the affidavit as a “reasonable explanation” re FATCA reporting? Possibly not as our Prime Minister is afraid of the U.S. and vigorously embraces U.S. laws, but perhaps the courts could force Canada to protect its citizens.
— A U.S. D.C. District Court (2015) touches on this issue of citizenship without consent: “We can envision little that is more anomalous, under modern standards, than the forcible imposition of citizenship against the majoritarian will…”
The only piece of paper I need to prove I am owed the same rights and freedoms as other Canadians is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Stephen and I share the same point of view – like the Obama proposal for accidentals that would require people the US deems to be its citizens to opt-in to opt-out of US citizenship, why would anyone ever undermine their argument that they aren’t a US citizen by allowing themselves to be summoned by either country to ‘admit’ they are a US citizen?
@Jefferson D Tomas. Apparently, the Philippines originally used the US tax code as a model and included CBT. Later, when they found out how unenforceable and unjust it was, they deleted it. Obviously Filipinos are smarter than Americans because they decided there was no point in insisting on being stuck on stupid.
So the US Denial Of Service, oops I mean US Department Of State, likes to rely on the Gillars case? Here, let the DOS rely on the judge’s instructions to the jury:
“* * * our law declares the right of expatriation to be `A natural and inherent right of our people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'”
“… every government on Earth should give their citizens an inexpensive and practical way to swear an oath to renounce all foreign citizenships, and should issue certificates to those who have done so.”
A global, mutual model for renunciations? America would still enforce its own fraudulent model.
@maz57
“Obviously Filipinos are smarter than Americans because they decided there was no point in insisting on being stuck on stupid.”
Even North Korea does not practice citizenship-based taxation. If you can get an Appalachian hillbilly to “get it” with respect to citizenship-based taxation, then I will have seen everything…
@Stephen Kish: yep, I remember the American Samoa citizenship case, but note the careful wording of the quote: “majoritarian will”. I.e. he thinks your fellow citizens have the right to vote you into submission if they want, even if you’re personally opposed.
@BenG: Really, I think this affidavit should state they intended to relinquish via 349(a)(1) by naturalizing in the phillipines The problem is that a person who is already a citizen of a country since birth can’t rely on 349(a)(1) as a relinquishing act, so they’ve only really got two options: come up with another relinquishing act they can do as an adult, or fight all comers who try to claim that they need a relinquishing act in the first place.
@Duality: Well, North Korea doesn’t exactly have de jure diaspora taxation, but they did manage to tempt a bunch of young Korean men from Japan to come “back” and build socialism in the 1960s, which turned into de facto diaspora taxation on the rest of their relatives, in three ways:
1. They pitches in by sending remittances in yen to their idiot brother/uncle so he doesn’t starve to death; the NK government converts the remittances into NK won for them at the official rate while keeping the more-or-less-hard currency for themselves.
2. They keep on paying dues for Chongryon (the North Korean-run Korean residents’ association in Japan) because they don’t dare cancel their membership
3. They go to North Korea on visits to see their idiot brother/uncle, and while they’re there they have to pay all sorts of miscellaneous fees and purchase overpriced services (e.g. officially-approved hotels & restaurants) from which of course the NK government skims off the profits
‘Well, North Korea doesn’t exactly have de jure diaspora taxation, but they did manage to tempt a bunch of young Korean men from Japan to come “back” and build socialism in the 1960s,’
Persuasion is not taxation. North Korea’s abduction of Japanese, which is offensive but not numerous enough to match Japan’s enslavement of Koreans, might be a more appropriate comparison because it’s done by force rather than persuasion.
‘They pitches in by sending remittances in yen to their idiot brother/uncle so he doesn’t starve to death’
Lots of countries’ diasporas send money to relatives so the relatives don’t starve to death. One of many many examples would be, by the way, ahem, the Philippines. What makes you think the relatives are idiots? Anyway these aren’t taxes.
‘the NK government converts the remittances into NK won for them at the official rate’
Yes the prohibition of a free market is offensive. I might almost suggest sending food directly instead of sending money, except that that’s been tried already. However, it still isn’t quite the same as taxation. In the former Czechoslovakia under the communists, and in India under … well, what, West Bengal was communist but Mumbai wasn’t … anyway, I traded some currency at the official rates. That might be considered a tax on tourists, but it’s still not compulsory, I didn’t have to go there and didn’t suffer from imposed citizenships.
‘They keep on paying dues for Chongryon (the North Korean-run Korean residents’ association in Japan) because they don’t dare cancel their membership’
Is this because the North Korean government knows who their relatives are and where their relatives live? If not, what kinds of actions are taken to get payments by force instead of persuasion?
‘They go to North Korea on visits’
Some do, most don’t, and most aren’t by force. Meanwhile, I know some Filipinos who visit the Philippines, and some Canadians who visit Canada (though I haven’t since getting married, since my wife can’t go to Canada unless she’s going to immigrate), etc.
‘to see their idiot brother/uncle’
Takes one to know one. What’s with the ad hominems today, Eric?
Good document made in a sovereign country to meet the sovereign laws which should govern its residents
All I did was “get born”. The location was not chosen by me, it was forced on me due to the location of my mother at the time of my birth. My parents took me out of the USA when I was a minor, which was well before I had the competency to accept an agreement of citizenship.
I cannot renounce an agreement between myself and a country that was never agreed to.
@Middle Finger, you are so right yet most people are so blind. Our inalienable human rights are being thrown away for a few pieces of silver.
@Stephen, “These people have no interest in renouncing what they never accepted or in spending time, money, or paperwork seeking permission from a foreign state to renounce what they feel they do not have.”
I have learned that because of changes in your countries laws, that I am deemed to be a fellow Canadian.
Yet as you rightly state, I have never accepted said Canadian birthright, never asked for it, will not use it and sure do not want to spend the one hour filing a form, sending it with $100 and a stamp to get rid of something that I do not acknowledge.
It is a violation of my human rights and dignity to be forced to be a Canadian!
If I feel that way about Canada……..I can see how crushing US Citizenship is to any Canadian Citizen in Canada.
@Eric:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/212735
US red tape preventing Yehuda Glick from Knesset
Glick’s citizenship revocation paperwork has yet to be processed, leaving the Knesset with just 119 MKs for the first time in history.
@ Stephen Well said!
@ Middle Finger
All I did was get borned.
You and me both.It was a POB only. I pledge NO allegiance to a foreign flag or country it represents.
@Eric
“They keep on paying dues for Chongryon (the North Korean-run Korean residents’ association in Japan) because they don’t dare cancel their membership.”
CBOD (citizenship-based obligatory dues)?
@Norman Diamond
“Is this because the North Korean government knows who their relatives are and where their relatives live? If not, what kinds of actions are taken to get payments by force instead of persuasion?”
This sounds eerily familiar; Eritrea comes to mind.
@George
I agree with you 100%, no citizenship should be forced on anyone, including it being forced on people who reside in a given country.
I may be alone, but in general I personally do not agree with the concept of “citizenship”. In my world, a “country” is just a big gang or tribe, its flag are the gangs colors, the “pledge” and other initiation nonsense the tribe make you go through is just brainwashing. Countries are nothing but glorified cults with lines drawn in the sand. The “citizens” of a country are like livestock, to be used and abused as desired by the farmers who rule over the land.
I’d rather not belong to any of these weird controlling cults, but I have to live somewhere, so I’ll grudgingly pretend to be a “citizen” of the country that I find myself stuck in. Now having said that, some countries are much better than others, and I do understand that I must get along with my neighbors, so it’s all good for the most part. Even though I think most of the people are completely bat shit crazy for believing in all of this nonsense, it at least brings about order and security, and for the most part everything is pretty good, or at least a whole lot better than anarchy.
So I’m willing to support the country I live in, provided that it also supports me. I’m having some issues with the Canadian government right now concerning “US Personhood”, but I do believe most of the people who live under the banner of “Canada” will do the right thing if they only had the knowledge and ability to do so.
Go Canucks go!
@Middle Finger
So I’m willing to support the country I live in, provided that it also supports me. I’m having some issues with the Canadian government right now concerning “US Personhood”, but I do believe most of the people who live under the banner of “Canada” will do the right thing if they only had the knowledge and ability to do so.
Go Canucks go!
+++
I hear you. I fancy considering myself a citizen of the world, no particular dominions. But I expect/demand that Canada supports me as a (first class: a term I dislike, just equal is fine with me) citizen even if it takes a law suit to prove our entitlements to equality. And it matters not to me if Canadian citizenship was conferred at birth like mine, or acquired later. Canadian political parties may change who runs the place, but my rights are inalienable. My trust remains with the courts. To be seen.
@ Middlefinger “I cannot renounce an agreement between myself and a country that was never agreed to” This is my wife’s way of looking at the “forced citizenship” on her. When she was thinking that that she might have to renounce something she never agreed to having, the forms for the CLN wanted her to sign them stating she was an American citizen. She refused right then and there. She will never sign anything stating she is an American citizen as she is only Canadian. The USA is claiming her for slavery. We will continue to lie and get all the fake documents needed to live a normal life in Canada. If I am ever taken to court, we will then prove that our human rights were violated if we didn’t lie. This is being done to protect our human rights, those same human rights that were taken by our own government and stolen from us. The natives know that you cannot even think of trusting this government and that still is being proven by them over and over.
@Ginny
I agree, if we’re to be Canadian, then we all have to be Canadian in the exact same way. When I’m in Canada, I have only one citizenship, it’s Canadian and there’s nothing else in between.
We’ll see what the courts have to say, but I’m under no illusion that big money and power won’t have an influence over the final decision. There’s a lot of money a stake due to the economic sanction threat, although you and I both know there’s something far bigger at stake here that should not be trampled on – it’s a very steep slippery drop down into hell if Canada allows the US to get away with threatening Canada to extend US law into Canada at the expense of a million of its citizens.
As we can see, the new government is not much better than the old government with respecting the rights and privacy of its citizens, so we have only the courts to uphold out rights. If the court fails to protect us, then I’m left wondering what the next step will be. I know for sure I will not allow myself to be subjected to the FATCA identification and one-way secret data transfer scheme, and if I do get caught in the net, I sure as hell will never pay the IRS any tribute.
@NativeCanadian
“She refused right then and there. She will never sign anything stating she is an American citizen as she is only Canadian.”
Also think about what can happen if she agreed with being an American citizen and her renunciation was refused? And what if her renunciation was accepted, but later down the road the USG arbitrarily changed the rules and her renunciation was considered null and void? There’s nothing good to be gained by renouncing, which really means admitting that you have something that you otherwise never had. Once you renounce, they’ll know who you are and where you live, so no thanks.
I agree with you, this “new” old government is about as trustworthy as the last one (and the one before, etc), and you sure as hell cannot trust the US government on anything it says, it has been proven multiple times over the decades to be a shameless liar full of corruption and hypocrisy.