Category Archives: Freedom

There is much discussion now on ending imposition of U.S. birthright citizenship for persons born in the US whose parents do not have a meaningful relationship with the country.

This discussion does NOT involve, as some very sloppy journalism suggests, ending ALL birthright citizenship, but rather, interpreting part of the already existing section one of the U.S. 14th amendment to mean that children born in U.S. to (e.g., Canadian) parents who do NOT have a legal/permanent/meaningful relationship with the U.S — should not receive U.S. citizenship at birth:

They are not actually subject to the jurisdiction of/allegiance to the U.S. — they are, for example, Canadians and they don’t deserve the benefits or negative consequences of U.S. birthright citizenship irrespective of consent or whether some might like the idea of having a second passport.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside…”

I hope that the United States Supreme Court will confirm this common sense interpretation of the U.S. 14th Amendment.

Here is the Memorandum of Argument of our Plaintiffs (Gwen and Kazia) for our FATCA IGA legislation lawsuit that was submitted on October 3, 2018 to Canada’s Federal Court. [Note that text is limited to 30 pages.]

The Memorandum can be found HERE.

The gist of our argument (page 12) is that the FATCA IGA legislation is inapplicable to Provincially regulated institutions and violates Sections 7, 8, and 15 of Canada’s Charter of Rights.

Some Excerpts:

— “The Impugned Provisions trench upon the core of the provincial power over property and civil rights because they constitute the regulation of a particular industry – the financial industry – and the regulation of this particular industry is an exercise of the provinces’ core powers over property and civil rights.40″

—”…although some US Persons in Canada have obligations under US law to report their Accountholder Information to the IRS, they generally do not have an obligation to report this information to Canada.”

…“Canada admits that it does not know how many account records have been shared with the IRS which are associated with individuals who are not US Persons.49…”

—”That the Impugned Provisions authorize warrantless searches without any notice or means of judicial review of any kind is undisputed and fatal to their reasonableness.”

—“But Canada has admitted that it does not oversee – meaningfully or at all – the conduct of Canadian FIs in determining whose Accountholder Information will be reported to both Canada and the United States.”

—“…it is impossible for Canada to establish that its own use for domestic tax compliance purposes of Accountholder Information obtained pursuant to the Impugned Provisions (to which it admits63) is reasonable because Canada’s use of that information is unrelated to the objective underlying the Impugned Provisions.”

— “The plaintiffs and other reasonable hypothetical individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their Accountholder Information. Canadian courts have observed that personal financial information prima facie attracts a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that individuals can reasonably expect their financial institutions to keep their information confidential.

—“Canada cannot justify the s. 8 infringement under s. 1 of the Charter because it cannot demonstrate that the Impugned Provisions minimally impair s. 8.”

—“Most importantly, the Impugned Provisions undermine the Group’s access to a basic aspect of full membership in Canadian society by denying them the protection of Canadian sovereignty by exposing them to the extraterritorial enforcement of another state’s taxation and tax compliance regime.”

NEXT STEPS:

— Canada responds to our Memorandum of Argument by November 21, 2018.

— We reply to Canada by December 7, 2018.

— Trial is held in Vancouver beginning January 28, 2019