Does anyone know of cases where “US persons” at risk from the IRS have run into trouble entering the US? Have any of you had a bad experience?
The last time I entered the US was nearly three years ago and I was seriously hassled at the border crossing (we were driving) because I did not have a US passport. I have not dared try to enter the US since then. I do know a few people who seem to have come and gone without any questions asked.
Thank you.
If clicking on a comment link in the sidebar brings you to the wrong page in the comment stream, click here to go directly to the most recent comment page.
@iota
Yes they may refuse you an ESTA visa waiver, depending on your country of birth, you may then be permitted to apply for a visa. There are reports of them refusing any type of visa for persons born in Iran, Syria etc, even though they are bona fide Brits or other EU citizens.
My personal concern is, I get an ESTA, BUT because I have checked that I was previously an American, I get pulled aside and questioned why I had the audacity to renounce by some over zealous border guard. I believe Mona Lisa
experienced something similar. I can do without even more stress than I already have.
@Norman
The question
“were you previously a citizen of another country” has it’s problems too. Not only does it finger ex citizens of countries the US considers a danger, but it also identifies Ex Americans regardless of where they were born.
@heidi – I see what you mean.
I was thinking of visiting my sister before one of us kicks the bucket, but I guess we’d better stick to Skype.
Thanks again for posting this.
I recently crossed into the US twice, but these were the first times I had crossed since I received my CLN. I had the CLN at hand ready to show the US officer but in neither case did they inquire about my citizenship. Both times were by air – Ottawa and Toronto. The officer in Toronto acknowledged my New Jersey birthplace but was more interested in discussing whether I had been to the Jersey Shore.
I was slightly disappointed that I did not need to show my CLN – makes me think that this is not cross-referenced in the border patrol system. But perhaps being a white, senior woman had more to do with the easy crossing.
I haven’t entered the US since I received my CLN last year, but next time I do I plan to ask the agent if my relinquishment shows up on his screen.
The ONLY times I have not had grief crossing the border by border agents was AFTER receiving my CLN. Land crossings and airports.
I am 100% certain it affects what shows on their computers in some fashion.
I’ll certainly be interested in hearing how that goes.
@Heidi, I note that they are now also directly asking whether one has ever taken illegal drugs, as though they’re expecting people to actually admit to having committed a crime. I wouldn’t put it past them to subject people to random lie-detector tests about past drugs use, even without a past conviction or even mere arrest. This seems unconstitutional.
When I entered into Philly airport in early 2014, I was taken to a back room and questioned about why I renounced. They claimed that they were mainly just verifying that my copy of my CLN was legitimate; I suspect they also checked to see if I were on the List of former citizens. I’ve been back to the same airport twice since then without any problems, though it was disconcerting at the time.
I am concerned though that they’re going to make things more difficult for former citizens, especially now they’ve added all these questions about former citizenship and birthplaces, etc. even since I renewed my ESTA sometime last summer. It’s all nerve-wracking, especially as I need to be able to see my parents who are getting on in years.
@monalisa1776.
“I note that they are now also directly asking whether one has ever taken illegal drugs, as though they’re expecting people to actually admit to having committed a crime. I wouldn’t put it past them to subject people to random lie-detector tests about past drugs use, even without a past conviction or even mere arrest. This seems unconstitutional.”
Sorry to break the news but anywhere within range of US Customs is now a “Constitution free zone” and has been for quite some time. Once you are in their clutches they can do pretty much anything they want unrestrained by “quaint” legal niceties. Anyone who objects is instantly branded as highly suspect, unpatriotic, and quite possibly a terrorist.
Entering the US on a non-US passport at least gives you a certain measure of respect from US authorities and also gives you the right to potential protection by your home country should it become necessary. On the other hand, entering as a US citizen allows them the absolute power to do with you as they wish.
@monalisa.
If they are concerned about legitimate cln’s, they should number them. But I guess that would give away the REAL number of renunciations. I was pleased to see my name on the federal list, at least it proves my cln is legitimate and not a forgery. I have printed a copy of that particular quarter list too.
@Maz57.
That’s an interesting point you make. They have certainly been more pleasant since entering on my EU passport.
A number of times in the past I was questioned on entering the US as to why I was travelling outside the US so often! ( I had a 90 yr old Father, ill and alone in the UK). I felt like I was only being let out on parole!
Jan. YVR and Miami. Transiting US on way to Ecuador and back. ‘Have a good trip’. April- YVR. How long will you be in the USA?- a week- ‘have a nice trip.’ I think we have built up such a long history of travel on a Can passport that they see absolutely no polnt in remarking on it.
Recently went to the USA on my EU passport with esta but entering by air via preclearance outside the USA. I do not have a cln but relinquished and had no problems at all.
@maz57 and @mona lisa re the US “constitution free zone”;
Here is an image by the American Civil Liberties Union on just how large the zones have become:
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-border-zone-map
They say;”….The reality is that Border Patrol’s interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
Roughly two-thirds of the United States’ population, about 200 million people, lives within the 100-mile zone that an outdated federal regulation defines as the border zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal border.
Although this zone is not literally “Constitution free”—constitutional protections do still apply—the Border Patrol frequently ignores those protections and runs roughshod over individuals’ civil liberties.”…..
…and then there is the Canadian side of the border we should perhaps worry about: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-u-s-cross-border-policing-plan-postponed-1.2802888.
Thanks @calgary, in light of what we know about the US, and the ACLU’s concerns re the behaviour of the US Border Patrol INSIDE the US, then we have to really question the statements below (from the article you posted ( http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-u-s-cross-border-policing-plan-postponed-1.2802888 ):
“……..Two pilot projects were supposed to get underway by summer 2012.
But in 2013, it emerged that the effort was being held up by the difficult question of which country’s legal system would apply if a police officer were accused of breaking the law.
In an interview, then-U.S. ambassador David Jacobson spelled out the challenges.
“If an RCMP officer is in North Dakota, and they’re chasing a criminal and they go to shoot somebody, well what are the laws that govern the appropriate use of force? Is it Canadian rules? Is it American rules?” Jacobson said.
“What happens if there’s a lawsuit in North Dakota? Does the Canadian RCMP officer want to be subject to litigation in the United States? We have slightly different rules,” he said. “The question is: which rules are going to apply to which? It is a complicated question.”
Another issue: where would a citizen of one country take allegations of ill-treatment at the hands of an officer from the other country?
A March 2015 RCMP briefing note, recently obtained under the Access to Information Act, said the Mounties should stick to their position that officers from Canada and the U.S. be treated equally “under a common criminal liability regime…..”…………
I do NOT want our laws harmonized with the US. But given the betrayals of Canadians and the surrender of Canadian sovereignty and autonomy by the CONS and now the Con-light Libs, I fear that it will be Canadian constitutional and legal and human rights which would be sacrificed at the altar of US power and hegemony.
And further re the ‘shared’ Beyond the Border initiatives and question of whose law would prevail;
How would those with the US ball and chain be treated by our own Canadians in such a ‘sharing’ venture if US law dominates? What of the insistence by the US that those deemed US citizens travel in and out of the US ONLY ON A US PASSPORT – even if they live in Canada and their travel into the US originates in Canada and they are Canadian duals? As the article says; “…where would a citizen of one country take allegations of ill-treatment at the hands of an officer from the other country?…”
“I was slightly disappointed that I did not need to show my CLN – makes me think that this is not cross-referenced in the border patrol system.”
I think it IS cross-referenced in the border patrol system.
In 2011 a US immigration inspector put an entry stamp in my US passport with class “NC” and no expiry date. I think he knew that I had renounced but had not yet received my CLN. In 2013 and 2014 US immigration inspectors put entry stamps in my US passport with class “B2” and expiry dates. I think they knew that I had received my CLN.
‘“If an RCMP officer is in North Dakota, and they’re chasing a criminal and they go to shoot somebody, well what are the laws that govern the appropriate use of force? Is it Canadian rules? Is it American rules?” Jacobson said.’
Why did that even need to be asked?
If the criminal violated FATCA, US rules apply.
If the officer has a diplomatic visa in the country where the action takes place, no country’s rules apply.
Otherwise the applicable rules are those of the country having sovereignty over the location of the action.
If the officer is a US government employee located in the US then US sovereign immunity applies.
If the officer is a US government employee located in the US and the victim is a Mexican in Mexico, and the crime is murder, and the murderer is the US government employee and the victim is innocent, US sovereign immunity still applies.
@Norman
Then why question Monalisa if they had her renunciation in their system?
What does NC stand for?
@Heidi, the man on the desk initially questioned me before he checked on the computer because he noted my U.S. birthplace on my British passport. He asked me to wait in a side room and said they were going to ‘verify’ things after I showed him a copy of my CLN.
They were polite though he seemed taken aback when I told him that I’d renounced. I’d imagine that they’re now more aware of the rising numbers of expatriations two years hence.
I’m no longer so frightened about being audited by the IRS but am increasingly worried that they may make qualifying for the ESTA visa waiver more difficult in coming years, especially as they’re asking more probing questions about past drug use and former citizenships, etc.
If they did a lie detector test, one could be deemed guilty of a felony for lying about past illegal drug use, for instance, but it would be suicidal to honestly admit to it as would imagine they would then refuse entry.
It seems such a perilous situation to be forced to lie but at the same time, I feel that a person should be deemed innocent if they have never been charged with a past crime, especially for a victemless crime such as past marijuana use.
It almost seems to me that they are going to deliberately make things more awkward for many former citizens, especially if they get more communication from FINCEN or the IRS if the said person hasn’t officially logged out of tax citizenship via certifying 5 years full compliance on 8854.
With increasing technology, they could subject former citizens to lie detector tests, etc. to catch people out about past transgressions of moral turpitude.
Nigella Lawson was not allowed to visit the U.S., merely because she had admitted to past drugs use in the papers.
This whole drug business is going to get nothing but ever more complicated. What’s going to happen at the US border when (as the new Liberal government now claims) pot becomes legal in Canada next year? Right now someone living in BC can travel to Washington state, legally buy and smoke pot, but can’t bring the leftovers back to Canada where it is presently illegal. Not to mention the confusion over the fact that even though pot is now legal in several US states it is still illegal according to US Federal law. What happens when pot becomes generally legal but the past usage they are inquiring about happened back when it was still illegal? What happens to Canadians who are presently banned from entering the US because of conviction for pot possession but now that exact same possession is legal everywhere? What a stupid mess, something only governments could come up with. Moral turpitude, my ass.
My guess is the only people who will not be confused by this hodge-podge will be the criminals who will continue to profitably do business as usual because governments will screw up making pot legal just as badly as they screwed up making it illegal.
‘Then why question Monalisa if they had her renunciation in their system?’
Good point. I’ll try to guess.
*”When I entered into Philly airport in early 2014, I was taken to a back room and questioned about why I renounced. They claimed that they were mainly just verifying that my copy of my CLN was legitimate; I suspect they also checked to see if I were on the List of former citizens.”*
Maybe she wasn’t in their system yet. How much time passed between her CLN and that visit?
*”I’ve been back to the same airport twice since then without any problems, though it was disconcerting at the time.”*
Maybe she was in their system by that time.
‘What does NC stand for?’
I didn’t ask the immigration inspector what it stands for. I’ll guess “no class” because, besides having no class, I was still in a quantum state being both US citizen and alien until the CLN flipped or flopped me.
‘Right now someone living in BC can travel to Washington state, legally buy and smoke pot, but can’t bring the leftovers back to Canada where it is presently illegal.’
Someone told me he had driven from the US to Canada and back. His family were passengers. One passenger had bought Benylin cough syrup in Canada and still had it in her bag when US Customs inspected it. He thought he was going to lose his car and his professional licences. That was a decade before 9/11; just imagine if happened now.
@monalisa
Nigella used cocaine, may they won’t be so fussy about pot, although one could try entering the US by air through Washington State and if lie detected, say I thought pot is not classified as a drug here. 🙂
@Norman. I googled NC = no change.