I am posting below (with permission) details of the experience of a young person of legal age who attempted to renounce United States citizenship at a US Consulate in Canada.
Readers have weighed in whether the behaviour of the Consular official was appropriate or not.
The FIRST part of this post is the detailed December 19, 2019 personal account of the person, followed by an earlier April 10 2019 second hand summary of the experience.
DECEMBER 19, 2019 DETAILED FIRST-HAND ACCOUNT OF EXPERIENCE OF YOUNG PERSON ATTEMPTING TO RENOUNCE AT US CONSULATE IN CANADA:
“In July 2018, I sent an email request for a renunciation appointment to be scheduled for after my 18th birthday, since I was not yet 18 years old at the time. I needed to wait until my birthday because according to U.S. law, they can deny an application from minors, but they cannot deny an application from a legal adult unless they suspect that said adult is being coerced. In January 2019 I finally received a reply, scheduling an appointment at the Halifax consulate for March 2019.
On the day of the appointment, I arrived a few minutes early and had to wait for the consulate to open (I think I was the first item on their schedule for that day). The building where the consulate is located is very nice and modern, full of business suites for law firms and the like. The consulate occupies its own floor accessible only by elevator, and when I got there, I had to buzz in using what looked like a doorbell camera from an apartment building. Once inside the consulate proper, there was only a single guard, who was quite friendly until I informed him that I was carrying an Epi-Pen because of my severe food allergy. He seemed worried about this as if it was some sort of threat and confiscated it, saying that I could have it back when I left. I asked him what would happen if I needed it, and he obfuscated for a few seconds before telling me to continue into the waiting area, never answering my question. The consulate itself is very small – a single room with about 20 chairs in the middle, three bank teller-style windows in one wall, and the guard’s desk and metal detector by the entrance. At this point the guard and I were the only people in the room.
I waited for probably 15 minutes before a clerk appeared in one of the windows and called my name. She took my documentation and I sat back down and waited for probably another 10 minutes before my name was called again. I went up to the next window and paid the $2,350 USD in cash, which the clerk seemed irritated by. She gave me a receipt and told me to wait again. While I was waiting a family came into the consulate for what I think was U.S. travel visas, based on snippets of conversation I accidentally overheard. After maybe 20 more minutes of waiting I was called to the third window, which had a chair set out in front. I sat down, and the woman behind the window introduced herself as the vice-consul. We had to speak through microphones that didn’t work very well and kept cutting out, and there was a slot at the bottom of the window for passing documents through.
The vice-consul started by asking me to confirm my identity and my intent to renounce my citizenship. I raised my right hand and swore to tell the truth, as directed. The vice-consul then began going through my documents and asked me about the circumstances of my birth. From this point forward I remember clearly what was said but I cannot recall exactly the order of events because the questioning became very intense and intimidating, and I went into autopilot mode. The consulate probably knows exactly how the conversation played out, however, due to the surveillance camera conveniently located right above the interview window.
I do remember that it began with her incredulity that I was trying to renounce at only 18 years old, because according to her, I didn’t have enough life experience to do so. She asked me why I chose to renounce at this time, and I said it was because I legally could and wanted to, and she seemed irritated by my lack of elaboration. Since I was still in high school, had not travelled extensively outside of North America, had not been to the U.S. much in the past few years, and had yet to vote in any election, she claimed that I clearly didn’t know enough about the world to make such a monumental decision. I told her that I planned to vote and travel later and just had not been able to do so yet because I was not old enough, but she wasn’t satisfied. She asked me to list everywhere I had ever lived, and what jobs my parents held in each location. When I told her that some of my parents’ jobs were with the U.S. government, she seemed very suspicious about it. She also made some strange comments about the fact that we moved quite often during my childhood, as if she suspected that we were involved in something shady.
Now, the law clearly states that I don’t have to give a reason, but she told me in no uncertain terms that a person as young as me must prove to her that I am of sound enough mind and have a good enough reason to renounce. This is blatantly untrue, and I knew that during the interview, but I felt very intimidated by the vice-consul and I had to appease her in order to get through the interview and not waste the massive amount of money I had just paid. She asked me about my career aspirations, and when I told her that I might go into medicine, she said that I should keep an open mind about medical school and residency in the States. When I told her I would rather stay in Canada for my education, she seemed bewildered and asked me if I had really thought about it, because if I had thought about it properly, I must be at least considering going to the U.S. I said I had considered it plenty, and I preferred Canada. She kept pressing me about it, asking me why I didn’t go to university in the States, or take a gap year and travel there. I said I didn’t want to. Every time I said I didn’t want to go to the U.S. her expression became more and more confused. She then said that I should keep my citizenship because if I ever decide to travel internationally, American diplomats and military can provide more protection if I get kidnapped abroad. She said that a maple leaf on my backpack can only get me so far, that nothing can protect me as well as a U.S. passport, and because of that I need to keep my citizenship for my own safety while travelling. I didn’t know quite how to respond to that, so I just said that I had made my decision and hoped she’d back off. She didn’t.
Sometime after that she began trying to construct a case that my parents were coercing me into renouncing. She started asking all sorts of leading questions – were my parents still citizens, did we discuss renunciation at home, did I go with them to their renunciation appointments, how long I had been thinking about renouncing, did they suggest that I do it, and did they drive me to my appointment that day. I answered that I did hear about it from them but that the decision to renounce was my own; and furthermore, since I can’t drive and am from out of town, I couldn’t have gotten there without being driven by my parents. She seemed very confused by my answers and muttered under her breath several times that she didn’t understand my reasoning.
The vice-consul also asked me about my Canadian citizenship. I naturalized when I was a kid, having moved to Canada at a young age. She asked me why I didn’t want to stay as a dual citizen, and I told her it was because I felt Canadian, not American, and I didn’t want to keep a nationality I didn’t identify with. She didn’t take that as an answer, so I said I thought it would be easier to just have one citizenship. She said that having American citizenship had no downsides, and used herself as an example – she explained that she had a very high security clearance and an important job in the U.S. foreign service and her dual Canadian/American citizenship didn’t cause any problems for her. I thought it was rather inappropriate for her to be talking about details of her job, especially her security clearance, in a renunciation interview, but I didn’t say anything about it. She clearly expected me to acquiesce and admit that she was right, but I just said that I wanted to get rid of my American citizenship and that I was determined to go through with it. She was visibly frustrated by my response, and said again that she didn’t understand my reasoning.
She also had a very low opinion of young people such as myself, which came out on multiple occasions during the interview. She made several comments about young people being impatient, not understanding the world, making uninformed decisions, et cetera. She said at one point that I was being naive, that young people are always so blasé about serious matters, and that I would surely regret this decision once I was older and wiser. I felt insulted by the constant references to my youth, and during the entire interview I felt I was being treated like a child.The interview went on for about half an hour of hard grilling before the vice-consul suddenly gave up. I think she was trying to wear me down and intimidate me into cancelling my renunciation, and after I refused to do so, she decided to drop it. After she asked me her last question, she audibly sighed and pushed the papers I would need to sign through the slot in the window. She asked me to read several documents and summarize them for her. I did so, signed both copies, and gave them back in exchange for the the document containing the oath of renunciation. I had expected to raise my hand, swear, or do something officially binding while reciting the oath, but she just asked me to read the oath out loud, which I did. I signed both copies of the oath and gave them back. Meanwhile, it was very clear that the family in the waiting area had heard everything that was said between the vice-consul and myself, and it was unexpectedly very embarrassing to have to defend my decision to renounce my citizenship from a high-ranking diplomat in front of people who were actively trying to get into the U.S.
The vice-consul went on to explain that Washington would respond in a few months with either a CLN or a letter of denial, and that I would have to be patient. She added another rude comment under her breath about people my age being impatient. She also said that young people who decided to do this often come to regret their decision after a couple months, and if I regret mine before receiving my CLN, I could write the consulate and try to get it stopped. She also gave me a temporary CLN to use if I had to travel abroad before the legitimate one arrived. She returned my documents to me and very brusquely asked me to leave. I reclaimed my Epi-Pen from the guard and left the consulate without incident. The appointment took around an hour and 15 minutes in total, about half of which constituted the interview. After I left, I was externally calm but internally very shaken, since I felt that my rights had been violated. The vice-consul abused her position of authority over me during the interview in order to intimidate me into keeping my citizenship, and I was very afraid that my application would be rejected. It felt like I was trying to a leave a cult.
My CLN arrived in April 2019, just over a month after my renunciation appointment. I was surprised that it arrived so quickly, but I was also very relieved that I had been approved after all. I was glad to have it over and done with. Forever.”
APRIL 10, 2019 SECOND-HAND SUMMARY ACCOUNT OF EXPERIENCE OF YOUNG PERSON ATTEMPTING TO RENOUNCE AT US CONSULATE IN CANADA:
“Anyone preparing to renounce their US citizenship needs to be aware of a situation affecting a young adult renunciant of which I have recently become aware.
This person attempted to renounce at a US Consulate in Canada and received an unpleasant surprise. Instead of the standard brief interview process, which typically involves being made aware of the consequences of renunciation and determination of voluntariness, this person was subjected an almost 30-minute grilling by the Vice Consul about how foolish their intention to renounce was, especially at their young age, accompanied by proselytizing about the virtues of American citizenship.
It was explicitly stated by this official that they had to know, in detail, why this person was renouncing and that they had to be fully convinced of the validity of their motives before the renunciation could be forwarded to Washington for approval, as if they were a minor under 18 instead of an adult.
The Vice Consul badgered the young person, asking again and again for an explanation, even though they had clearly said that they did not wish to make a statement about why they were renouncing, both in the paperwork and in person at the interview.
In particular, the Vice Consul insinuated that the young person was most likely being coerced by their parents because no young adult would have the life experience or understanding to take such a monumental action.
Also, they spent a good portion of this “lecture” extolling the virtues of maintaining US citizenship and even derided the young person for not considering attending university in the US. The Vice Consul called them “naive” and “blasé” and said that they were acting “rashly”, even though the person in question is very mature, intelligent, well-spoken, and firmly resolute in this decision and in their motivations.
The Vice Consul went on to say that it was extremely rare that an 18 year-old person would take this action and that “it didn’t make any sense.”
The Vice Consul also said there was no reason to renounce because there were no negative consequences to holding both citizenships.
She then implied that Canadian citizenship wasn’t as valuable because Canada couldn’t/wouldn’t help out like America could/would while travelling abroad (e.g., consular assistance, military rescue, etc.), even saying that the Canadian flag on the backpack would only get you so far but that travelling under the US passport gave you the most safety of all.
While the Vice Consul was technically polite and did not raise her voice, it appeared to the young renunciant that the official’s intent was to manipulate. In their opinion, the Vice Consul’s actions constituted a clear attempt to intimidate and to spread pro-American propaganda and to create doubt in their mind about whether they should renounce or whether they even had the right to renounce at this age (even though they are an adult). Accordingly, they are now afraid that the State Department will reject the renunciation and keep the USD$2350 due to the Vice Consul’s willingness to bully them in this way.
I don’t know if this is a new policy being implemented by the State Department or if it is a random occurrence happening to this one person but anyone planning to renounce should be prepared for an intense grilling about motives and unprofessional conduct by consular officials, especially if they are young adults.
This young person feels strongly that their human right to expatriate without interference, as guaranteed by the Expatriation Act of 1868, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was clearly infringed. Be aware and be prepared.”
@Nononymous,
I might not have grasped this correctly, if you mean it in general or if you meant it was a sort of “red flag” that the person might not know what they’re doing.
Re:
Agreed. It is a big decision. But, using this example, it’s not always tax compliance, FATCA or something concrete that motivates expatriation. I made the decision at a young age, and tax compliance, let alone bank access, played no role in my decision at all. (I didn’t know the US had CBT and FACTA didn’t exist yet). So, some people might think it was a wacky decision to make. Whatever one’s motivation, no one, including of course a VC, can get inside another person’s mind, and what motivates me may not be something that would motivate another person (it could even seem like a dumb choice to them). In law, a competent person is allowed to make dumb choices. The VCs job is to ascertain the person’s competence and understanding of the consequences of their renunciation, but they should steer clear of analysing/evaluating if the pros outweigh the cons, or vice versa, in the person’s life and allowing such to impact their determination of the person’s competence.
You mention VCs:
I don’t have a problem with a VC pointing out facts such as this, because, given the cross-section of people who go in to renounce, it’s always possible a person might not have thought this through. I think that is helpful (or at least can be) as long as the VC sticks to facts, not promoting an agenda or, worse, bullying and/or obstruction.
@USCitizenAbroad, @Nononymous,
There seems to be a bit of “USA Kool Aid” flowing in more places than just at the US Consulate.
Seriously though, not all people’s life motives revolve around money or career ambitions. Many people, such as myself, renounced their US citizenship purely on principle. For me, CBT/FBAR/PFIC/FATCA were all just little bricks in a much bigger wall (Trump pun intended). You have no idea what the motives of the young person in question were and appear to be projecting your own motives onto them. Young people are often very principled and ideologically driven and make life decisions on that basis and not for any pragmatic, money-related reason (and we are all better for it!). No, we don’t know all the details of the situation but the poster of the comment said clearly that the person was “very mature, intelligent, well-spoken, and firmly resolute in this decision and in their motivations.” I take that to mean the person has very well thought out reasons for renouncing and it is not any more appropriate for you (or me) to second guess their motives than it was for the Vice Consul. The issue, as far as I can determine from the posting, is that an adult was questioned and harassed by a consular official outside the scope of the laws and regulations related to renunciation, irrespective of personal motives. An adult is not required to make a statement about motives for renouncing citizenship and can do so for any reason or even no reason at all, if they so choose.
The Vice Consul was unprofessional in pushing the renunciant to reconsider, but that’s not surprising to me. As others have commented, many USers can’t believe anyone would voluntarily give up their “birthright” to membership in “The Greatest Country on Earth.” (Does anyone notice what’s been happening there recently?)
It’s a huge embarrassment to USers and a contradiction of their beliefs, both as individuals and as a society, that many people are willing to pay the outrageous US$2350 fee to get rid of US citizenship. And it’s not all about the unmentionable matter of taxes possibly owed. It has a lot to do with other obligations of US citizenship — requirements to maintain US passports for travel, register for Selective Service, and file tax forms regularly even when no taxes are owed — all while living elsewhere. I left the US for Canada over 50 years ago, and I have felt happier ever since. We Canadians have our problems, too, no question, but it’s a saner life here than in the US, and governments here don’t claim to own us.
@pacifica777
I simply meant in a general way that I am neither surprised nor disturbed that a consular official would pay extra attention to explaining the ramifications of renouncing to someone relatively young. (Whether this particular official went too far is another question entirely.) At the end of the day the renunciation must be allowed if they are thought to be of sound mind and not coerced; as you say, it’s their right to make dumb choices. Not that renouncing is a dumb choice, by any means, but for some it’s probably a choice better made at 28 than at 18.
I also suspect that when the price tag increased, the chances of someone impulsively renouncing to make a political statement got a lot smaller. Particularly among teenagers. This may also be a factor for the consulates to consider – odds are the parents are paying the fee, so did they put pressure on the child?
“even saying that the Canadian flag on the backpack would only get you so far”
With that phrase, I can tell that this “story” is very suspicious. An American would never utter that phrase. It’s a well know Canadian myth repeated only among condescending Canadians. To paraphrase, the Canadian myth states that during the 1960’s Vietnam era and after, Americans visiting Europe sewed a little Canadian flag on their backpack so as to not be mistaken for Americans but instead be seen as virtuous peacekeeping Canadians. No American I have known travelling in Europe has ever done this.
The US Consular official is correct though. There is no reason to renounce US citizenship until much later in life unless their tax situation is punitive and overwhelming. The opportunities of US citizenship for younger people outweigh any opportunities of Canadian citizenship
You know, I recall reading a regulation to the effect that if a minor does renounce, he or she has a certain amount of time (after the 18th birthday?) to apply to have the decision reversed. Let me look this up.
Apologies for going off-topic, but since international taxation is sometimes compared to US interstate taxation, some of you may be interested to know that there have been problems with that too. Specifically, New York has been aggressively auditing rich people who flee to Florida, using criteria for deciding “domicile” which strike me as quite vague: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/08/tax-collectors-chase-rich-new-yorkers-moving-to-low-tax-states.html
I looked it up. Yes–the minor has six months after their 18th birthday to apply to have their citizenship reinstated. Which of course is still very young.
@ B Garre
I travelled in Europe for 3 months in the late sixties and had an American travel companion for awhile who did indeed have a Canadian flag on his backpack and another sewn onto the pocket of his US army jacket. I have picture proof of this but do I still have to apologize for being a condescending Canadian mythster?
I met several Americans traveling under the Canadian flag during my fairly extensive Mexican travels. This was in the ’80s and ’90s. The reason? Americans had earned a reputation for being loud-mouthed, obnoxious, and demanding. Canadians, on the other hand, were generally regarded by the Mexicans as being more reserved and polite. So a reasonable American could avoid the stigma by posing as a Canadian.
This was not my observation because I didn’t hang out with loud obnoxious people but that’s what I was told by my Mexican friends. Coming from the US but living in Canada I could understand why they would think that.
@B Garre. “The opportunities of US citizenship for younger people outweigh any opportunities of Canadian citizenship.”
I’m usually pretty polite on the forums but i have to say that is one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard posted on Brock.
@Walt – Thanks for your help and the confirmation of this policy with the link you provided. Most are still to believe it happens as it does in the movies, the rescue that is.
At this point, since I have been visiting / writing / calling my rep here, (NY-21) as a Dual Canadian / US Citizen, am hopeful for a good outcome via the upcoming decision / ruling of the recent Charter Court Case in BC. Once the first Domino Falls,……. Come on Canada, be Progressive! Am Counting On You!
———————————————————————————————————————————-
@Stephen
Yup. Evacuees are required to sign a “promissory note” that they will pay for the evacuation.
https://eforms.state.gov/Forms/ds5528.PDF
In this era of fake news and people seeking to dominate a situation of which they have no mastery, one always needs to look at motive and who stands to gain if the allegations in the news item were true. In the instance, those who would stand to gain the most would be the renunciation movement — by propagating such a story, even if baseless, they would demonize the US embassy staff abroad, and shift the whole renunciation process to one more adversarial in nature, in which (for example) renunciation advisors would be recommended to accompany the renunciant to the renunciation day process. I know that many of the ‘services’ that help people renounce already offer this as part of their standard package (ergo the hefty fee).
I’m not saying this is the case or not — it’s simply a standard test to which I subject such reports; it’s often useful in separating fake news from something noteworthy. Doubtless there will be those who like to dominate without mastering the situation who will infer that I am taking a position one way or another. Their doing so only betrays them as purveyors of fake news themselves.
With one or two exceptions a renunciant must go through the interview alone, without lawyers, advisers, family members or emotional support animals. To your general point, though, the compliance industry does certainly make it sound more difficult than it is, suggesting that without expensive coaching you risk saying the wrong thing and being barred for life. But I don’t think there’s anything fake or planted about this story – it’s utterly plausible.
Also I think it’s important to distinguish between “renunciation movement” and compliance industry here. Is there really a “movement” for renunciation, and who profits from it? Or is it just a few people sharing information to counter what is said by the very profitable compliance industry?
If there is such a thing as a “renunciation movement” (and I don’t believe there is) it has zero chance of growing because the US government purposely deters (via the $2350 fee) and limits the numbers (via restricting appointments) to about 5000 annually. Nobody can renounce by accident because of these roadblocks imposed by the US government. It takes a very determined person to finally get to the point of standing in front of a Consular official ready to swear the oath. Once a person renounces they tend to resume living their normal lives and drift away so they don’t become lifelong card carrying members of a “movement” either. After all, that is why people renounce in the first place; to get the US out of their lives, permanently.
Depending on where they live many expat US citizens simply choose to blend into the fabric of their home country and do nothing about their dormant US citizenship. As for “demonizing” Consulate staff, reports on this website indicate that the vast majority of staff are totally professional and polite while doing their jobs. The Vice Consul in this report is clearly an anomaly and should be dealt with on that basis.
Steven Kish is most definitely NOT a purveyor of fake news and there is no doubt in my mind that this incident happened as described.
Charles Buckley – The fact that you posted such casting doubt into this situation where many Americans are obviously suffering, deeming the information to be “Fake News” reveals more about you than the “Real” issues facing all Americans. Sadly, the reality only starts to sink in once Americans decide to take that job offer elsewhere or go for an adventure by moving to another country, or do so after having meet someone special.
Please do not further inject doubt and fear into an already tenuous situation for many. We are here to support each other, listen, counsel and offer each other solutions!
-STEPHEN-
It looks to me like Charles Buckley said it MIGHT be fake news, and we don’t really have enough information to figure out if it is or not. Fortunately another Brocker reported personal experience so we know that this problem occurs.
I worry about a different matter which was discussed on Brock, because I couldn’t find discussions of that matter anywhere else, which makes me worry that it might have been fake news. I tried to obtain contact with someone who has skill to investigate and find out if it appears to be fake news, but it seems he didn’t want to contact me. It’s fair to point out reasons why we should be aware that we might be getting trolled.
I traveled extensively in Europe throughout the 1980’s and I sewed a big Canadian flag at the center of my backpack to show that I was not an American. This happened after the PanAm flight was exploded over Lockerbie Scotland. i stayed in youth hostels and traveled with a Eurorail pass and every single American who was drifting around Europe like this (backpacking around Eurpoe) did the exact same thing. We did not want to identify ourselves as American out of fear of a terrorist attack or kidnapping against us.
It was a custom for us to sew the flag of each country we visited on the back of our packs and put a larger flag at the center representing where you were from.
Cheers!
Stephen Arvay, I think you misunderstood Charles Buckley’s comment. And there was no reason to attack his character.
Apologies then, In this very serious situation with FATCA, i abhor any introduction of doubt, and misinformation. Am planning to return to Canada permanently and this is a big mess to contend with. There is no doubt in my mind this site is “REAL NEWS” and no doubt from the Congressional Replies that am in receipt of indicating the “Injustices of FATCA”, yet nothing has changed or progressed towards a solution. On the Canadian side, am glad the case has concluded and am eagerly awaiting the ruling.
Once Again, apologies to any offended, hope this provides some clarification.
My guess, as someone whose renunciation was handled with the utmost professionalism, is that the vice consul was a first-tour officer and concerned that the renunciant might at some later date claim duress or mistake and that s/he would be called before an administrative or judicial tribunal to defend the finality of the renunciation. Few Foreign Service Officers will express such strong political leanings or take on the role of psychologist or future immigration lawyer for the renunciant so as to hinder the process.
@ Gone Soon
There was duress but it was on the part of the vice consul. That is NOT acceptable and I wish this renunciant would file a complaint … although best to wait until the CLN is safely in hand.
I can confirm that there are U.S. consul officials in Canadat who question young adults on their motives, trying to make sure they understand the consequences but also, sadly, apparently trying to dissuade /delay their renounciation. I accompanied a young relative (over 18.5 years of age) to their interview in Vancouver consular appointment last year(2018). It is tue that no one is allowed to accompany the applicant into the interview room. My relative knew they were not required to give a reason and basically stuck to that, despite the consul officer’s pretty insistent probing (as described by the applicant) and saying the officer saying they didn’t understand why the applicant didn’t just stay dual and enjoy benefits of both citizenships. He said the applicant was giving up future school and job opportunities. The officer was so insistent and unhappy at the lack of reason that my relative was afraid the officer was going to deny their application. A bit of nail-biting but the CLN did eventually come through a few months later.
To be honest, I don’t think most adults have the time, experience, or money to keep up to date with all the requirements of the US, including tax requirements , when they don’t even live there. (It cost me a pretty penny for many years to do just that). And young adults are even less in a position to do so. If that is correct, then the chances are high that they will miss filing a form or miscalculating their taxes. And when the IRS suspects that, they just send you a bill, usually including interests and penalties, and you are left to try to unravel, usually in a pretty short time frame…
I remember someone posting somewhere that renouncing US citizenship was a strategy to *protect* a future chance to work in the US. They argued that renouncing before you became part of the system and had nothing (no assets or earnings to report) meant you could later apply for a U.S. job (and work visa) knowing you had not unknowingly contravened any of their laws… you could just apply like any other non- US job seeker. Makes sense to me. In the meantime, you can enjoy your privacy in Canada free from the prying eyes of the U.S. by not being a “person of interest” to your bank. Who knows if this relative will ever want to work in the U.S. And, if this young person does wish to pursue an international job, there are lots of regulation-friendlier countries than the U.S.
Just my opinion.
@isa
Very interesting post. Your young relative’s interview sounds extremely similar to the one in the original post. I can’t imagine how the two could be that similar and be a coincidence. I think the obvious conclusion here is that this must be a concerted effort by the US DoS to coerce young adults into keeping their US citizenship, which, of course, is against both law and regulation. No government official is supposed to ever impede any adult in exercising their right to expatriate. Seems pretty sinister to me.
@isa
Remaining non-compliant is adequate protection for dual citizens, as there is no risk of IRS penalty. (Zero risk of successful collection, near-zero risk of assessment.) I suspect that it’s still very easy to simply begin filing when one moves to the US.