Here‘s what Spain has to say:
| Spanish | English translation |
| La concurrencia de dos nacionalidades en una misma persona tiene como consecuencia la existencia de un doble vínculo jurídico. La persona con doble nacionalidad es, a un tiempo, nacional de dos países, gozando de la plena condición jurídica de nacionales de ambos Estados. | The concurrence of two nationalities in one single person has as a consequence the existence of a dual juridical bond. The person with dual nationality is, at one time, a national of two countries, enjoying the full juridical status of nationals of both States. |
Imagine that: speaking of dual nationality in terms of “full status”, rather than of how the citizen must serve the government. They go on:
| Sin embargo, esto no quiere decir que estas personas puedan estar sometidas simultáneamente a las legislaciones de ambos países sino que, por el contrario, se articulan medios para “dar preferencia a una de las nacionalidades” a la persona con doble nacionalidad para, de esta manera, tener un punto de referencia en lo relativo a las relaciones ciudadano-estado. | However, this does not mean to say that these persons may be subjected simultaneously to the legislation of both countries but instead that, on the contrary, measures are articulated by which to “give preference to one of the nationalities” of the person with dual nationality so that, in this manner, there can be a point of reference with regards to the relations of the citizen and the state. |
| Para ello, la mayor parte de los convenios de doble nacionalidad toma el domicilio como punto de referencia, de tal manera que los ciudadanos con doble nacionalidad no estarán sometidos de forma constante a ambas legislaciones, sino sólo a la del país en el que tengan fijado su domicilio. Esto será aplicable para cuestiones tales como el otorgamiento de pasaporte, la protección diplomática, el ejercicio de los derechos civiles y políticos, los derechos de trabajo y de seguridad social y las obligaciones militares. | Due to this, most conventions on dual nationality take the domicile as the point of reference, in such a way that the citizens with double nationality are not subject constantly to both laws, but only that of the country in which they have fixed their domicile. This will be applicable to questions such as obtaining passports, diplomatic protection, exercise of civil and political rights, rights for labour and social security, and military obligations. |
Similarly, here’s what the Commission on Filipinos Overseas has to say:
Is it possible for Filipinos to hold dual citizenship or more than one citizenship at the same time?
Before the passage of R.A. 9225, dual citizenship of some Filipinos already existed as result of the operation of nationality laws. For example, a child born in the United States of America of Filipino parents is an American citizen under US law, and a Filipino citizen under Philippine law. The child’s American citizenship is derived from the principle of jus soli or place of birth, while his Philippine citizenship is derived from the principle of jus sanguinis or citizenship of his parents. The passage of R.A. 9225 makes it possible for Filipinos to hold dual citizenship through means other than by birth.
What rights and privileges is one entitled to on re-acquiring Filipino citizenship?
Filipinos who re-acquire Filipino citizenship under this Act may once again enjoy full civil, economic and political rights under existing laws of the Philippines. Among these are:
- right to own real property in the Philippines
- right to engage in business or commerce as a Filipino
- right to practice one’s profession in accordance with law
- right to acquire a Philippine passport
- right to vote in Philippine elections under existing laws
- other rights and privileges enjoyed by Filipino citizens
What’s this claptrap? These weirdos think dual citizenship is a matter of “rights” and “privileges” and “full status”? They want to make their citizens’ lives easier? Let Uncle Sam show you how it’s really done:
| Legalese | English translation |
| Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance. | All those other countries are gonna try to do horrible things to you and they won’t let us help you. Wouldn’t you rather have the full protection of the Greatest Country on Earth™? Remember, if you live somewhere, whoever runs that place owns you. |
| However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship. | Oh wait, we don’t actually mean that. We mean that if you live here, we own you and that other little garbage country of yours can’t say anything, but if you live somewhere else, we still own you. If we say we own you, then we own you. You do what we say even when that other little garbage country of yours says you can do otherwise. You do what we say even if you don’t live here, especially if you come here for a visit. Think you’re a foreigner just because you have some funny little booklet? Think again pal. We make sure you can’t get us off your back that easily. |
Have fun kiddies! And remember to file your Forms 1116, 2555, 3520, 5471, 8621, 8938, and FBAR!
@Eric. Good morning! My admiration for your linguistic skills increases every day. Now I have even greater appreciation because you have translated United States Department of State bullshit into plain English. Bravo!
Enjoyed the translation of the US policy into realspeak. Thanks.
How about Eritrea next?
By the way, a comparison of the fees to renounce is interesting. If I’m right , it looks as if Canada charges $100. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/renounce-how.asp#step4 vs. the US $450. Might look to see what other countries charge. For example, here’s for the UK http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/britishcitizenship/nationality-fees.pdf
For many families and individuals, that 450. US renunciation fee isn’t just piddling pocket change. It’s punishment and revenue generation (in addition to the 5 years ‘compliance’ required – and who knows how expensive that might be. Least the US could do is to make it free for us to leave our unwanted and onerous US status behind us – a free renunciation coupon as a symbolic installment towards the ‘benefits’ they keep describing but not providing?
Nope, got to pay dearly for the ‘privilege’ of shedding what we didn’t want from the US, and can’t get rid of.
*I’ve always viewed myself as being a patriot of the nation where I live. When I lived in America, I was a full-blown American patriot. When I lived in the Philippines, I was a Philippine patriot who felt at home. Now that I live in Switzerland, I’m a hardcore Swiss patriot. If I were to return to America, then I’d be an American patriot again.
However, after being denied banking services for being a US person due to US policy and after not receiving any response from the US on the matter, I can see the need for change in the horizon. I’m perfectly happy in Europe and Asia and don’t need to be restricted and limited by the New World.
@Badger: on the other hand, Kenya charges Sh.20000 for renunciation (about US$240), which is pretty expensive for a developing country. I guess they call it “fair” since they think it only affects diaspora Kenyans in the U.S. and Europe …
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000061231&story_title=Kenyans-to-pay-more-for-passport
@Swisspinoy
How many passports do you have? You sound like James Bond 😛
Edit: Although to be fair I also had 3 passports until I turned in the US one recently…
@Don, just two, but my offspring has 3. I’ve been thinking of getting 3 too, eventually, but maybe I’ll just stick with two minus “US person”.
Thanks for explaining the term “Pinoy”. I looked it up and learned that it was a reference to the Filipino people, but I did not understand your connexion with that country.
Greatest Country on Earth™ – & the legalese to English translation is too funny. You guys are right, the renunciation fee is too high compared to other countries. Stephen Mopsick said that all of these rules were designed without expats in mind. Then a Brocker said “Well, why don’t they stop it!!” They won’t because the US is sadistic and loves dishing out punishment for anything, Our crime? Saving the US taxpayers money by working in other countries and not collecting welfare checks. $450 is a real drop in the bucket compared to what they are losing.
On another note… Does anyone know how to change their gravatar? I like mine, but I want to get the US out of the picture. Petros, you can always install a plugin like this:
http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/add-local-avatar/
*Petros, I try not to be very personal in public, but yes, a Pinoy is a male Filippino. I’m not a citizen of the Philippines and I don’t have any Filipino ancestry, but half of my family is Filipino and I’m very strongly connected to the Philippines. 🙂
In fact, Spain provides FREE SPANISH LESSONS for children of expatriates, at their embassies and in local schools worldwide, so that their expatriates and children may one day return to the homeland.
Having said that, Spain does tax it’s Spanish citizens who have earned large sums in Spain and then moved to tax havens… for 3 years.
But normal people having established their lives abroad are free from worry about Spanish fiscal inquisition, and can send their children to free Spanish lessons at the embassy so they can speak with their grandparents and maybe enrich the country by returning home after they get an international education and job experience.
Now, now, how does the US put up with the Canadian governments cheekiness that it won’t collect from Canadians US taxes and penalties owed on US tax when they’ve made it so clear that no other country can lay claim on their citizens?
@freeatlast, Spain taxes its citizens who move from Spain to a tax haven for five years, not three. Technically, what happens is that their Spanish residence for tax purposes is only terminated after they reside there for five years. And this applies regardless of how much money they earn. The most common case was Spanish citizens who move to Andorra, but Andorra was removed from the Spanish list of tax havens in 2011 after a treaty. The countries and territories currently on the list are: Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Cyprus, Dominica, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Grenada, Guernsey, Falkland Islands, Fiji, Isle of Man, Jersey, Jordan, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Macau, Mauritius, Monaco, Montserrat, Nauru, Northern Mariana Islands, Oman, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States Virgin Islands, Vanuatu. Hong Kong and Singapore recently signed a treaty with Spain and will no longer be considered tax havens in 2013.
http://www.agenciatributaria.es/static_files/AEAT/Contenidos_Comunes/La_Agencia_Tributaria/Segmentos_Usuarios/Empresas_y_profesionales/Empresario_individuales_y_profesionales/Folletos/IRNR_enero_2011.pdf
France also taxes its citizens who live in Monaco, due to a treaty. Recently, those who were born and always lived there have been successful in challenging the treaty in court.
http://www.impots-francais-de-monaco.com/
In the cases of Spain and France, these laws were made with the false assumption that only the very rich move to these supposed tax havens, to avoid taxes. In practice, most of the people affected are regular workers, not millionaires (yes, there are regular workers in Monaco). The US probably also assumes that its citizens who move abroad and earn more than the foreign earned income exclusion, or have foreign unearned income, are millionaires who moved to avoid taxes. At least Eritrea admits that its citizens abroad are workers, as it only taxes wages and rental income (Eritrea doesn’t tax investment income even inside the country). Anyway, these are the only four countries in the world that currently use citizenship in taxation, and the first two only use it in limited circumstances.
Side note: The Spanish list of tax havens was initially compiled in 1991 from the OECD list. Over the years, the OECD made agreements with the countries and eventually removed every country from its list, and today the OECD list is empty. Yes, according to the OECD, tax havens don’t exist.
Why does requiring a citizen to use a US Passport to enter and leave the United States = “We own You?” I don’t agree with our taxation policies but I do think requiring a domestically issued passport document to enter and leave the US for a US citizen is not really a burden.
@Whoait’sSteveTell that to Boris Johnson, who was after told that he couldn’t fly to the United States en route to Mexico using his British passport. Many Canadians were born in a US hospital and brought back to Canada after short stay. Why should such people be forced to use a US passport? They feel no attachment to the country.
@WhoaIt’sSteve, I don’t think they are complaining about the passport, they are referring to the fact that you have to pay taxes to the US because you are a citizen, regardless of where you live. Citizenship-based taxation is like slavery (you’re subject to it by birth and it’s very hard to change your status, so it’s like the country owns you), while residence-based taxation is like serfdom (you’re subject to it if you want to live there, so it’s like a contract). The difference is irrelevant if you plan to stay in the same country your whole life, but the concept is different.
By the way, passports did not exist before World War I. They were invented in Europe to prevent spies from entering the country, but after the war the requirement to use passports when traveling between countries was kept, and later expanded to the whole world, mostly not for security but as a control of immigration. It’s interesting that Europe, which invented this system, today has abolished all immigration control within most of the continent, while the rest of the world keeps it.
Even the whole concept of citizenship did not generally exist before the 18th century. Ethnicity and allegiance to a king were relevant, but people were generally free to travel and live wherever they wanted (except slaves and specific “undesired” ethnicities sometimes).
@whoait’ssteve —
Requiring bonafide and willing US citizens to enter with a US passport isn’t a big deal. The problem occurs when a US border guard sees “born in the USA” on a “foreign” passport and assumes that person is a US citizen. Many people — my wife among them — have been challenged on that and told that in the future they will need a US passport to enter the US. At least one — who protested that he isn’t a US citizen any more — was told “you’re a US citizen until we tell you your not.”
This is one of the reasons so many, many former Americans are now requesting from the State department a Certificate of Lost Nationality — so the next time an aggressive border guard tries to insist that “you’re a US citizen until we tell you your not” they can flash the CLN and hopefully not get hassled any more. This may not be the biggest reason to get that piece of paper (taxes are likely #1 for most), but it certainly helped motivate my wife.
@whoaitssteve
Canadians were not required to present ANY passport when entering the US until recently. Another post 911 reality. But you can use an enhanced drivers license to enter if you’re travelling by land.
@WhoIt’sSteve,
I don’t know if this is clear enough, but…
This has been discussed at length on other threads here – mostly inspired by the now mandatory requirement for US citizens – even if duals with other acceptable passports or travel documents, to use only their US passport to enter the US – which bars US entry by US citizens without it, plus the ‘cost recovery’ fees to obtain it, and recently the mandatory inclusion of the SSN to apply for it, and the potential use of the SSN and enforcement of assessed tax debt to control the issuance and subsequent renewals of the US passport as a mandatory entry requirement. The State department and the IRS are two separate US departments, with differing – and potentially conflicting relationships to US citizens. To make the passport mandatory to enter, but tying it to US taxes, turns what is purported to be a ‘benefit’ of inherited US citizenship into an enforcement tool for tax purposes. A citizenship conferred ‘benefit’ should not be contingent on a tax status. And I reject citizenship contingent taxation – in the complete absence of any other US substantial presence such as longterm residence – or holding US property, or USsourced income or US earnings. There are many US citizen residents – several Senators and Congresspersons with significant tax debts, or convictions for tax fraud, and tax evasion. They do not need US passports to have access to their families inside the US. We do. If we want to see a relative there on their deathbed, we must obtain a US passport, and obtain/provide a SSN even if our other birth or naturalized citizenship would ordinarily allow us to enter the US without applying to the US for a visa, or paying the US any fees what-so-ever.
The US should not make duals obtain and use a US passport as a mandatory condition to travel inside the US, but then turn around and make the mandatory ownership of the US passport evidence of a US relationship significant enough to justify the US taxation of entirely non-US earnings and assets of those living and born abroad.
I also object to what amounts to an expensive and punitive charge forced on those who would renounce US citizenship – which they did not apply for or pursue. It was conferred by birth or parentage, and is our right to choose to shed. The size of the fee, the complexity of the forms, and the tie to the IRS 5 years of expensive to prove tax compliance is a significant enough barrier that it can only be viewed as designed to be both a deterrent and a punishment.
An unwanted burden that is hard to be free from feels like ownership – especially for those born outside the US with another dominant citizenship, and when it burdens our children – who have never set foot in the US, and have no US connection except parentage. Why should they not have their passport or other travel documents from Canada recognized for US entry just like any other Canadian?
*I think that it’s endlessly amazing that Americans abroad can renew their passports without having to fly to the US. That’s revolutionary and so unAmerican! I wonder which genius managed to get that one through? I’m also always happy to use a US passport to enter the US since the line is usually shorter and I tend to get fussy when they tell my spouse to wait in the long alien line. Nude scanners also don’t bother me, but people should be allowed to travel nude too. That would make everything so much easier. All-in-all, I don’t travel to the US often and I’d rather not go to the US if I don’t have to, since there is still so much of the rest of the world that I haven’t seen yet.
@Whoait’sSteve;
Just read this very articlate letter http://renounceuscitizenship.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/letter-of-a-canadian-businessman-to-his-dual-u-s-canada-citizen-son-on-the-occasion-of-his-high-school-graduation/#comment-2057 . The fact that this letter needed to be written at all, and that a young person living outside the US needs to consider these issues, is why someone might feel that they are ‘owned’ by the US. The young person addressed in this letter has to consider weighty issues that his Canadian counterparts and co-graduates will not. They may decide to study in the US and try to stay there, and thus accept the tax structure and obligations that comes with their decision but they will be free to make that choice. Whereas for our children, they are obligated, and have no choice.
Steve, trust me, I would have given/done so much not to have been placed in this situation. I just wish the US would have reasonable policies like almost every other country. Badger and everyone else is right: The US says that our kids are automatically US citizens due to us being US Citizens at the time of their birth. If they ever find themselves with a lot of money, it’s quite possible that the IRS could start making demands, even though they derive zero benefit from there. Who knows what things will be like in 10,20, 50 years!
The US is a great place to live and work. Everyone I know there seems really happy. The problems only start popping out when you live abroad. I left there in 2006. Since then, every department I ever worked in while in America is now GONE. Some people were merged with other departments, and some were let go. Maybe I would have gone to the unemployment line. I likely did the US taxpayer a favor by leaving. Where I live, welfare ranges from $16 to $150/month. It’s a difficult place to live. I don’t even know how I pulled it off. The US laws sure don’t make anything easier!
(Since you guys are talking about getting into the US with a US passport, the embassy website here says that duals are supposed to use a Brazilian passport to come/go from Brazil and the *US PASSPORT* to travel to *ALL OTHER* destinations. Slight difference there… I think that’s kind of crazy because a US passport carries “reciprocity fees” in many countries.)
@ badger
Thanks for the link to the father-son letter. I think I would have just plunked down all the forms his son will be faced with if he retains US citizenship and say, “Now, son, as soon as you have a 100% understanding of how to fill these in and file them and can demonstrate that to me, then you have my 100% blessing to retain the US citizenship which was bestowed on you at birth.” It would be the final college exam for this poor kid and possibly the most important one of all to his future well-being.
@all, we should thank renounceuscitizenship, as the author, for the very fine letter.
@ renounceuscitizenship
Thank you for posting the letter and your website. Well done!