37 thoughts on “Australian Greens Senator @LarissaWaters resigns because of her CANADIAN place of birth-Too bad she was born in Canada”
@biscuit “In principal, could China declare that all Australian MPs are citizens with no possibility of renouncing, thereby causing the Australian government to collapse? ”
This is why the Master Nationality Rule was right 80 years ago and is right today.
“In principal, could China declare that all Australian MPs are citizens with no possibility of renouncing, thereby causing the Australian government to collapse?”
Heh. The US could do to Chinese citizens what the US did to Filipinos, pass a law making them non-citizen nationals but treated as aliens for the purposes of immigration, exclusion, and expulsion. So Chinese citizens would be dual nationals, just not eligible to enter or reside in the US, and not eligible to hold Chinese government offices.
Matt Canavan’s mother applied for Italian citizenship by descent several years ago and included her adult son on the application without his knowledge. How is this possible?
Property taxes properly are property taxes.
If you inherit a house in Japan and (hypothetically) could afford the inheritance taxes, that should bind you to Japanese property taxes not Japanese income taxes.”
Firstly, I’d probably not be so stupid as to allow “inherited property” to land in my hands to tax my Canadian based income. I’d find a relative who resided in Japan to take over the property…as was done in my family’s case (in reality) with my family being written off the title. If I couldn’t then I would be paying taxes to the Japanese government.
Hey wait, if a former landed immigrant who never had Canadian citizenship finds herself with a spouse residing in Canada, suddenly she gets deemed a deemed resident of Canada..
Canada’s extraterritorial laws have problems too.
‘Secondly…notice where it says “Dependents” If those were the “RUGRATS” that YOU created’
Hmm. Suppose your parents stayed in Japan and you were a first-generation immigrant to Canada. You think your parents should pay Canadian income tax?
You’re comparing apples to oranges. In the first case you give the example of a “landed immigrant” who changes their mind and goes back home. In the second you’re saying that if my parents stayed in Japan, that I’d expect them to pay Canadian taxes because I moved to Canada? In the first case, Yes. because said landed immigrant chose to move to Canada…then changed her mind, did not eliminate her ties to Canada and chose to keep the little book that said that she was no longer a Canadian citizen. Like I said before, if you keep a house, expect medical services from Canada…or anything that ties you to Canada, then you are held liable. Your house is serviced by utilities supplied by the local government which in turn gets benefits from the federal government. If you choose to retain ties to Canada in the form of significant ties (such as a house or your IMMEDIATE FAMILY (wife and kids – not extended family) then YOU WILL BE TAXED on your income because a) your kids are using schools…paid for by Canadian taxpayers, using b) roads paid for by Canadian taxpayers…using c) medical services paid for by Canadian taxpayers. – ALL TANGIBLE SERVICES!!!
So none of your examples had any coherence to what you were trying to imply. Firstly YOU did not own your home, you had a landlord, secondly, you did divest yourself of your Canadian driver’s licence and visited on a Japanese driver’s license. Thirdly you’re given to ranting about extraterritorial taxation when a) Canada only taxes on SIGNIFICANT ties to the homeland. Not once was this Australian taxed; not once was there a tax bill from the Canadian government on ANY amount that she earned outside of Canada while she was living her life in Australia. The only reason why she was even throwing a fit was because her fellow AUSTRALIANS outed her and targeted her because she ended up having a secondary citizenship. END QUOTE!!!
In the first case, Yes. because said landed immigrant chose to move to Canada…then changed her mind, did not eliminate her ties to Canada and chose to keep the little book that said that she was no longer a Canadian citizen. Like I said before, if you keep a house, expect medical services from Canada…or anything that ties you to Canada, then you are held liable. Your house is serviced by utilities supplied by the local government which in turn gets benefits from the federal government. If you choose to retain ties to Canada in the form of significant ties (such as a house or your IMMEDIATE FAMILY (wife and kids – not extended family) then YOU WILL BE TAXED on your income because a) your kids are using schools…paid for by Canadian taxpayers, using b) roads paid for by Canadian taxpayers…using c) medical services paid for by Canadian taxpayers. – ALL TANGIBLE SERVICES!!!
Let me make that clearer. If she chose to give up her landed immigrant status but chose to retain a OWNED Canadian home…yes, she would still be liable for income taxes because SHE is tying up Canadian residential property that a Canadian resident could purchase and utilize thereby driving up the cost of housing (see case in point of riled up Vancouver/Lower Mainland residents versus Chinese foreign investors). If she divests herself of that Canadian property, she would be liable for capital gains on the property. If there wasn’t any during that time, then she’d pay no capital gains.
In your second example: you ask if I’d expect my parents (if they chose to stay in Japan) to pay Canadian taxes? Is that a joke? No…I would not. Because I would not expect them to BUY my property in Canada for me. I’d be buying my own property, be liable for my own taxes (property and income) and my parents would have nothing to do with my Canadian taxation dealings. Secondly. if they had ended up buying an investment property in Canada, then they would be subject to the same taxation laws that are required by Canadian ownership of real property, which means you divulge your foreign earnings but are taxed on your Canadian source earnings…which is a concept that you cannot separate from your hatred of all taxation.
Re: now 3rd Australian Senator stepping down over dual citizenship. The Australian Constitution is clear – no dual citizens as Senator/MP. For Canavan, this will go to the Supreme Court, who will rule, IMO, without precedent to guide the court, in favour of the Constitution.
The argument will be that Australian born Canavan did not know of the 2nd citizenship as Italian, that his mother applied for without his knowledge. He received no benefit of such citizenship, did not actively pursue citizenship, or act in any way as an Italian such as requesting an Italian passport.
While this shows detrimental impacts of an unwanted 2nd citizenship, there is nothing here about extraterritorial law. For the other two Senators, nothing about extraterritorial law of New Zealand or the U.K placing those in Australia under “life control” with extraterritorial law.
That is the key difference with injustices as listed here at Brock: no extraterritorial law.
Perhaps the focus of Senators stepping down over unknown/unwanted citizenships could be leveraged to highlight the plight of USP in Australia.
“You’re comparing apples to oranges. In the first case you give the example of a “landed immigrant” who changes their mind and goes back home.”
I see, my writing was ambigous. Let me clarify.
‘Hey wait, if a former landed immigrant who never had Canadian citizenship finds herself with a spouse who residies in Canada even though she doesn’t and she hasn’t set foot in Canada since before the marriage, suddenly she gets deemed a deemed resident of Canada.’
Anyway, as Japan T pointed out, extraterritorial taxation is metastatizing.
“While this shows detrimental impacts of an unwanted 2nd citizenship, there is nothing here about extraterritorial law.”
Yes there is. If Italian law didn’t grant Italian citizneship to someone who wasn’t born there and didn’t live there and didn’t even apply for it, then Canavan could still be an Australian MP.
@JC – If Canavan loses his Senate seat (so far he has only resigned from his cabinet ministry), then it will mean that Italian law determines his citizenship even though he has not consented to being made an Italian citizen. If, OTOH, the High Court rules that under these circumstances Italian law does not determine his status in Australia, then perhaps Australian citizens born in Australia to US-citizen parent(s) can claim that they did not consent to having US citizenship imposed on them, and therefore, while in Australia, US citizenship law does not determine their status (and tax residence).
More MPs could be at risk as dual citizenship crisis threatens to widen
“Yes there is. If Italian law didn’t grant Italian citizenship to someone who wasn’t born there and didn’t live there and didn’t even apply for it, then Canavan could still be an Australian MP.”
So the situation is exactly as I suggested upthread. It is possible for a country to foist its citizenship upon someone who does not want it and has never even set foot there, and this is sufficient for that person to lose a position in their own government.
If you made this a plot point in a work of fiction nobody would believe it since it is so absurd, but it’s where we are.
Eritrea should grant Eritrean citizenship to Obama. (Or Kenya should reinstate Obama’s Kenyan citizenship again, and make an FBAR law, but someone already said that.)
@biscuit “In principal, could China declare that all Australian MPs are citizens with no possibility of renouncing, thereby causing the Australian government to collapse? ”
This is why the Master Nationality Rule was right 80 years ago and is right today.
“In principal, could China declare that all Australian MPs are citizens with no possibility of renouncing, thereby causing the Australian government to collapse?”
Heh. The US could do to Chinese citizens what the US did to Filipinos, pass a law making them non-citizen nationals but treated as aliens for the purposes of immigration, exclusion, and expulsion. So Chinese citizens would be dual nationals, just not eligible to enter or reside in the US, and not eligible to hold Chinese government offices.
Yet another Australian Senator with citizenship trouble – http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-25/matt-canavan-citizenship-crisis-resigns-from-cabinet/8742702
Matt Canavan’s mother applied for Italian citizenship by descent several years ago and included her adult son on the application without his knowledge. How is this possible?
Property taxes properly are property taxes.
If you inherit a house in Japan and (hypothetically) could afford the inheritance taxes, that should bind you to Japanese property taxes not Japanese income taxes.”
Firstly, I’d probably not be so stupid as to allow “inherited property” to land in my hands to tax my Canadian based income. I’d find a relative who resided in Japan to take over the property…as was done in my family’s case (in reality) with my family being written off the title. If I couldn’t then I would be paying taxes to the Japanese government.
Hey wait, if a former landed immigrant who never had Canadian citizenship finds herself with a spouse residing in Canada, suddenly she gets deemed a deemed resident of Canada..
Canada’s extraterritorial laws have problems too.
‘Secondly…notice where it says “Dependents” If those were the “RUGRATS” that YOU created’
Hmm. Suppose your parents stayed in Japan and you were a first-generation immigrant to Canada. You think your parents should pay Canadian income tax?
You’re comparing apples to oranges. In the first case you give the example of a “landed immigrant” who changes their mind and goes back home. In the second you’re saying that if my parents stayed in Japan, that I’d expect them to pay Canadian taxes because I moved to Canada? In the first case, Yes. because said landed immigrant chose to move to Canada…then changed her mind, did not eliminate her ties to Canada and chose to keep the little book that said that she was no longer a Canadian citizen. Like I said before, if you keep a house, expect medical services from Canada…or anything that ties you to Canada, then you are held liable. Your house is serviced by utilities supplied by the local government which in turn gets benefits from the federal government. If you choose to retain ties to Canada in the form of significant ties (such as a house or your IMMEDIATE FAMILY (wife and kids – not extended family) then YOU WILL BE TAXED on your income because a) your kids are using schools…paid for by Canadian taxpayers, using b) roads paid for by Canadian taxpayers…using c) medical services paid for by Canadian taxpayers. – ALL TANGIBLE SERVICES!!!
So none of your examples had any coherence to what you were trying to imply. Firstly YOU did not own your home, you had a landlord, secondly, you did divest yourself of your Canadian driver’s licence and visited on a Japanese driver’s license. Thirdly you’re given to ranting about extraterritorial taxation when a) Canada only taxes on SIGNIFICANT ties to the homeland. Not once was this Australian taxed; not once was there a tax bill from the Canadian government on ANY amount that she earned outside of Canada while she was living her life in Australia. The only reason why she was even throwing a fit was because her fellow AUSTRALIANS outed her and targeted her because she ended up having a secondary citizenship. END QUOTE!!!
In the first case, Yes. because said landed immigrant chose to move to Canada…then changed her mind, did not eliminate her ties to Canada and chose to keep the little book that said that she was no longer a Canadian citizen. Like I said before, if you keep a house, expect medical services from Canada…or anything that ties you to Canada, then you are held liable. Your house is serviced by utilities supplied by the local government which in turn gets benefits from the federal government. If you choose to retain ties to Canada in the form of significant ties (such as a house or your IMMEDIATE FAMILY (wife and kids – not extended family) then YOU WILL BE TAXED on your income because a) your kids are using schools…paid for by Canadian taxpayers, using b) roads paid for by Canadian taxpayers…using c) medical services paid for by Canadian taxpayers. – ALL TANGIBLE SERVICES!!!
Let me make that clearer. If she chose to give up her landed immigrant status but chose to retain a OWNED Canadian home…yes, she would still be liable for income taxes because SHE is tying up Canadian residential property that a Canadian resident could purchase and utilize thereby driving up the cost of housing (see case in point of riled up Vancouver/Lower Mainland residents versus Chinese foreign investors). If she divests herself of that Canadian property, she would be liable for capital gains on the property. If there wasn’t any during that time, then she’d pay no capital gains.
In your second example: you ask if I’d expect my parents (if they chose to stay in Japan) to pay Canadian taxes? Is that a joke? No…I would not. Because I would not expect them to BUY my property in Canada for me. I’d be buying my own property, be liable for my own taxes (property and income) and my parents would have nothing to do with my Canadian taxation dealings. Secondly. if they had ended up buying an investment property in Canada, then they would be subject to the same taxation laws that are required by Canadian ownership of real property, which means you divulge your foreign earnings but are taxed on your Canadian source earnings…which is a concept that you cannot separate from your hatred of all taxation.
Re: now 3rd Australian Senator stepping down over dual citizenship. The Australian Constitution is clear – no dual citizens as Senator/MP. For Canavan, this will go to the Supreme Court, who will rule, IMO, without precedent to guide the court, in favour of the Constitution.
The argument will be that Australian born Canavan did not know of the 2nd citizenship as Italian, that his mother applied for without his knowledge. He received no benefit of such citizenship, did not actively pursue citizenship, or act in any way as an Italian such as requesting an Italian passport.
While this shows detrimental impacts of an unwanted 2nd citizenship, there is nothing here about extraterritorial law. For the other two Senators, nothing about extraterritorial law of New Zealand or the U.K placing those in Australia under “life control” with extraterritorial law.
That is the key difference with injustices as listed here at Brock: no extraterritorial law.
Perhaps the focus of Senators stepping down over unknown/unwanted citizenships could be leveraged to highlight the plight of USP in Australia.
“You’re comparing apples to oranges. In the first case you give the example of a “landed immigrant” who changes their mind and goes back home.”
I see, my writing was ambigous. Let me clarify.
‘Hey wait, if a former landed immigrant who never had Canadian citizenship finds herself with a spouse who residies in Canada even though she doesn’t and she hasn’t set foot in Canada since before the marriage, suddenly she gets deemed a deemed resident of Canada.’
Anyway, as Japan T pointed out, extraterritorial taxation is metastatizing.
“While this shows detrimental impacts of an unwanted 2nd citizenship, there is nothing here about extraterritorial law.”
Yes there is. If Italian law didn’t grant Italian citizneship to someone who wasn’t born there and didn’t live there and didn’t even apply for it, then Canavan could still be an Australian MP.
@JC – If Canavan loses his Senate seat (so far he has only resigned from his cabinet ministry), then it will mean that Italian law determines his citizenship even though he has not consented to being made an Italian citizen. If, OTOH, the High Court rules that under these circumstances Italian law does not determine his status in Australia, then perhaps Australian citizens born in Australia to US-citizen parent(s) can claim that they did not consent to having US citizenship imposed on them, and therefore, while in Australia, US citizenship law does not determine their status (and tax residence).
More MPs could be at risk as dual citizenship crisis threatens to widen
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/more-mps-could-be-at-risk-as-dual-citizenship-crisis-threatens-to-widen-20170726-gxjaz7.html
“Yes there is. If Italian law didn’t grant Italian citizenship to someone who wasn’t born there and didn’t live there and didn’t even apply for it, then Canavan could still be an Australian MP.”
So the situation is exactly as I suggested upthread. It is possible for a country to foist its citizenship upon someone who does not want it and has never even set foot there, and this is sufficient for that person to lose a position in their own government.
If you made this a plot point in a work of fiction nobody would believe it since it is so absurd, but it’s where we are.
Eritrea should grant Eritrean citizenship to Obama. (Or Kenya should reinstate Obama’s Kenyan citizenship again, and make an FBAR law, but someone already said that.)