Is there a parallel between #Americansabroad commiting #citizide and the following story? "Why my grandfather dissolved the Michel First Nation and renounced his Indian status" | CBC Radio https://t.co/fFMmmOn1FL
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) June 4, 2018
I recently became aware of a fascinating article at CBC titled:
Why my grandfather dissolved the Michel First Nation and renounced his Indian status
The title suggests a discussion of two separate issues:
1. “Renouncing Indian status” – Is this analogous to U.S. citizens renouncing U.S. citizenship today?
2. “Dissolving the Michel First Nation” – Is this analogous to “tax residents” of other countries returning to the United States to avoid the indignities inflicted on Americans abroad?
For some time I have been interested in some of the parallels between the U.S. treatment of its citizens living abroad and the Canadian and U.S. Government treatment of their First Nations people. To be clear: I am NOT suggesting that the treatment of Americans abroad is of the same caliber as the treatment of First Nations peoples.
Nevertheless:
– First Nations people have historically been subjected to a separate regulatory regime – the Indian Act – by the Government of Canada. U.S. citizens abroad are subjected to a separate tax regime by the Government of the United States
– First Nations people are subjected to a separate financial reporting regime by the Government of Canada. U.S. citizens abroad are subjected to a separate reporting regime by the U.S. Government
– First Nations people have historically been subjected to policies that have resulted in diminished opportunities relative to other Canadians. U.S. citizens abroad simply do NOT have the same opportunities as those who are not U.S. citizens
Reading the CBC article …
At this point, I suggest that you read the CBC article in its entirety (which is introduced by this short video).
Introducing a First Nations #citizide of 1958 https://t.co/wR0J68omow
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) June 19, 2018
The article includes the following paragraph. Does this sound familiar?
He asked the federal government if he could enfranchise — that meant he would give up his treaty rights and Indian status in order to gain the rights and freedoms of other Canadians.
It was a formal process whereby Indigenous people, who met certain criteria, could apply. By enfranchising, he would be given title to his land, the right to vote and to travel freely.
Other band members had already enfranchised back in the 1920s, and even earlier. But when Johnny applied, the government told him he’d have to get the whole Michel band to enfranchise, in order for him to gain his freedom.
It wasn’t an easy sell. Some worried about what they had to lose. They would no longer have free education, healthcare, agricultural support, nor the right to hunt and fish on their land.
1. “Renouncing Indian status” – Is this analogous to U.S. citizens renouncing U.S. citizenship today?
A major theme in the article is the realization that by NOT having “Indian status” one would no longer be subjected to discriminatory treatment. A major reason that Americans abroad are renouncing U.S. citizenship is so that they will non longer be subjected to the discriminatory burdens that are part of life for Americans abroad.
2. “Dissolving the Michel First Nation” – Is this analogous to “tax residents” of other countries returning to the United States to avoid the indignities inflicted on Americans abroad?
The following recent comment on Brock is perhaps another example of “if you can’t beat them, join them” principle.
Brock has been a great help for me over the years just reading the many comments and articles. Having been stomped and too many tire tracks on my back from American and EU Politicians I have thrown in the towel.
ALL but one local financial account had been closed to me.
The transition tax was the final straw but I threw in the towel because of the abuse of the politicians in my own country who created this entire mess by signing on.
Effectively I have done a reverse emigration after a dozen years which will benefit the USA and not my home country.
Looked at a map and bought a condo in a nice US Location that can easily be reached by air and cheaply.
Turned my self employed business into a USA Corporation.
Moved banking and most financial accounts to the USA which I could now do with a real and proper address owning a condo. I also now have a US Will with Powers of Attorney. So my estate will be probated in the USA with no inheritance tax in Europe…….I do not care.
There it is America First my own country said they did not want me and called me an American so I will do what an American is expected to do…………
I will still live much of the year in Europe but America will get the tax and not the place I used to call home.
All in all I had a bunch of vulture fees to pay but I should have a positive return in a few years even after the fees.
So yes……I have moved offshore to America….lock, stock and barrel.
The vulture told me that I am not alone with the reverse emigration…folks just no longer care.
Its either renounce or reverse emigration to the USA.
Besides I am positive my American financial providers will provide no information to my home country!! The USA will get taxes they did not expect and the EU is left holding the bag….
It seems to me that the commentor “EE/US Friend” has dissolved his status as a “tax resident” of Europe and has joined the group who are U.S. “tax residents” living in the United States.
The U.S. tribes had and have sovereignty supposedly at the level that the 50 states do, except that it has been consistently ignored or violated, in particular by the Interior Department and the Supreme Court in its racism has allowed the Government to get away with it. We all know about the broken treaty and the Trail of Tears. I think the USG has, however, implemented the Jay Treaty with more respect than the Canadian Government.
Why a tribe or band would be dissolved must be a very personal or group matter. In the USA state tribes (as compared with federally-recognised tribes) had few rights. In recent years additional tribes have obtained federal recognition and also racially diverse persons have been accepted into tribes.
Some U.S. tribes have grown rich from their ability to get state aporoval for casinos. I’ve seen cynical discussions of Foxwoods in Connecticut. The DoI has cheated many tribes of their mineral royalties. I suspect that their tax exemption doesn’t mean much when they are at poverty level and deprived of good schools and health facilities.
I know little about Canadian bands other than what a landlady I had in Montreal told me: she had lived for years in the city but her son, when he left school, chose to go back to the reserve. She also explained why Quebec First Canadians refuse, in general, French as a main language and why the Quebec independence movement antagonised them and so lost the referendum.
In some ways, similar, for USCs who see their USness as their primary identity. Though the Michel First Nation individuals seem to have been giving up more (free education, healthcare etc) than a USC gives up by renouncing.
Most USCs who see their residence country as their primary identity presumably don’t face the same kind of emotional wrench, and aren’t losing so much in practical terms either. For me at any rate it was all pros and no significant cons (apart from the fee).