"I complied with human rights-violating U.S. renunciation rules — and this leaves a bitter taste." https://t.co/H5qRkzhxxq
— Citizenship Lawyer (@ExpatriationLaw) August 24, 2016
Click on the link in the above tweet to see the complete discussion.
The bottom line is that Dr. Stephen Kish – Chair of the Alliance For The Defence of Canadian Sovereignty and plaintiff in the Bopp FATCA Lawsuit, has formally renounced U.S. citizenship. He performed this act in Iceland which is the final resting place of Robert James Fischer – one of the most famous and well known cases of U.S. citizenship relinquishment.
PatriciaMoon,
Please consider the following. Alliance for the Defense of Canadian Sovereignty started out as a group backing two plaintiffs who do not identify as American in any way. Those two Canadians represent all Canadians who wish to be seen as Canadian only while living in Canada. Hopefully their lawsuit against the FATCA IGA will be an eventual success. But we all know how nasty the USA can be and how cowering the Canadian government is. There is a good chance that the Canadian lawsuit will at the very least lose at Federal Court, not to mention Supreme Court. It is going to be a long messy battle with further fundraising required.
In light of the above, would it not make sense for ADCS to consider other ways to protect both the plaintiffs and the Canadians they represent? If you agree, then the next question becomes HOW to save those Canadians? The obvious answer to my way of thinking is to work towards facilitating a compromise between the wimpy Canadian government and the scary US government (either politically or legally) to enable a subset of Canadians deemed US persons to drop US citizenship thus being spared FATCA (and CBT)
Do you think that such an approach (working towards easy renunciation) to save Gwen and Ginny and all Canadians from US citizenship would have more or less success than a lawsuit in the USA to kill RBT? Which do you think would cost more? Which do you think will take more years? WHich do you think the USA would be more likely to agree? What do you think the Canadian government would be more likely to help you with – eliminating the FATCA IGA or facilitating an amnesty for Canadians who don’t want to be US persons?
Patricia Moon, you say you would support a lawsuit or movement of some kind to free accidentals and other USpersons from unwanted US citizenship but you don’t have time because you are trying to take on a CBT lawsuit in the USA. This makes no sense. Your first loyalty should be to the group of people you originally started working with – people who want to be seen as Canadian only.
By helping Canadians who don’t want to be US persons, you would ALSO BE HELPING ALL US PERSONS IN THE WORLD WHO DON’T WANT TO BE US PERSONS, as an amnesty to Canadians would likely apply world wide.
@MaliceInWonderland
“my comments were directed at Bubblebusting. Sorry for confusion.”
Thanks for clarifying.
@Patricia Moon
“There is no issue of US compliance with a foreign court’s ruling as nothing in the ADCS-ADSC has to do directly with the US. If you mean that the US would respect and accept a foreign court’s ruling (as in back off from continuing to impose the IGA) I agree with you 100%. They would never do it. I mean after all, {sarcasm} a country’s laws ends at their own borders, don’t they?
But technically, there is nothing about our suit that would compel compliance from the US.”
This is the part that causes such a problem, as far as I’m concerned. There are a lot of Brockers who need to be able to travel to the US because of family ties, plus most flights going in and out of Canada enter US airspace. That said, I very much hope the lawsuit is successful as it would still make a world of difference to those would don’t intend to set foot in the US on a go-forward basis.
@calgary411
“One of The Animals’s children and my son would still be entrapped into retention of USC as I see — the extraterritorial citizenship definition deemed by the US. Although our children meet the proposed terms, there is no term for or recognition of US entrapment into USC for those who do not have *requisite mental capacity* to understand, etc.”
I had no idea you and The_Animal1970 were in the same boat. My heart goes out to you both, it’s a terrible injustice.
@ Westcoaster
While lurking through all these posts, I get a feeling that there are at least fifty shades of paranoia on display,ranging all the way up to 100%.Everything is possibe but most things are unlikely.
@malice
US Citzen broke down expats very well a few pages back.
You seem had found another division : 1)I’m Canadian only and leave me alone 2)I’m Canadian but I’d really like to be both for reasons that are convenience for me or were convenient prior to fatca.
Negotiating wth the US, but what are you going to give?
How about changing our NationalityAct so that the only citzenship
on Canadian soil is Canadian only,like the GCC.Then,if you are American here,you are landed and pay the annual toll. Also, an unlikely scenario.
@calgary411: One of The Animals’s children … would still be entrapped into retention of USC …
Really? Another? Sigh. I have been watching the whole scenario of CBT combined with FATCA unfold for more than half a decade now, and even so I still find your situation completely shocking. The US — supposedly a ‘first world’ nation — acts here like a despotic dictatorship. There is just no answer. It is simply an affront to decency. Utterly despicable.
Introducing the Great Canadian U.S. Citizen “Buy Back” Program …
Companies buy back their shares. Why can’t the Government of Canada buy back its citizens?
The questions asked in previous comments include:
“How to save those Canadians?”
This question is asked in the context of what the Canadian government could do. I would add that the bigger question is how to save the sovereignty of Canada? After all, by allowing the USA to impose direct taxation on Canadian citizen/residents and extract Canadian capital to the USA (no doubt for better use) is a big problem.
I have made the following suggestion on a few occasions (never with a response) and I will try yet again.
Assumption: The U.S. regards its citizens as property of the USA. U.S. citizens do NOT have “human rights” they have “constitutional rights” – meaning ONLY those rights which are allowed by the U.S. constitution. In fact, just a few days ago President Obama confirmed this in the following video (but no need to get distracted).
https://twitter.com/USCitizenAbroad/status/772965134373384192
Once again, U.S. citizens are NOT regarded by the USA as “human beings” they are regarded as “carbon life forms” that are the property of the USA. They exist only to serve the Homeland by paying tribute to the Government. If they attempt to leave the USA they will be subject to punitive requirements which include the “Exit Tax”, etc.
Now, there are those who will say: “No, that is not so! Americans (this is a healthy dose of Homelanderism) are free, etc. …
But, as Americans abroad know, nothing is further from the truth. So, the assumption that the USA regards its citizens as property and not people (or as somebody here once said “taxpayers” and not “citizens”) is the key to this proposal. This ensures that the proposal will be presented in language that the USA will understand.
The proposal:
As previously introduced in this post:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/03/31/so-in-a-fatca-and-cookvtait-world-how-can-any-country-allow-us-persons-to-live-in-the-country/
The Government of Canada should simply offer to purchase U.S. property/citizens residing in Canada. It should be a one time payment that would include ALL Canadian citizens with U.S. taint residing in Canada. This would be a great deal for both Canada and the USA.
Here is why:
First, why great deal for USA:
The USA would receive a one time payment based (presumably) on the number of Canadian citizens who were regarded as U.S. property. This amount would almost certainly be larger than they would get from these individuals as taxes.
Second, why great deal for Canada:
It would be a fantastic and instant return on the investment. The reason is that while people are U.S. citizens living outside the USA they are virtually worthless. Whatever intrinsic value they may have is reduced by the “IRS/US Citizen Discount” that follows U.S. property wherever it may be in the world. The moment that they cease to be U.S. citizens they will immediately cease to be a burden on Canadian society and cease to be a burden on their Canadian families. Therefore, this will be an instant benefit to Canada. In addition, once unshackled from the yoke of U.S. ownership, those former U.S. citizens will now be free to realize their potential. Think of the contributions they will now be free to make to their friends, families and Canada!
Again, the original proposal was here.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/03/31/so-in-a-fatca-and-cookvtait-world-how-can-any-country-allow-us-persons-to-live-in-the-country/
Putting a value on a U.S. citizen/person residing in Canada
This is the difficult part. I suggest that the value should be somewhere between the low value that current U.S. citizenship implies and the instantly higher value that the person will have when they cease to be a U.S. citizen.
What about the problem of “Permanent Residents” of Canada who are not Canadian citizens?
This is more difficult problem. It seems to me that they ought to be given the opportunity to become Canadian citizens so that they will be allowed to participate in the “buy back”. Those who don’t want to become Canadian citizens should possibly be asked to leave.
A complete ban on future immigration from the United States
This needs to take effect in any event.
Why is this not a practical “win win” solution for both Governments and for all individuals?
USC Abroad….the proposal of a ban on future immigration from the US would be the most powerful message we could give. Brilliant! Thanks for saying this.
I share a huge amount of pessimism about the discussion during last 2 days of this thread. I still feel that supporting as much as we can the emasculation of US power to enforce CBT (ie: their status as a reserve currency) is our greatest hope. I’m optimistic this will happen sooner than later, and it can’t happen soon enough for me. I look forward to doing business with any bank that has a huge middle finger raised in the direction of the USA. A bank that just wants to do business and enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship with me.
“The fact of a birth outside the USA to U.S. citizen parent(s) automatically confers the right to U.S. citizenship. It is NOT clear that it confers the obligation to accept U.S. citizenship (unless you are a Homelander immigration lawyer).
– I am not convinced that having a parent register the kid as a U.S. citizen forces the kid to be a U.S. citizen”
I agree. In fact the third of those sentences should help prove the second. Here’s why.
If two US non-citizen nationals (e.g. from American Samoa) give birth to a child somewhere else (e.g. New Zealand) and then (due to stupidity or malice or whatever) register the birth at a US consulate, the child doesn’t get a certificate of US non-citizen nationality, the child gets a certificate of US citizenship. 22 CFR 50.7(a). I think we can be sure that Congress did not intend to impose US citiznship on this child.
“I know of no court decision where the context has been someone trying to resist the imposition of forced citizenship.”
Unfortunately I don’t agree. Some tax protestors, holding US citizenship (and maybe no other) and US residence (and maybe no other) have tried arguing that they’re state citizens not US citizens under the 14th amendment and therefore not subject to US taxation. I think courts have ruled that the tax protestors are US citizens. By the way I think courts could have accomplished tax goals by observing the protestors’ residences and/or physical presence while letting the protestors renounce US nationality, but for some reason they didn’t.
Unfortunately this also makes homelanders think we’re tax protestors when we have no such intention, when we comply with tax rates higher than the US in our countries of residence.
“Many (but not all) tax lawyers, accountants, etc, read S. 877A of the Internal Revenue Code to be (“in effect”) retroactive. In other words, they say that a person who lost U.S. citizenship in the 1970 is still a U.S. citizen because they don’t have a CLN. They have ZERO basis for reading S. 877A in this way. It could just as easily (and is by others) to not be retroactive.”
Unfortunately the condors have basis for reading S. 877A that way because S. 877A is written that way. The idea of not being retroactive is based on what the law had been at the time those people relinquished, and on such subversive principles as ethics, moral standards, etc.
“I would think the US government would not find it to its advantage to allow one group of US citizen to maintain the option of exercising their rights to US citizenship up until such time they would like to rid themselves of it, all the while not paying taxes.
What incentive does the US have in implementing the Obama proposal?”
Obviously none. Any country that professes to believe in human rights would allow its diaspora to retain citizenship while not paying citizenship taxes. In other words, any country except Eritrea and the US. Since the US sponsored a UN resolution calling Eritrea’s practice a human rights violation, Eritrea might have some incentive in implementing the Obama proposal, i.e. might have incentive though not acting on it. Obviously the US itself doesn’t have any such incentive, gee I wonder why.
Oops wait, that answer applies to an RBT proposal not Obama proposal.
“But the paperwork is more than just paperwork and is downright impossible for some from a financial perspective”
The IRS’s Taxpayer Advocate reported to Congress in 2011 that it’s completely impossible for some, not just from a financial perspective. I could report the same from personal experience, but who needs to when the IRS already did?
“That is why I think it is imperative that home governments work with the USG to allow non-resident US citizens ditch US citizenship painlessly as opposed to the current compliance nightmare”
Strangely enough I could have done that painlessly in 1986 or 1984, but didn’t because I didn’t know what was coming.
@Norman Diamond
“Unfortunately the condors have basis for reading S. 877A that way because S. 877A is written that way. The idea of not being retroactive is based on what the law had been at the time those people relinquished, and on such subversive principles as ethics, moral standards, etc.”
You need to read the statute more carefully.
Thanks for refreshing our memories with this innovative common-sense solution, USCA. Either such a *Buy Back Program* or change to US RBT would show a regard for my family and other families. I see no *amnesty* proposal for us.
Yes, WestCoaster and Watcher, it is sadly true. My Canadian-born son (born just shy of the date his still two US citizen parents became Canadian citizens — and were warned we would thereby be losing our US citizenship!) is not the only one born outside the US to one or two US parents that will be so affected by US-deemed USC. My son’s financial details are in the 8854 that I filed with the US to complete my 2012 renunciation. I know of others in Alberta — and there will be many so affected across Canada and in other countries (but not necessarily identified as my son’s details have been in the accounts I hold for him in my local Canadian *foreign financial institution* – and the US$3,661 I paid to the IRS as I am the Holder of my son’s RDSP). My son was never registered as a US birth abroad — but seems from Department of State Legal that doesn’t matter.
The definition of *US exceptionality* for my family came from the Washington, DC US immigration / nationality lawyer I hired — the answer he got regarding my case from Department of State officials:
@Malice
If RBT became law of the land, then your being a USC would not bring the problems discussed here.
All roads do not lead to renounciation. Mine leads to deportation when I lose my passport or selfdeportation when I lose the right to earn a living by my banks closing my accounts. As things currently stand, those are the only two paths open to me. CBT being the foundation of all of this discussed at IBS, it all collapses with a switch to RBT.
My argument against those getting their CLN, if it can be called that, is that I believe it is only temporary security. Getting the CLN is like moving higher up the hill ahead of the flood waters. The CLN provides a high and dry refuge but until RBT is adopted, the flood continues to rise. The CLN will not be enough some time in the future and you will be going through all this again. Once they realize that those still in the net do not have anywhere near the assets to match their made up number of billions hidden overseas, they will be rakinging everyone over the coals again, starting with the people whose where abouts they know, those you got a CLN.
Another arguement is that the US knows it has the power to make people far away follow its law. As long as people far away follow its law, it will continue to make people far away follow its law. The have no reason not and reason to continue to do so. They’ve made those who relinquished in the past renounce to get a CLN. They made you get a CLN. What on God’s Green Earth is their to prevent them from forcing you to recertify that you are no longer a USC?
Someone else asked if citizenship is slavery. At least for some, it certainly is. Slavery can be defined as not having the right to enjoy the fruits of your labor. My children, for example, will not be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor until, like the slaves of old, they buy their freedom.
@USCA
I like your idea
My question is, what is it that the Canadian government would think it was gaining? Given their attitude about the whole “Americans abiding in Canada thing”, why would they be willing to spend money to keep us?
@Westcoaster
I would like to understand what you are saying but am afraid I don’t get you.
I don’t see the lawsuit having any direct effect on the personal mobility of people going to the U.S. I do understand quite clearly the concerns about being able to visit family, proximity to US boundaries, etc. I just don’t understand what the lawsuit has to do with this.
If the lawsuit does not fail, FATCA reporting would stop. So presumably some would make the choice not to become compliant. Do you mean you are concerned about those people being unable to cross the border?
Again, if someone has no intention of entering the U.S. on a go-forward basis, would it make a difference if the lawsuit failed?
If the lawsuit does not fail, would there not be some sort of process to cancel the IGA? And if so, would it be reasonable to expect that some parameters would be laid down? There may be virtually nothing anyone can do to get the U.S. to guarantee entry.
However, even with renunciants, it is very common to get a visa to visit and so on. IOW, a lot of what we worry about in this regard may be the result of fear-mongering. I have crossed 3 times with no issues whatever; in fact, the U.S, Border Patrol was more pleasant than the CDNs. When I flew from Toronto to KC last year, they actually directed me to the US line to clear customs. At first I thought “Oh God, now the trouble begins.” But the fellow laughed and joked with me, didn’t ask for my CLN and in fact, I got through much, much faster than anyone else because the larger line were the CDNs etc. On the way back, the US guy in KC let me go through without xraying my bags and all of that-there is a name for it, you have to apply and foreigners are not eligible. When I told him I shouldn’t be allowed to do it he laughed and waved me on. Go figure.
@Calgary,
It is incredibly unfair that your son, Animal’s child and I remember, recalcitrantexpat’s son, would be ineligible to qualify if this program were ever to become reality. Which of course, it will not given Obama is done. If we are lucky, the RO will have enough clout to try and implement some relief. There is just no way one can justify or understand the reasoning behind the US’ thinking. These are not people who will ever come to the US to live.If they cannot form the requisite intent to renounce, they certainly cannot form the requisite intent to come and live in the US nor deal with filing taxes and all that USC entails. I still find it even more incredible that children (way under the age of 18) entering the US as immigrants with their families are allowed to swear the oath, even though they clearly cannot form the requisite intent to know what they are doing. Such hypocrisy.
I still cannot believe, that long ago, when you were in touch with the Wash DC official, that the idea of “compassionate grounds” would not come up/apply. It’s just obscene to stick to a rule so rigidly when there is no good outcome on both sides. Shame on the US.
@Patricia Moon
“I don’t see the lawsuit having any direct effect on the personal mobility of people going to the U.S. I do understand quite clearly the concerns about being able to visit family, proximity to US boundaries, etc. I just don’t understand what the lawsuit has to do with this.
If the lawsuit does not fail, FATCA reporting would stop. So presumably some would make the choice not to become compliant. Do you mean you are concerned about those people being unable to cross the border?”
Yes, because although the Canadian government would comply with the successful outcome of the lawsuit, the US would likely challenge the validity. In other words, the US would no longer be able to impose its will on US citizens on Canadian soil, but would certainly take action if the non-compliant (US citizens who didn’t submit their FBARs, etc.) ever set foot on US soil where US law takes precedent. Therefore, only Americans who live in Canada and avoid going to the US really benefit if the lawsuit is successful. (Although it would set a precedent for other nations to follow suit so could eventually lead to successful lawsuits abroad.)
“Again, if someone has no intention of entering the U.S. on a go-forward basis, would it make a difference if the lawsuit failed? ”
Yes, because some financial institutions in Canada (such as Credential Direct) refuse to accept American customers. Also, some careers require a person to have access to company bank accounts, so multi-national corporations would be reluctant to hire Americans outside of the US, as it could potentially open up their books to the IRS. Those are just some examples off the top of my head; there are more, but I want to go grab some dinner.
Because my third son falls on the Autism spectrum as severely autistic; he would be considered by Department of State to be unable to renounce his U.S. citizenship. The only way that we’ve managed to stay out of the DOS radar is by refusing to claim his birthright US citizenship (as he was born on Canadian soil).
And people wonder why I’m enraged…
Sorry… typing too damned fast:
What I meant to say was:
Because my third son falls on the Autism spectrum as severely autistic; he would be considered by Department of State to be unable to renounce his U.S. citizenship.
@The_Animal1970
“And people wonder why I’m enraged…”
Your family and others like yours are the hardest hit by all this. I would be every bit as incensed in your shoes. It’s an appalling human rights violation for the USG to impose citizenship, and all the endless responsibilities that entails, on individuals without permission or means to break free.
@ WestCoaster,
Re:
I feel that the point of the lawsuit is that Canada is a sovereign country (and that people’s involvements/interactions or lack thereof with the US is a byproduct of that point). A Member of Parliament (I forget his name) said they had to pass the FATCA IGA because “Congress has spoken.” I believe that that is no reason for the Parliament of Canada to enact a law, because the US Congress tells them to, a law which overrides our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I definitely want to see American citizens, real and alleged, US born people and US green carders, living outside the US, freed from the clutches of the greedy bullying US, but to me the main point of the lawsuit is that Canada is a sovereign country, not the 51st state or what they called in WW2 an “overrun country.” And I think that a positive decision in the ADCS case would free people from US intrusion in their lives.
Would it also have a negative result of people not being able to go to the US? Dunno, of course. The US can do what it wants, I feel that’s beyond my control. It’s unfair and nasty if a victory in Canada were to result in the US preventing American citizens, real or alleged (and/or US born persons or green carders) not being able go to US. The US seemed like a pretty good country when I left it, and gave it back my citizenship, 45 years ago. In these years working with refugees, maybe I got inured to people not being able to going back to where they came from. I didn’t expect the US to be a country like that, but I feel that if the US is gonna pull that, so be it. It’s nothing new, they’d just be the first “first-world democracy” to do so.
I hope that does not come to pass, but I can’t wrap my head around the idea that countries of the world adopting, or adapting to, US law is the best solution in this situation. I believe that the point of the ADCS lawsuit is that Canada is a sovereign country and our Charter takes primacy over US government desires. I am a Canadian and I do not want to live my life in an overrun country.
@pacifica777
“Would it also have a negative result of people not being able to go to the US? Dunno, of course. The US can do what it wants, I feel that’s beyond my control. It’s unfair and nasty if a victory in Canada were to result in the US preventing American citizens, real or alleged, (and/or US born persons or green carders) not being able go to US. The US seemed like a pretty good country when I left it, and gave it back my citizenship, 45 years ago. In these years working with refugees, maybe I got inured to people not being able to going back to where they came from. I didn’t expect the US to be a country like that, but I feel that if the US is gonna pull that, so be it. It’s nothing new, they’d just be the first “first-world democracy” to do so.”
Given how the USG has behaved in these past years, I tend to brace myself for the worst. An old saying springs to mind when thinking of the US: Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
@USCitizenAbroad, in the vein of the proposal for a “Great Canadian U.S. Citizen “Buy Back” Program”. Reminded me of : https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/05/13/does-france-owe-haiti-reparations/ .
“An old saying springs to mind when thinking of the US: Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
I think I’ve been saying that for the past four years. Yet some people appear to have “Stockholm” – “Oh, they’re OK…they’re our friends…”
“It is incredibly unfair that your son, Animal’s child and I remember, recalcitrantexpat’s son, would be ineligible to qualify if this program were ever to become reality.”
Patricia, what is incredibly unfair is the fact that disability allowances and anything that the disabled child receives in government funding is taxed by the United States. Disability was NOT included as one of the exempt accounts for purposes of disclosure on FBAR and thus taxable to the IRS. This is draconian. These are amounts that these disabled have to LIVE on and to pay for community support. Community support is not cheap and the US government wants to leech off that amount? What’s the IRS’s response going to be? Go get a job?!!! Give me a fucking break!
“My question is, what is it that the Canadian government would think it was gaining? Given their attitude about the whole “Americans abiding in Canada thing”, why would they be willing to spend money to keep us?”
Probably cheaper than having all of us who are affected go on welfare because the US government keeps leeching off us and we can’t afford to keep earning astronomical amounts just to satisfy two governments’ tax requirements.