Let’s try this again:
Assume that you, a long-time citizen and resident of France, were born in the U.S. and left U.S. at age four hours after birth, never to return AND you never developed any ties (passport whatever) with U.S. AND never wanted, and do not want, and refuse to accept imposition of U.S. citizenship on your French citizen person — notwithstanding a birth citizenship law of a foreign country (the U.S.).
A lot of people in this post want to define you as an “Accidental American Citizen”, apparently because they feel that this is a useful, easy to digest and understand, term.
But you say: “No way people — I don’t accept U.S. imposition of non-meaningful citizenship that I don’t want and I TELL YOU THAT I AM NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN I AM ONLY A CITIZEN OF FRANCE”.
So given the scenario above and your position as a human person, is it accurate or not to say that you are an American citizen?
Does the majority vote that you must defer to a foreign citizenship law that trumps your right to say no way?
@WhatAmI
“Wow, I have to totally disagree with this post. It’s completely off the mark. Worse post I’ve read here in a long time.”
I believe if you are an American couple in France, your child born there is not automatically french.A child born in Germany to Americans is not automatically german.I believe the same applies in the UK and in other EU countries.
By the same token, the petitioner on the video was born in the US to foreign parents and truly deserves the label of “accidental ” because anywhere else he would not be considered a captive of his bithplace.
I believe that most countries have some restrictions for allowing foreign nationals to acquire automatic citzenship by birth and in cases where it is automatic there are retention requirements to maintain them.
Yes, there is a wide range of citizenship law in the world, but I think only the US gets complaints and it’s purely because of their CBT regime that dates back to the Civil War. Canada has much the same automatic citizenship if born in Canada:
Nobody screams about Canadian law being a crime against humanity like they do about the US. It's all about taxation.
How a so-called accidental American feels is probably close to how someone born the wrong gender generally feels. Trapped through no action of their own, with the US ‘assigning’ its citizenship to most everyone born on US soil – whether they want it or not.
Well I’m just going to go back to being grateful that JR’s petition was received by the EU committee, that Sophie in’t Veld’s speech was awesome and that the door has been opened to a plenary debate which I hope happens very soon.
Yes,CBT is the big problem but what has been forgotten is that the entrapping US citzenship laws created the problem for JR,as BB says above .Think about it.What came first ,the chicken or the egg.
And it isn’t Congress’ fault entirely,we can thank Homelanders Abroad ,like the ACA,Sundberg for convincing the USSC and Congress to protect that almighty citzenship from being lost by any AMERICAN abroad,while knowing about the existence of the friendly CBT. That fact alone needs some serious explaining.
@BB
What do you mean giving citzenship to almost everyone.
Except for some quirky exceptions,there are not many nations ,if any,that hand out citzenships to children of illegals,by the millions.
OK, I’ve put my thoughts together in a different way. I realize now why attacks against US citizenship policy don’t sit well with me.
Had the petitioner in the video been born in Canada instead of the US, he would be an Accidental Canadian. You’ve never heard that term because there is no downside to Canadian citizenship so there is nothing to talk about, nothing to complain about, and more importantly, no taxation or financial services consequences. You can’t slam US citizenship law without saying the same about Canada’s.How can the laws be the same but only the US law be immoral? It’s not citizenship, it’s taxation.
If attacks against US citizenship laws were successful, that would only let Accidental Americans off the hook. Much like the relief proposed in Obama’s Green Book budget (and even mentioned by the petitioner in the video), this is not nearly good enough.There are millions of true US-citizen expats who are in the same boat as Accidental Americans. They are being treated just as unfairly and deserve the same relief as Accidental Americans, and all of the above deserve the same freedoms that citizens of all RBT countries enjoy.
Whining about US citizenship laws, in my view, makes no sense. Again, fixing US citizenship law would only help a small number of people (including my own sister). The same can be said about the Canadian FATCA IGA. Defeating it only helps US citizens in Canada hide from the IRS. It does nothing to solve the root problem of US CBT, other than, and this is not trivial, sending a loud and clear message to the US that CBT is untenable. Also, just one success of overturning FATCA in any country in the world might hopefully have a snowballing effect and inspire more and more countries to revisit their FATCA agreements. As in the video, lack of US reciprocity is one key to reopening that door for many countries. I may be naive, thinking that the fall of FATCA would inspire the US to turn to RBT, but it has to help?
BTW, woo-hoo! Sophie in’t Veld is awesome!
@WhatAmI
Just for background information,Canada and the US are the only countries that give automatic citzenship to anyone born on its soil. Back in 2014,there was a federal government proposal to eliminate that distinction.It fell through due lack of interest.
Also, up to April ,2009,children born in Canada of foreign parents and residing abroad ,ie accidental Canadian, had to notify a Canadian consulate at 28 years of ago that they wished to retain their citzenship or lose it.
No other group highlights the injustices of CBT better than the stories of Accidental Americans such as:
https://www.taxconnections.com/taxblog/why-does-u-s-congress-and-irs-want-a-canadian-cop/#.WWa4JClLdaR
That is why I have referenced Accidental Americans in letters. Justice for Accidental Americans is the easiest case (even the Obama administration showed signs of buckling) then this opens highlight, focus, and debate for everyone else impacted. Accidentals could be the first break in The Wall of laws against U.S. persons overseas.
A point has been made that “Accidental American” is a term in usage in a complex area, so a change now would muddy already muddy waters.
There are not many alternatives listed above.
How about this:
Accidental American Tax Slave. “Accidental American” preserved. “Tax Slave” suggesting an injustice about American tax and a one-way nature of the injustice. “Accidental American” suggesting someone with some sort of tenuous ties to America. They don’t get any homeland resident services, just double tax and double compliance expectation from the U.S. plus consequences of FATCA on overseas local accounts.
J.R. even mentions “Tax Slave.” American Homelanders may think of themselves as tax slaves. So Accidental American Tax Slave is more descriptive.
Any other suggestions?
Foreign National may be put in: Foreign National claimed by U.S. as an Accidental American. Gets long.
I have done some promotion of the term Tributary Slavery. That term was coined by Samuel Adams in regards to British taxation of the Colonists, so there is a nice reference back to the American Revolution and the tax related reasons for it (yet this reference is likely “over the heads” of most). Perhaps it should be Tributary Tax Slavery as this would be more descriptive suggesting a one-way, unequal, and unjust nature of the laws. And to deflect ‘don’t let the door hit ya’ use this term with “Un-American.”
I agree with the post that there has been detriment to a U.S.-centric gravity on the terminology. We would benefit by watching out and counteracting this. Another example is how tax treaties are called. In the Canadian context the tax treaty should never be called the U.S.-Canadian tax treaty. It should be called the Canadian-U.S. Tax Treaty. This applies to all other countries. These treaties are the law of Canada/Australia/U.K. etc and in the context of these countries the U.S. and U.S. Treasury Department text and definition of Double Taxation should not be of first consideration, but of 2nd consideration.
I just read the above. Accidental American Tax Slave then suggests that they are paying taxes. Most/all are not. So maybe use “Accidental American” then in close proximity use something like claimed as a tax slave by the U.S.
For a person tax resident in another country to be claimed as a tax resident of the U.S. is crazy but to the point.
Robert Wood termed the above as Kafkaesque. I did a survey on Twitter and Kafkaesque won out over Orwellian, Dystopian, and Catch-22. Another related term: surreal. Twitter only allowed 4 choices in their survey.
@JC
” No other group highlights the injustices of CBT better than the stories of Accidental Americans such as:…”
IF THAT IS THE CASE ,WHY WASN’T IT CONSIDERED AT THE MEADOW’S HEARING.
AT LEAST A WITNESS. WHY JUST WITNESSES TRYING TO COMPLY WITH FATCA,AND NOT ANY WITNESSES TO ILLUSTRATE ITS ABSURDITY.
@Robert Ross. I agree. It would have been great to have an accidental, such as J.R., in the FATCA Hearing.
They only had so many spaces with limited time. Rand Paul and the three others are plaintiffs on the FATCA/FBAR lawsuit. Two of the plaintiffs felt forced to renounce over FATCA, one ex Democrat, one ex U.S. military. The other plaintiff talked about impacts of FATCA in terms of on an American trying to expand business overseas. I believe Keith Redmond would have addressed accidentals if he had a crack at it.
What can we expect from the Meadows FATCA hearing? The silence is deafening.
“Unlike the 1977 Act, the 1947 Act provided no exception to this rule, ergo children of persons who enjoyed diplomatic immunity would also acquire Canadian citizenship if born on or before 14 February 1977.”
Hmm. What would happen if a hospital room in Canada was deemed Dutch territory so Canadian doctors, nurses, and cleaners had to get Dutch employment visas to attend the birth. Was the baby a dual citizen?
‘Nobody screams about Canadian law being a crime against humanity like they do about the US. It’s all about taxation.’
Canada mostly doesn’t force dual Canadian-and-X citizens to behave as Canadian homelanders when in country X or Y.
“Just for background information,Canada and the US are the only countries that give automatic citzenship to anyone born on its soil.”
Bzzt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
‘I have done some promotion of the term Tributary Slavery. That term was coined by Samuel Adams in regards to British taxation of the Colonists, so there is a nice reference back to the American Revolution and the tax related reasons for it (yet this reference is likely “over the heads” of most).’
Sam Adams? Talk about property. Even his beer isn’t free.
@ND
I’ll take your source as correct ,regarding unconditional jus soli.
My source is fake news.
https://www.cicnews.com/2014/08/government-canada-citizenship-birth-provision-083672.html
As Trump would say:”Don”t believe anything you see,hear,feel,or read”
@ Norman Diamond
Are you referring to Princess Margriet of the Netherlands? Royalty is exceptional … no surprise there. At least Ottawa gets lovely tulips for having provided safe haven during WW2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Tulip_Festival
Some thoughts on the citizenship vs. taxation debate.
First:
One comment includes …
This totally misses the point. The issue is not telling the USA or any other country how they can define their citizens. The issue is whether other countries are obligated or should as a matter of policy recognize another country’s citizenship claim with respect to their citizens.
Take the example of the “JR” the petitioner in the video. He is a citizen of France according to French law. Let’s assume that he resides in France where he is a citizen. The question is whether, while “JR” is living in France, the French Government should recognize that “JR” (although defined by the USA as a U.S. citizen) should be treated as a U.S. citizen when living in France. Nobody is saying to the USA that he is NOT a U.S. citizen under U.S. law. But, France might (and really should say):
Second:
To suggest that the only issue is taxation in general or “citizenship-based taxation” in particular, does not survive thoughtful analysis.
The U.S. controls the lives of its citizens abroad in ways that have nothing to do with taxation. Consider the obligation to register for the draft. Consider the Corrupt Foreign Practices Act which prohibits U.S. citizens (regardless of where they live) from engaging in certain activities. The sort of control over people is possible ONLY because of citizenship and the ways that the citizenship laws are defined. On a more mundane level, U.S. citizens do not have the free right of travel to Cuba …
Again, let’s take the case of “JR” who is in no way American (other than in a technical/legal sense). He was even deported from the the USA. Yet, because he is defined as a U.S. citizen he cannot engage in certain business activities. This is not a problem of taxation at all. It’s a problem of citizenship and the use of citizenship to control the lives of people outside the USA.
How about Bobby Fischer (another famous U.S. citizenship renunciant). Because of his U.S. citizenship the U.S. attempted to prohibit him from playing chess in Serbia.
Point is: Citizenship is very much a part of the problem. The simple reality is that the USA takes the position that it can control the lives of any person “Born In The USA” even if the person does NOT live in the USA. Again, this is FAR MORE than an issue of taxation (and frankly most of the “tax issues” are not even related to the payment of tax).
The thing that makes all these various kinds of control possible is the “status” of U.S. citizenship. The fact that Canada (and other countries with “just soli” citizenship laws) don’t behave in this way is utterly irrelevant. The point is that they could. The point is that “citizenship” is the driving force behind all of these claims of “life control”.
There may or may not be a helpful analogy, but here goes …
The problem of “accidental Americans” is NOT restricted to taxation. It is a problem of BOTH citizenship and taxation. Therefore it is entirely appropriate to attack the problem from both perspectives.
(For many years the USA had “just soli” citizenship and various laws giving the opportunity to acquire citizenship if born abroad. What happened was that citizenship became “easier to get” and “harder to lose”. Citizenship comes with both rights and responsibilities. This was a lot of potential gasoline (in terms of responsibilities) left around. Then the American people elected Obama and the Democrats – enacted FATCA, went on the FBAR Fundraiser – and torched Americans abroad.)
Clearly citizenship is a very big part of the issue. Clearly the various ways in which the USA uses “citizenship” in an extra-territorial manner is a very big part of the issue.
The problem is broader than taxation. Therefore, the solution is NOT getting rid of “citizenship-based taxation” (although that is the short term goal). The solution is to NOT allow the USA to impose its citizenship laws in an extra-territorial manner and extend itself into the economies of other countries.
@Bubblebustin – And if it becomes ruled that people have a right to “self-identify” their gender, then people should be able to “self-identify” with not being a U.S. citizen.
I left the US at the age of 5. I was taught (erroneously, as it turns out) that no matter where I chose to spend my years, the land of my birth would always consider me a citizen *as a courtesy* and that I would always be welcome there. It was by these rose-tinted words that I lived my life until the day I learned of FATCA/CBT at the age of 56.
My husband is considered a British citizen because his father was born in England. His citizenship is, indeed, a courtesy. The United States needs to reframe its “jus soli” citizenship in terms of this extension of courtesy based on the very real human need (common to many people) to feel a connectedness to where they came from. This sort of “courtesy citizenship” is an identity that, quite frankly, is in a person’s DNA and should not be denied them. “Courtesy citizenship” should be offered with no “gasoline” attached so that no future “match” can ignite a firestorm such as what we have experienced in our lives for the past many years.
After spending most of my life, since childhood, studying my family history I recently had my DNA tested. It was truly spooky to see a map of where my DNA signature has had its major concentration for the past 400 years, in one small spot on the map of the United States. Being American is, quite literally, in my blood. Whether I like it or not, it is the identity of every bone in my body. I believe I should be allowed to have this identity (which I was perfectly comfortable with for 56 years) without being taxed for it.
Yes, the US needs to tweak its citizenship law as well as its tax law so that what I was erroneously taught in childhood actually becomes reality.
@ USCA
Perhaps there IS something to the articles that I’ve read about the USA actually being a corporation and its “citizens” therefore are employees under contract and subject to being treated as capital of that corporation. I’ve always been skeptical of how much the authors of these pieces read into what is written with all caps and what is not. It’s puzzling to say the least.
Kelly (above) addresses what I consider to be a fundamental question on citizenship: Does a person ordinarily living outside the United States have the right, the standing, to accept or reject citizenship imposed on the person by a foreign state (the U.S.)?
I wonder whether the consensus here is that one must defer only to the United States on this issue.
Listening to the EU Court petition made by JR, born in the U.S. but a long-term resident of France, it appears that JR accepts (defers to, does not dispute) the unpleasant position of the U.S. that he is (his word) “contaminated” with U.S. citizenship. I suppose then that a case could be made that JR is in fact a U.S. citizen.
On the other hand Gwen, one of our born in the U.S. Canadian Plaintiffs, confirmed to me yet again (today) that notwithstanding the position of the U.S. Department of State, she is not an American, accidental or otherwise. She is a person of standing who does not accept the label.
The major difference between the way the US transmits citizenship and Canada is that the US bases its transmittal via jus sanguinis (law of the blood) vs. Canada’s jus soli. You have to be on Canadian “soil”. Whereas if one American gives birth to a baby on foreign soil, that baby is forever tainted with US citizenship simply because of the law “of the BLOOD”.
Clarification to Jus Sanguinis – In Canada it is only to the first generation. If your parents were Canadian, you are considered Canadian, but if your grandparents were Canadian, and your Canadian parents give birth to you having NOT SET FOOT on Canadian soil and are still on foreign soil: you are a foreign national. I don’t believe that visiting Canada counts with jus sanguinis in Canada.
“If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the child’s birth”
If you are born to even ONE US parent, US citizenship gets transmitted to you if your parents decide to go back for one year prior to your birth to the United States.