Is it possible that the U.S. Supreme Court by saying that a person is presumed to have the intent of keeping U.S. citizenship is actually guilty of using negative option marketing. What you may ask is negative option marketing? Here is one definition:
Negative option marketing refers to a commercial transaction in which a seller interprets a customer’s failure to take an affirmative action, either to reject an offer or to cancel an agreement, as affirmative assent to be charged. http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Negative_option_marketing
I recall that in Canada during the 80’s and 90’s there was a lot of controversy over negative option marketing with regards to the way that the cable companies were billing their customers. The problem was that the cable companies, without gaining customer assent, would add channels to a person’s service and bill the person for those services unless the customer said that the channels were not wanted. This was the way in which many new channels that could not find a ready market were able to establish themselves.
After this went on for quite some time the cable customers began to complain about having to pay for channels that they didn’t ask for but were being billed for. The eventual response of the Canadian Radio Television Commission was to outlaw this marketing technique because it placed an undue burden on the customer to respond to a solicitation that had not been asked for.
I believe that when the U.S. assumes that one is a citizen unless one states to the U.S. government that he/she is not that this is also negative option marketing. Given that we all have a right to freedom of association I do not believe that accidental Americans should be subjected to negative option citizenship. It used to be the rule that at the age of 18 a dual citizen had to choose which citizenship to accept. Maybe it is time that the U.S. go back to not allowing dual citizenship. Afterall the U.S. seems to still operate on the defacto principle of a single citizenship. The U.S. government has proven that it is not willing to acknowledge the reality of the second citizenship any and ONLY allows a person to live as the citizen of another country only as long as it doesn’t conflict with the demands of U.S. citizenship.
As I recall the reason for the Supreme Court ruling that becoming a foreign citizen did not cause the US citizen to lose US citizenship was became Congress does not have the right to deprive a US citizen of such citizenship. This has to be a deliberate decision of the individual rather than Congress.
My understanding of the US attitude towards dual citizenship is you even though you are a US citizen the “other” country will likely consider you to be subject to its laws when you are in its jurisdiction. It is printed in US passports that such laws may include military conscription. Dual citizenship may also hamper the ability of US consular services to assist you if you are placed under arrest while in the other jurisdiction.
@rogerconklin- I am aware of the Supreme Court’s ruling and why but I do believe that the court got it wrong. Just as I believe that the Court got it wrong with regards to the individual’s perpetual obligation to pay U.S. tax based upon some unseen benefit that is derieved from U.S. citizenship.
At least other countries seem to limit the exercise of their powers over their citizens to the county’s jurisdictional territory. The U.S. is the only country that doesn’t seem to acknowledge any limits to its power by imposing obligations on its citizens even when they are no longer present. If that is the arrangement that the U.S. government wishes to have then it is only fair that it permit the individual to exercise a choice and to be able to do so without any penalties being incurred.
recalcitrantexpat – “Maybe it is time that the U.S. go back to not allowing dual citizenship. ”
Well, it wasn’t very effective the last time around. Most states have also figured out that is nearly impossible to enforce. It takes two to tango in this situation; one state to say, “There can be only ONE” and another state to say “Yes, we agree. Please take our citizen away and make him/her one of you.” If both countries can’t come to an agreement then you have a dual citizen and there is very little that either state can do about it.
There are great stories from the days when naturalized American citizens had to turn in their home country passports at the ceremony. The passports were sent to the embassies who, in some cases, simply mailed the passports back to the persons concerned. The U.S. could say what it liked but other countries did not agree (sorry that fellow is still one of ours) and simply ignored the whole business.
Today the few remaining states who are serious about no duals can only enforce it by requesting renunciation certificates before they allow people to become naturalized citizens. With the proliferation of multiple citizenship, I think this is going to be a lost cause too. Say you’re a US/Mexican citizen who wants to be naturalized in Germany. So you dump the US citizenship, show them your CLN and get German citizenship without ever mentioning that third passport. The fact that I’ve thought of it as a possibility, pretty much tells me that this already has been done.
Until states actually come to some agreement about nationality rules and start exchanging citizen databases not much they can do.
@victoria- You may be right but I don’t think that the U.S. should use the dual citizenship as an opportunity to rack up charges on people. The problem with U.S. dual citizenship is that even if you are not a resident of the U.S. you are still subjected to U.S. laws.
This puts the U.S. in a very contradictory position because the U.S. steadfastly refuses to allow other countries to subject their citizens who are resident in the U.S. to their laws. When was the last time that you heard of a Saudi female citizen, resident in America, being denied the right to drive a car?
The thing about negative option marketing is that it allows the company to run up the bill. Well that is exactly what the U.S. is doing. And then the U.S. makes it difficult and expensive to get out of this one sided contract. It is in fact exploitation, but then that is one of the invalid arguments that gets you a 5000.00 fine. Being an expat is like having the U.S. give you a gun to defen yourself with- the Constitution- but there aren’t any bullets.
The U.S. has only a formal acknowledgement of dual citizenship but because it applies its laws on an extraterritorial basis the U.S. nullifies what it claims to acknowledge.
@victoria- I also take as evidence of the U.S.’s willful violation of people’s rights the fact that it doesn’t even divulge the long term tax consequences of U.S. residence when people apply for it.
It is only this week that my former Pastor, who now pastors a church in the U.S., learned of his current U.S. tax obligations as regarding his Canadian financial accounts. The only reason that he learned about FATCA, FBAR’s and 3520’s was because I told him. Now you would think that the U.S. government would have given him all of this information when he, and his family, were brought in for their interviews but not a peep was uttered. Basically he was being left to be set up as a future source of extra income. Then consider that when he and his childern leave the States that they will still have on going reporting obligations to a country that they never became a citizen of.
If the U.S. were a corporation that corporation would be charged with violating truth in advetising or failing to disclose all of the terms of the contract. It would be the obligation of the corporation to PROVE that the other party to the contract had been properly informed of all of the contracts terms and conditions before the contract was signed. Truth in advertising is no less the obligation of the U.S. government then it is of the car dealership down the street.
@recalcitrantexpat – I think your point is 100% on the money and I like your analogy. I’m still trying to figure out why they didn’t try education and outreach first. From the GAO report it sounds like they were thinking about it at one point. What changed their minds? Here are a few ideas:
1. Cost: We are scattered all over the globe. Many people are in rural areas. This would be expensive.
2. Bad publicity: How many migrants would reconsider or modify their strategy to circumvent these rules once they knew of them? How would the host country of US citizens react? What would people in the homeland say if they knew that they were 6 million Americans abroad?
Any others?
recalcitrantexpat said: “The problem with U.S. dual citizenship is that even if you are not a resident of the U.S. you are still subjected to U.S. laws.”
I hadn’t thought of this before — but I wonder what that means for an accidental American/dual citizen in Canada who decides to take a vacation in Cuba. Is there risk that you can be denied boarding because the US now has the passenger list for the Toronto-Havana flight? Or even worse, do you risk arrest should your Toronto-Havana flight have to land in St. Louis because of a medical emergency, or a technical issue with the plane?
My fear is the answer is yes. Which now provides another good reason to get that CLN.
@victoria- I think that you covered the most important facts. Everything else is just a variation on the ones that you have set out.
COST- is a big factor but more importantly would have been the problem that such a move would have meant that the U.S. government was taking RESPONSIBILITY for the problem of non compliance. If there is one thing that is clear in all of this it is that the U.S. is determined to make sure that it does not jeopardize its legal position relative to the non compliant tax payer. Any education campaign would have done just that.
The real problem is also the fact that we are spread out all over the world and, as you pointed out, reaching all of us is well nigh impossible. That it why FATCA is such a good tool for the IRS. Everyone at some point has to make contact with the financial system.
The people who rule the system are so narrow minded and self assured of their righteousness that, even though millions of innocent people are at risk of harm, the powers that be can’t begin to ask themselves if there is a problem with the law. They don’t realize or care that the quickest way to gain disdain for a government is for its legislators to enact unreasonable laws.
I’m not sure that the average American cares about how many citizens live abroad. What they do care about though is that these citizens pay no taxes. Now of course no one ever looks at the counter to that argument which is that the U.S. government incurs no expenses for non resident citizens. Which means that the U.S. is actually saving money, since the savings exceed any potential revenue. This means that the FEIE has been erroneously portrayed as spending through the tax code when in fact it is not. Where a U.S. citizen resides on this planet is actually a matter to which a free society would and should be indifferent.
@Arrow. You are exactly right with respect to travel to Cuba. If you either hold US citizenship or a green card permanent resident of the US, regardless of where you live, you are prohibited by US law from traveling to Cuba, UNLESS you are of Cuban Origin and are returning there for the sole purpose of visiting relatives OR if you are traveling under a license issued to the organization which you represent for a purpose which is permitted under US law. Tourism is not a a valid reason for travel to Cuba.
The likelihood of being apprehended if you fly directly from Toronto to Cuba using a Canadian passport is probably close to Zero. As a matter of fact some US citizens, to avoid detection by US immigration, fly to Nassau, Bahamas, Toronto, Montreal or a City in Mexico where, using a separate unrelated ticket they fly to Cuba and back to the Canadian, Bahamian or Mexican city, and then back to the US. Cuba very obligingly, as a matter of courtesy to help US conceal conceal their visits to Cuba, does not allow its immigration officers to stamp the passports of US citizens unless the US visitor specifically requests that his passport be stamped.
My wife and I visited Cuba 4 years ago as part of a fully-licensed mission group 8 day trip to Cuba organized by our church. Each of the 8 members of our group was required to carry a copy of the Treasury Department license, together with a letter from our church stating that were traveling as representatives of our church, in case we were questioned by US immigration when we returned. Only one of our group was asked to show that letter and license copy. US citizens who have traveled to Cuba are not allowed to bring into the US any Cuban-make merchandise or items, except books and other printed material.
In order to obtain the license the Church had to submit a detailed itinerary on our proposed visit. Tourist activities in Cuba are prohibited on these licensed visits.
We flew on Mexicana to Cancun and then on Cubana de Aviacion to Havana. We purchased our Cubana ticket by phone with Cubana’s ticket office in Montreal. They were forwarded to by Cubana in Montreal via FedEx.
Cubana tickets cannot be purchased in the US.
There currently are several direct “charter” flights every day between Miami and Cuban cities. These are filled mostly with Cuban refugees resident in the US who are returning for family visits. Although many of them are now US citizens, they must also have valid Cuban passports in order to enter and depart from Cuba. They also must have Cuban entry visas in order to return for these visits. The baggage compartments on these flights are filled with merchandise for their relatives, most of which is subject to stiff Cuban import duty collected at the airport when they arrive
Although Delta, American and other US airlines operate these charter flights, they are not published on any schedule and flight arraignments must be made through the various Miami Cuban travel agencies (operated by exiles) who make these Charter flight arrangements.
With respect to Saudi Arabia citizens and residents, they are also prohibited by that country from traveling to Isreal. Israel, just like Cuba, does not stamp the passports of Saudi citizens and foreign residents of Saudi Arabia who enter Israel.
The penalties imposed on Saudi citizens who have visited israal and who, when they return to Saudi Arabia, if discovered, are extremely drastic. And foreign citizens entering Saudi Arabia will likely be denied entry of their passports show evidence they have visited Israel.
@rogerconklin- it is so absurd that you have countries today that behave like this. On the one hand with the U.S. you have ostracism being shown towards a tiny island nation that is no threat at all to America. And then you have Saudi Arabia doing the same thing to Israel but with them it is racism that is being practised.
Thanks for the information. It certainly was enlightening.
@recalcigtrantexpat, This discrimination is really based on religion rather that race. Both the Jews and the Arabs are Semitic nations – descendents of Noah’s son Shem, and are therefore really of the same race. They both consider themselves to be descendents of Abraham, and his tomb is a Holy Place revered by both.
But in spite of their common racial heritage, there came a day when the “parted ways” so to speak and have never been able to reconcile these differences which are very ancient.
I always marveled at how well the Jewish and Arab merchants, whose shops are all intermixed on Rua da Alfandaga in the heart of downtown Rio de Janeiro, Brazil get along so well together. The buy and sell from each other, drink cafezinhos together and attend each others Bar Mitzvas and other religious celebrations. If those in the Middle East could only learn from their descendants who emigrated to Brazil probably 100 or more years ago, this world would be a much happier place for everybody.
Actuallly Roger, I’m neither, but my wife is of semitic blood (Lebanon). I don’t know the whole story, just that a Lebanese showed up here in Brasil and decided to be “Catholic” like everyone else here. I haven’t done any research beyond that.
You’re right, there are MANY people here that are of Middle Eastern descent. One of the most famous fast food restaurants is Habbibs, which was founded by a Lebanese. A Habbibs franchise is almost $1,000,000 nowadays. Habbibs does better here than McDonalds, I think.
Haddad is a common surname here. It’s kind of crazy, isn’t it? In some big South American country, you have this infusion of the Middle East that iis so great that it has directly influenced the cuisine of this country. Kibe, Esfirras, and other food items are so common here. FYI – Most of the time, the esfirras are closed. At Habbibs, they are always open.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sfiha
to see 2 kinds of Brazilian esfirra, click here:
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esfirra
Actually, Germany is very easily able to enforce its ban on dual nationality. A German resident in Canada, for example, must show proof of non-naturalisation from the Canadian government that s/he has not naturalised before a new German passport will be issued. From the German Embassy webpage:
“Valid Permanent Resident Card or processed application for a Search of Citizenship (not older than 3 months) or valid visa.”
http://www.canada.diplo.de/Vertretung/kanada/en/02/passport/__passport.html
It would be hard for Germany to enforce in the EU itself, but it is now (since 2005 I think) legal for Germans to acquire another EU nationality.
I would have to agree with recalcitrant – The US should just ban dual nationality and enforce it the way that Germany does. They declare universal rule of law, so they should just openly admit that they do not allow any other passports for their own citizens! OR they could update their silly oath of allegiance to remove the bit about renouncing ties to the previous country when this is not actually enforced. They should choose one of the two paths and stick with it, even if it is only for clarity’s sake!
@geeez
Aren’t something like 30% of Lebanese Catholic anyways? I’ve actually only met Catholics from there by coincidence.
@Dom Pomodoro, Don’t know if the 30% is right, but Lebanon does indeed have a large Catholic minority. This is quite different from several of the other Arab countries where non-Muslims are few and far between.
When we lived in the city of Sao Paulo in the 1970s the mayor, Maluf, was of Lebanese descent. As I recall he was later governor of the State of Sao Paulo and later a possibile candidate for President of Brazil. He has a nephew in Miami, where I live today, that I have met.
@Dom Pomodoro, Germany’s ban on air-tight single German nationality also has its exceptions. Persons born outside of Germany to German parents are German citizens by birth. Depending on the country where they are born, they may also be considered to be citizens-by-birth of that country as well. When I lived in Brazil I knew several Brazilians of German descent who had both Brazilian and German passports. When the departed Brazil they used their Brazilian passports and when they entered Germany they used their German passports. I also worked with a German citizen born in Chile who had both passports.He was then living and working as a Chilean citizen permanent green card resident of the US. He subsequently accepted a promotion to the Berlin office of that same company, Corning Corporation and is working in Berlin. His British citizen wife was not permitted to accept employment in the US, but because both Britain and Germany are members of the EU, she was permitted to be gainfully employed with they moved to Berlin.
On a flight from Brazil to the US a few years back the person in the next seat was a Paraguayan businessman of German descent who had passports issued by both countries. His business requried him to travel to the US several times per year and told me he uses his Paraguayan passport when he departs Paraguay to connect in Sao Paulo with a flight to the US, and his German passport to enter the US. German citizens are permitted to enter the US on business or as tourists without a US visa, but Paraguayans traveling to the US must obtain a US visa in order to enter the United States. That costs money, takes time and requires a personal interview at the US consulate in order to apply and be granted such as visa.
I confess I don’t know the German non-dual-citizenship rules, but perhaps they are different for becoming a naturalized German citizen than for persons born with dual nationality
@Dom Podorno, belatedly I did check Wikipedia and here you will find various exceptions to the No-dual-nationaly German citizenship laws. One of them is indeed being born outside of Germany to a German citizen parent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law.
Germany also does not grant German citizenship automatically to persons born in Germany to foreign parents, unlless they are compliant with certain permanent German resident rules. These rules are described on this website.
@Roger Conklin
You’re quite right of course about Germany not being as tight as Japan. I also have contacts with dual German-other citizenship, but they were all acquired through birth in a jus solis country in the Americas or jus sanguinis through the other parent like you mention. They do regularly enforce the ban on those gaining citizenship through naturalisation after residence in a foreign country. Also, as far as I know no EU country grants citizenship to people just because they were born here (unless to stateless parents), though most allow kids to register when they reach 10 years of age as citizens.
Otherwise, German citizenship laws are actually rather lax and, like Italy, I think that German citizenship can continually be passed down an unlimited number of generations as long as nobody in the chain naturalises beforehand. Most of the Anglo countries cut this off after the first generation born abroad, which has resulted in some cases of stateless babies being born to UK or Canadian parents. For example:
http://www.lostcanadians.org/forum/topics/ireland-saves-canadians
What I would find interesting is what the effects are on these sorts of naturalisation restrictions in terms of Germany’s relationship with its expats abroad. Germany certainly promotes its expats to work and live abroad and to sell the German brand, but it seems that the price of this policy is the restriction on taking up another nationality.
I’m not sure which is worse really if you want to establish a real life abroad: the German model where you can never naturalise in your host country or risk losing the ability to return to the your homeland, or the US model where its like you never left…Well, yes actually I do know which is worse and I trust that most on the board do too unfortunately 🙂
I just realised that in the article above that I posted the father of the stateless baby states that he has “never been anything other than Canadian”, which is followed by a later statement saying that his mother was American born. I wonder if he is aware about what is going on with regards to FATCA et al, because the US certainly doesn’t consider him to be only Canadian unfortunately!
@Dom Pomodoro. Germans who relocate abroad to work but expect to return to Germany when they retire, generally do not become naturalized citizens of another country. But those who do take out a foreign nationality are, as far as I know, free to visit Germany under the same visa rules that apply to persons of that same new nationality.
I suppose they would also be able to return and become legal foreign residents of Germany.
I have known several Germans naturalized in the US who have gone back regularly to visit their families.
@Roger Conklin
Of course, but I meant really returning as landed residents after a successful life abroad to retire or what have you. I don’t think that many people can easily give up their birth nationalities, even if they have lived somewhere else for many decades.
I think that Germany probably is more welcoming to its ex-Nationals than the US is though and I imagine that they can be re-settled and attain citizenship again under a shortened naturalisation period if they do want to return. Belgium allows former citizens to re-register as Belgian citizens after a year’s residence here for example. I believe that Italy has the same one year rule as well. There seems to be an attitude in most EU countries of “Welcome Back”, rather than “You are a traitor – Never return” that one sees with the US approach with regards to losing/regaining citizenship.
@dom Pomodoro.
You have summed it up well. The prevailing attitute of the US Congress is if you leave the US to live and/or work in another country, you must be a tax-evading traitor and you are therefore deserving of double taxation. But most other countries (some exceptions of course) consider you to be a patriot if go abroad as an unofficial ambassador, learn a new language and and adapt to a different culture; particularly if your purpose is to sell the exports that create manufacturing jobs back home. Back home you are a hero.
That is why, in a nutshell the US has a $730 billion trade deficit, Canada has a $2 billion trade surplus and Germany has a $192 billion trade surplus.
Nobody on Capitol Hill in Washington seems to “get it.” It is a battle I have been fighting for 35 years, with no positive results to report.
If a US citizen renounces his US citizenship tis is a irrevocable decison. He can never become a US citizen again if he decides to come back home. I may be able to return as a foreign citizen resident, but if the US ever decides to enforce the 1996 Reed Amendment, he could be blacklisted for ever entering the US again for any reason. It is still on the books.
@rogerconklin- it isn’t realy true that you cannot return. You can regain your citizenship if you go through the same naturalization process as would any other foreign national. So giving up your citizenship isn’t the end of the world.
I am not so sure that the strongest argument in support of U.S. expats is that “they help to sell U.S. products abroad”. I am not sure that it is an easy point to prove. I wouldn’t say that the fact that Canada and Germany have trade surpluses can be credited to their expats selling their products abroad. In this matter I believe that the ACA is relying on a weak argument. The other problem then becomes that of whether or not the U.S. should be subsidizing export sales.
I believe that the best and most honest argument is the fact that there really is no subsidy being given by the U.S. government through the FEIE and that the FEIE is in fact totally unnecessary. That it is a bogus answer to a non existent act.
I say this because government subsidies in the form of exemptions and credits are actually merely a shell game in which the government decides to either forgo taxing revenue via a tax exemption or else transferring tax revenue via a subsidy. Either way the government is exercising control over the wealth that is created in its economy. With the FEIE and the Foreign Tax Credit you have the U.S. government giving in name only, an exemption or a credit for economic activity that it never had any sovereignty over. So basically the U.S. government is giving itself credit for perfroming a kindness when in fact it has actually forgone no loss in tax revenue because the revenue never did belong to it to distribute. I believe that this is the argument that ACA needs to make. Any argument for the FEIE and the FITC is just an acceptance of the false theory of U.S. economic ownership over something that it never owned.
Alternatively is you look at the fact that Canada’s national per capita debt is about 18,000 less than that of the U.S. then you could say that U.S. expats actually have a credit and not a debt. Afterall does the U.S. really think that the presence of 600,000 more expat U.S. citizens would have meant the disappearance of the U.S. debt? On a world wide basis the empirical evidence suggest that there are very few nations in the world where the resident popoulation remits enough taxes to enable their governments to avoid running deficits. So the U.S. is chasing an illusion when it in any way tries to blame its non tax paying citizens for the country’s deficit.
@recalcitrantexpat, The US recorded its largest trade surplus in its entire history in 1975. This was also the very last trade surplus in US history. During the period 1876-1975 the US recorded positive trade balances every year except for 5 of these years there were very slight trade deficits.
In 1976 the drop from the largest-ever trade surplus the year before deep into the red was dramatic. Hundreds of thousands of Americans threw in the towel and came home that year because the Tax Reform Act of 1976 increased the US tax so dramatically that they could no longer survive. Many foreign markets were abandoned by US exporters because this increase transformed them from profitable to unprofitable, or break-even at best. That tax increase destroyed US domination of the project design and construction market in the Middle East, which was very labor intensive. Several US, companies in this business were subject to massive non-performance penalties and went bankrupt. Their American employees absolutely could not survive. The GAO investigated and reported to Congress that with these new tax obligations on their salaries and all of the reimbursements for their out of pocket expenses directly related to their assignments left with US tax obligations that exceeded their salaries thus leaving them with less than nothing to live on. Also the market for billions of dollars in US products to implement these projects was lost.
US companies became totally non-competitive in these markets because they were all low tax countries so the Americans working there had almost zero foreign tax credits to offset their US tax obligations. In most of those countries US citizens would have to be compensated from 3 to 5 times more than citizens of any other country in order to end up with the same after-tax income as non US citizens.
I testified before Congress in 1978 on the results of this tax legislation, along with a little over 100 others from business, government, etc. We all had the same documented facts on how this tax Act had destroyed the competitiveness of US citizens for being able to work abroad.
I was one who shut down a successful business selling US exports in Brazil because the day that law was signed my combined US + Brazilian tax obligation suddenly became 81% more than that of any non-US citizen in Brazil with my exact same income and family status. The French company that took over the market in Brazil which I opened was exporting $1 billion from France to Brazil 8 years later. They had hired most of my staff. Meanwhile the US share of that market dropped to almost zero. Just 730 cases like mine, and there were many like it all over the world, illustrate very well why the US last year recorded a $731 billion trade deficit.
The results were so devastating that Congress, after the 1976 tax returns were already submitted, delayed the implementation of the 1976 law by one year. But by that time the Americans abroad had already returned home and were not about to head back overseas and chance taking another financial bath like that. The subsequent legislation which Congress enacted to replace the delayed 1976 legislation was even worse.
Beginning in 1976 the cumulative US trade deficit through 2010 exceeds US$8.5 trillion and it is currently growing by $2 billion every day.
There is ample and very concrete evidence that this citizenship based taxation is the primary cause of the massive US trade deficit which, last year, accounted for 60% of the total trade deficits of the 129 countries that had trade deficits.
Among other things it used to be that a prerequisite to fill the top CEO position in a US corporation required, as a prerequisite, a term of service abroad. But since the TRA of 1976 made such tours of service so horrendously costly, that is no longer the case. Few indeed are the top executives of US corporations today that have had any overseas experience whatsoever. Lacking this there is a total lack of vision and understanding of the foreign market, so few US companies pay any attention to it. This too is a direct long-term result of the Citizenship-based tax policy of the US.
Everyone in Washington loves to blame the US trade deficit on China and its currency value policies, but that is an excuse that just does not hold water when most of the high-wage industrialized nations of the world have trade surpluses with China. The US stands as the only one with a massive and out of control trade deficit with China.