cross-posted from Citizenshipsolutions dot ca
Muhammad Ali, draft resistors, loss of US citizenship, the “Rumble In The Jungle” and a… https://t.co/u0cmHL3r2c pic.twitter.com/m8jeNLkick
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) June 5, 2016
Introduction – RIP Muhammad Ali
Like many I was saddened to learn of the death of Muhammad Ali. (One of
my profitable ventures was betting on
Ali in his 1974 fight with Foreman.) Most of the media discussion of Ali’s death focused on his boxing career. There was far less attention paid to Ali’s refusal to
accept induction into the U.S. military. This refusal led to his being
stripped of his boxing license (why anyone would need a license to box
is beyond me) and interestingly the revocation of his U.S. passport (if
you can’t box in America we will prevent you from boxing outside
America). Hmmm, does that passport revocation remind you of any
recent events or any past events?
Ali made the reasonable point that he was being asked to go to Viet Nam
to defend the rights of the South Vietnamese people who were being
denied their rights, at the same time that Black Americans were denied
their rights in America. Muhammad Ali provided inspiration to Dr. Martin Luther
King. Fast forward to 2016: President Clinton (a man who also
avoided military service in Viet Nam) will deliver
one of the eulogies (I hope he mentions the “draft resistor” aspect of
Muhammad Ali on why he didn't fight in the Vietnam War: pic.twitter.com/TxZyrV1T41
— Historical Pics (@HistoricalPics) June 4, 2016
Draft Resistors in Canada in the 60s and 70s – The use of
“citizenship” as a mechanism to control the people
During the last few years I have met many former Americans who came to
Canada to escape service in the Vietnam war. Their circumstances vary
greatly. This was clearly a tumultuous time and difficult time. Many of
them have commented that it has similarities to the circumstances of
today. In both the ’70s and present day, certain Americans abroad and
former Americans abroad, feel uneasy and unsure about their U.S.
citizenship. It’s also interesting how in both cases the United States
is using “citizenship” as a mechanism to exercise control over
individuals who do not live in the United States. In the 70s the United
States was punishing people by stripping them of their citizenship. In
2016 the United States is punishing people by imposing citizenship on
them. Either way, it’s clear that “citizenship” (and a
U.S. place of birth) is a powerful weapon to be used
against people to achieve governmental objectives.
The War Resistor Information Program …
From 1974 – 1976, Winnipeg native, Don
Marks ran a “War Resistor Information Program” for Americans in
Canada. Information from Wikipedia includes:
Marks was once a street youth before being adopted by a
First Nations family. From 1974 to 1976, he was co-coordinator of the War
Resister Information Program in Winnipeg, providing assistance for
Americans who moved to Canada to avoid service in the Vietnam War.
Marks gained notoriety during a North American wide media tour to
publicize WRIP’s activities and by leading a class action lawsuit
against President Gerald Ford. Don worked with such notables as Hunter
S. Thompson, Jane Fonda, Richard Dreyfuss, Bella Abzug and others to
organize an amnesty for war resistors, He was a candidate for the
Manitoba Liberal Party in the 1977 provincial election, and received 769
votes (15.63%) for a third-place finish in Point Douglas. He was a
weekend news and sports anchor at CKND-TV during the mid-1980s. He died
in Winnipeg at the age of 62 on January 30, 2016 from liver
Mr. Mark’s “War Resistor Information Program” may have been an “early
day” equivalent to the Isaac Brock Society. In any event, Mr. Mark’s
published what appears to be a very high quality publication providing
information and advice to American draft resistors. Here is one of the
publications which Mr. Marks described as:
… one of the most important efforts that we have
undertaken in our seven years of service to war resistors in exile.
Besides an update on our program and a description of the latest legal
and political developments that affect you, we shall include our
position on amnesty, and POSITIVE actions to bring about our
I encourage you to read the publication which is here:
Mr. Mark’s also printed the following flyer:
Circa 1975: American War Resistors in Canad may remember one of these flyers from the "War Resistors Info Centre" pic.twitter.com/GxSZPjhggg
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) June 5, 2016
Notice the fourth point: “We do have information on U.S.
exclusion orders that do result if you take out Canadian
The “War Resistor’s” bulletin contains a fascinating section beginning
on page 11 which is titled:
“CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP AND EXCLUSION ORDERS”
Then and now: the “dusting off of old laws”
We see that in 1975 and in 2016 the United States:
– was using the treat of denial of entry into the United States as a
form of punishment. Is this an earlier version of the Reed amendment?
– was using the principle of “dusting off old laws”. Modern day examples
of “dusting off old laws” would the the FBAR Fundraiser and the
Then and now: the use of “citizenship” as a weapon
Mr. Mark’s bulletin is of particular interest because it reflects the
understanding of what was happening in 1975.
The bulletin confirms the following two points:
1. Americans in Canada who became Canadian citizens absolutely
understood that the consequences of becoming a Canadian citizen would
result in the loss of U.S. citizenship. If one understands the
consequences of an action prior to voluntarily undertaking that action,
it’s reasonable to say that the person intended the consequence. In
other words: those Americans who naturalized as Canadian citizens in the
’70s clearly intended to relinquish their U.S. citizenship; and
2. The U.S. Government took the clear and unequivocal position that
those who naturalized as Canadian citizens had relinquished their U.S.
citizenship (that was the basis for the exclusion order described in Mr.
Note that the loss of U.S. citizenship was happening WITHOUT the
issuance of a CLN (“Certificate of Loss of Nationality”).
Yet, in 2016 there are some who argue that: those who clearly ceased to
be U.S. citizens in the ’70s, and don’t have a CLN, somehow are now U.S.
citizens for the purposes.
This idea seems ridiculous to me! The war resistors didn’t need
a CLN then. They don’t need a CLN now.
“This idea seems ridiculous to me! The war resistors didn’t need
a CLN then. They don’t need a CLN now.”
That reminds me of the famous line from (I think) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, “Badge? I don’t need no stinking badge!”
That’s the essence of my position. I’m not a US citizen and CLN or not, they can’t make me be one.
Thanks for this post.
Yes, RIP, Muhammad Ali and thanks for the light shone on the VINDICTIVENESS of the USA governments, past and present. Yesterday’s and today’s commenters on articles of Ali’s passing from many much younger than I may never realize the unrelenting courage Ali had in standing up for what was right and being verified by the US Supreme Court. His greatness, for me, was foremost in standing up to US vindictiveness. He awakened many who were sleep-walking from the 50’s into the 60’s. (And as a bonus, they produced smiles — his poetic sayings, his humanity, his courage in face of jail for what should be instead of what was.)
We have been talking about Ali as well, not only for the wonderful athlete he was but more about the facf that he alone stood up to the threats and punitive action of the USG, stripping him of his title etc.
That is my definition of a brave person. One single person taking on the BS of the USG.
Yes, so much similarity to how we are being treated. I wasn’t as angry when I offered to be a plaintiff, as I am now. Every day in every way the USG deliberately tries to recapture us and make our lives more difficult and every day I am even more determined to thwart them. And I only have two words for them, but my late mother would put a bar of soap in my mouth if I typed them.
So for those of you that despair and think we can’t do this as the collective we are, have faith.
US Credit unions whinge about FATCA costs if it’s applied domestically in the US. Even then the US is only demanding ‘non resident aliens.’
So a resident alien won’t be reported or any US citizens residing abroad. So as long as you’re legal in the US the US becomes effectively a tax haven.
@Don, so a dual Dutch/US person living in Holland can open a State Department Credit Union Account (thanks to American Citizens Abroad) and that account will be kept secret from the Dutch authorities?
(continued) so the persons Dutch nationality would be destructed in favour of the US Citizenship as being paramount?
Wait wait…..said Dutch national would not even need a US Passport.
I should have said a Dutch Citizen w/Dutch Passport resident in the Netherlands who has a US Place of Birth and no other indica, would NOT be reported to the Dutch tax authorities.
(continued) sooooooo FATCA has grown into a giant tax scam where you can hide money from the tax authorities where you are actually receiving benefits like roads, schools and police.
The US Credit Unions say ““We urge you to oppose further domestic expansion of FATCA because it would increase regulatory burdens on American credit unions and banks without resulting in a single dollar of new tax revenue to the Treasury,”
They have lost the PLOT, the reciprocity of FATCA is NOT to get money to the US Treasury, its to get new tax revenue to the Treasury in Canada, Holland and everywhere else!!!
Note, I think @Don has helped provide another very weak spot in the FATCA underbelly, in particular my example of “duals” opening up credit union accounts as residents overseas and never ever getting reported.
To bring the beast to its knees, US FIs need to “share the pain” and they need to adopt expensive compliance programs.
I see an opportunity for our new friend and ally @Haydon Perrymen.
We demand that all US FIs start scouring and asking for indica!! We need to rope up all those third generation Irish, Greek and Italians who are not paying their fair share in the homeland.
Deep breaths. The mind boggles.
@George – this is exactly what we should be pointing out to our elected representatives (where we live)! Too many have been drinking the US exceptionalism kool-aid – their eyes need to be opened.
What I find interesting about this is that Sen Kennedy (Ted I presume) said what was happening on the part of the U.S. was “illegal.” Information exchange? I wonder what statute allowed for that. So there was a reciprocal exchange? Where would the records of the CDN government be? That should amount to “a reasonable explanation of why one doesn”t have a CLN,” no?
What we also can do with this information, is to follow through on what can be done regarding being turned away at the border. To date, I don’t think anyone has researched this. Do these waivers still exist? What about this formal exclusion order and hearing?
I wonder how many who came here and lost US citizenship were angry enough to never return…….
William G. Smith; Lawyer for Draft Resisters, Veterans
August 04, 1999|
I am sorry to hear he passed away. I had hoped we might contact him……….he certainly would have advice that I bet we could benefit from…………..
And every time I think I have heard or read something bizarre, then there is this:
For many years, veterans were essentially barred from hiring attorneys to help them negotiate the byzantine regulations of the Department of Veterans Affairs because of a federal law that said lawyers could not charge them more than $10. “So attorneys would not take these cases–unless they were Bill Smith,” said
@George. I don’t think FATCA reciprocity will go over well in middle America. Think of if being asked if you are a US citizen. There are those in the US who worry about UN take over and such questioning may confirm it for them.
Might scare a lot of illegals or be reason for US to go through with it.
“The man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.”–Muhammad Ali
As a 50 year old dude who basically does see the world today the same as I did at 20 I can only hope that there is an alternative explanation: that I was right at 20.
Or perhaps it’s not about being “right”.
The US State Department and other agencies also vindictively used denial of passport/travel to punish Paul Robeson. The State dept. even sent two agents to pick it up directly from Robeson’s home.
Note also that; “… on January 31, 1952, Mr. Robeson was arbitrarily prevented from leaving the United States to go to Canada, even though no passport is necessary for crossing the United States-Canadian border.”….
Read the whole factsheet ( http://credo.library.umass.edu/view/full/mums312-b142-i435 ) above.
“….. During World War II, when the United States was allied with the Soviet Union against Hitler fascism, Robeson gave numerous performances to U.S. troops around the world. After WWII, U.S foreign policy shifted into the “Cold War” era, Robeson’s very public statements in support of the Soviet Union began to cause problems.
In 1950, he attempted to renew his passport so that he could travel abroad to fulfill contracts for singing and acting performances. The State Department insisted that Robeson sign a “loyalty oath.” Robeson refused and filed suit in federal court, telling reporters, “Of course I won’t sign it. I consider it an invasion of every constitutional liberty I have.”
In August 1955, a federal judge ruled that the State Department was within its legal rights to refuse Robeson a passport. After the decision, Robeson declared that it was “rather absurd” that he was not “allowed to travel because of my friendship – open, spoken friendship-for the Soviet people and the peoples of all the world.”
In 1958, Robeson finally won his court case and his passport was grudgingly restored. But great damage had been done to Robeson’s career by the long delay. He performed for a few more years, and then retired, although the FBI kept up its investigations of Robeson until his death on January 23, 1976……………”
See US Embassy in London, letter denying assistance;
The US had the help of Britain’s MI5
“…With independence movements growing across the globe, MI5 were adamant that even if Robeson were allowed to travel he must be banned from the UK: “He is convinced that he has a mission to lead oppressed negroes and colonial peoples everywhere. He is a fanatical communist and intensely ambitious” [Internal memo, 13 July 1951; National Archives: KV/2/1829]…”
For more on the labours of Robeson to have his constitutional rights as a US citizen to hold and travel on his US passport;
After many years of fighting the passport confiscation/revocation, Robeson won his case in 1958 and his passport was restored.
U.S. Supreme Court
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
Argued April 10, 1958
Decided June 16, 1958
357 U.S. 116
“….(a) The right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 357 U. S. 125-127.
(b) The broad power of the Secretary under 22 U.S.C. § 211a to issue passports, which has long been considered “discretionary,” has been construed generally to authorize the refusal of a passport only when the applicant (1) is not a citizen or a person owing allegiance to the United States, or (2) was engaging in criminal or unlawful conduct. Pp. 357 U. S. 124-125, 357 U. S. 127-128…..”….
Consider the newest (of several over time ) attempts to deny a US passport to US citizens based on a presumption of a certain amount of US taxes owed:
“In December 2015, a revenue offset provision housed on page 418 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (the FAST Act), Pub. L. No. 114-94, added procedures to the Internal Revenue Code under which the IRS can certify an individual as one as having a “seriously delinquent tax debt” if the person owes more than $50,000 (indexed annually for inflation) in taxes, interest, and penalties. If the IRS certifies an individual under §7345, and if the Treasury Department communicates this certification to the State Department, the State Department may deny the individual a U.S. passport, or may revoke the individual’s U.S. passport. New §7345 was added to the miscellaneous penalty and forfeiture provisions of chapter 75 of the Code, which also serves as the statutory home for criminal tax provisions, certain other offense provisions, and the Code’s forfeiture provisions.”……..
and more of the same,
“new friend and ally”. Not to derail the main intent of your comment, but I’m not sure I’d use those terms without qualification. Just because one might be travelling in the same direction for a short portion of a journey does not make one friends.
Rand Paul wants to end the draft as a tribute to Muhammad Ali: