This post is excerpted from a post at RenouceUScitizenship.
The presumption of GOVERNMENT benefit wherever the citizen may live
This is my second post on Cook v. Tait. The following comment to the first post appeared at the Isaac Brock Society.
Very well done! That was a lot of research on your part and a great starting point for meaningful thought-provoking discussion.
Although you covered some of them, the list of liabilities for Americans abroad keeps growing as time progresses. Lawmakers like Levin, Rangel, Grassley, Schumer etc will never stop dreaming up new ways for putting the screws to ex-pats.
What I am interested to know is, what government benefits would the Supreme Court try to use to justify the “….presumption that government by its very nature benefits the citizen and his property wherever found,”?
– The right to enter the US? Anyone with a foreign ”visa waiver” passport has this.
– The right to work in the US? Americans abroad are obviously not there to exercise this. Besides, the unemployment and underemployment situation in the US has been less than desirable for many years.
– The protection of the US? How many US citizens abroad are sitting in jail somewhere on trumped up charges while the State Department takes the line that “we cannot interfere with the other country’s justice system?” Does the US government provide the citizen with a public defender if he cannot afford a lawyer him/herself? Does the Embassy charge a fee if the Consular prepares any paperwork on the citizen’s behalf?
– If the US citizen’s property located abroad is stolen, does the US send police to investigate the crime?
