Can the United States be justified in imposing, without informed consent, U.S. citizenship on a group of persons, especially “never-meaningfuls”, who do not want U.S. citizenship?
Here below are a few quotes from a June 5, 2015 United States D.C Court of Appeal ruling, on the question of citizenship status of residents of American Samoa, that bear somewhat on this question.
[Back in August 2014, Eric discussed this lawsuit, recently ruled on in D.C. Court of Appeals. As Eric comments below, there is a focus in the ruling on “collective” consent which sidesteps the issue — but this does raise the question whether it could ever be feasible for U.S. people overseas (perhaps beginning with those in Canada for example) to express, and insist on, their self-determination and rights through their own collective association — that need not be part of any U.S. political process. Probably not practical, but are we not a “people”?]
A FEW QUOTES FROM THE RULING:
“BROWN (Senior Circuit Judge): In our constitutional republic, Justice Brandeis observed, the title of citizen is superior to the title of President. Thus, the questions “[w]ho is the citizen[?]” and “what is the meaning of the term?” Aristotle, Politics bk. 3, reprinted in part in READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 55, 61 (Francis W. Coker ed., 1938), are no less than the questions of “who constitutes the sovereign state?” and “what is the meaning of statehood as an association?”
“We can envision little that is more anomalous, under modern standards, than the forcible imposition of citizenship against the majoritarian will.”
“We hold it anomalous to impose citizenship over the objections of the American Samoan people themselves, as expressed through their democratically elected representatives.”
“A republic of people “is not every group of men, associated in any manner,[it] is the coming together of . . . men who are united by common agreement . . .” [MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO]”
“See, e.g., U.N. Charter arts. 1,73 (recognizing self-determination of people as a guiding principle and obliging members to “take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples” inhabiting non-self-governing territories under a member’s responsibility); Atlantic Charter, U.S.-U.K., Aug. 14, 1941 (endorsing“respect [for] the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live”); Woodrow Wilson,President, United States, Fourteen Points, Address to JointSession of Congress (Jan. 8, 1918) (“[I]n determining all []questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.”)”
“In this manner, we distinguish a republican association from the autocratic subjugation of free people. And from this, it is consequently understood that democratic “governments . . . deriv[e] their [] powers from the consent of the governed,”
“Citizenship is the effect of [a] compact[;] . . . [it] is a political tie.”
[Talbot v. Jansen]”
“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the People.”
— Also, some thoughts on citizenship from an anonymous commenter on Townsend’s Federal Tax Crimes blog: “…If you’re a Canadian citizen under Canadian laws what difference does it make that some foreign laws classify you as a citizen of that foreign country? The boundary of the U.S.A. is the boundary of the U.S.A. Just say NO and stay in Canada. Why should you visit a foreign country’s diplomatic mission and pay a fee to renounce a citizenship that foreign country unilaterally inflicted upon you? Just say NO.”
Also noteworthy (you may have to read the preceding paragraphs to fully understand )- – See page 10 of the above ruling:
And even assuming the framers intended the Citizenship Clause to constitutionally codify
jus soli principles, birthright citizenship does not simply follow the flag. Since its conception
jus soli has incorporated a requirement of allegiance to the sovereign. To the extent
jus soli is adopted into the Fourteenth Amendment, the concept of allegiance is manifested by the Citizenship Clause’s mandate that birthright citizens not merely be born within the territorial boundaries of the United States but also “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 1;
see Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655 (“The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection. . . . Children, born in England, of [] aliens, were [] natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.”).
Does this not relate to “Accidental Americans”?
Eric discussed this case previously
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/08/26/american-samoans-lawsuit-against-washington-over-us-national-status/
Here’s Mother Jones’ take on the case
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/appeals-court-denies-birthright-citizenship-american-samoans
Exactly: My response to them claiming that my wife needs to pay them tax on monies earned in Canada is a big MIDDLE FINGER.
http://ibnjuferi.us/wp-content/uploads/fuck_you.jpg
The U.S. can KISS my @$$.
The decision’s emphasis on collective consent of “peoples” is quite frankly disturbing.
Washington has set up a false dilemma for the American Samoans: if you want to exercise your right to live anywhere within the boundaries of the country in which you are legally present (ICCPR Article 12 Paragraph 1) and in fact of which you are a national, you will be discriminated against in comparison with citizens in your rights, e.g. to sponsor a foreign spouse for immigration (right to family life, Article 23), and the only way to solve your dilemma is to pay for naturalisation and thus effectively give up your right to emigration (Article 12 Paragraph 2).
So the U.S. dangles the choice in front of them: if 51% of the voters support an “organic act”. you’ll all become citizens with all the “duties” of that status imposed on the 49% who voted no and the kids who can’t vote yet. Why should American Samoans have to sell out their emigrants in order to get equal rights in the U.S.?
And American emigrants don’t even have a non-voting delegates in Congress like the American Samoans do, let alone true French-style representation. (The U.S. don’t want us to have a channel to express collective consent or non-consent.) Apparently the U.S. government’s theory is that we all somehow individually consented to the alleged “duties of citizenship”, even if you come from a line of ancestors who have never had the right to vote in the U.S. and never expressed any intention of becoming citizens (e.g. grandparents were present in the U.S. temporarily as non-immigrants, mother was born in U.S. in one of the states that doesn’t grant voting rights to kids of ex-residents, moved away after a year, and then had a baby before getting married).
@Eric,
Yes, that whole collective decision thing seems to have come out of left field.
Seems like they are just making this stuff up as they go along.
If you’re a Canadian citizen under Canadian laws what difference does it make that some foreign laws classify you as a citizen of that foreign country? The boundary of the U.S.A. is the boundary of the U.S.A. Just say NO and stay in Canada. Why should you visit a foreign country’s diplomatic mission and pay a fee to renounce a citizenship that foreign country unilaterally inflicted upon you? Just say NO.”
and if and/or when a brown envelope should happen to arrive in my mail box it will go where all the other junk mail at the post office goes. and if another and another and another arrive those too shall go into the same recycling bin…or the bottom of the bird cage….
i have made the decision to never cross over the border into amerika ever again. i am done with that country. once again this summer rather than travel to the amerikan west coast beaches for 2 weeks my wife and i will be having a staycation and enjoy canada’s western provinces.
i have absoutly zero need to ever cross the border again and i go to sleep at night not worrying about a vist from uncle sam cause i doubt the uncle will be planning on visiting 1,000,000 of us in the middle of the night.
@ The_Animal and mettleman
I see you like the comment Stephen Kish found at the Townsend blog too. I’d like to high five the the (wo)man who made it. BTW I’m a never go there Canadian too.
Did jack or anyone respond to that cooment
As a note I agree with it
@Mettlemen;
I think that quote could apply to many countries. The USA opted out of collections in The Multilateral Convention ob Mutual Adminsitrative Aassistance in Tax Maters.”
They only have bilateral collection of some sort with France, Canada, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands.
“If you’re an Irish/EU citizen under Irish/EU laws what difference does it make that some foreign laws classify you as a citizen of that foreign country? The boundary of the U.S.A. is the boundary of the U.S.A. Just say NO and stay in the EU. Why should you visit a foreign country’s diplomatic mission and pay a fee to renounce a citizenship that foreign country unilaterally inflicted upon you? Just say NO.”
@ embee I see you like the comment
that comment resonated with me in that were i a citizen of canada and living by living in i comply with the laws of of canada and only of canada. were i to be living in xx country i would then be living under that countries laws.
i live in canada and live here under CANADIAN law. period full stop.
for amerika, new guiena, the easter islands, antartica, eritina or any other country in the world to try and impose their law on me a lawful CANADIAN CITIZEN or so my little plastic card says is beyond belief.
and i am just refusing to play their game. don’t like it uncle sam…..tough….come drag my a$$ out of bed and take me back to amerika. until then i am living my life without looking over my shoulder and worrying about what a FOREIGN country has to say about me.
@mettleman and all:
The problem is that you do not have to cross the border for the banks to determine you are a ‘us person for tax purposes’. If they doubt, or you balk at questions and they become suspicious, they send the information and do it without your knowledge or consent. (they are specifically TOLD to do this to ‘protect’ the bank against sanctions of 30%)
The problem is that they do not even have to talk to you at all to either become suspicious or decide it is in the banks best interest to send ALL information regarding all of their depositors to make sure they are in compliance. In addition the IGA makes it clear they and CRA can and will use third parties ( spies) to eke out any and all hints of US persons ( whether they be or not officially “US Persons” as determined by the IRS and by the IRS alone) That determination may be what it is today but may change at the whim of the IRS without anyone being informed of the change in the goal posts)
The problem is ( as can be seen by S.603 now being considered in the house and wholly objected to by the banks and financial institutions in the US) they can make laws in the dead of night, with sections slipped into larger bills ( as FATCA was in the HIRE act) that have negative impact on peoples across the world regardless of sovereignty and borders.
The problem is: TPP and OECD both of which will destroy sovereignty of nations and in the case of OECD destroy any hope of any individual freedom or privacy anywhere in the world.
The OECD mandate is to have the power to know the intimate financial information of everyone on the planet. Individuals and companies anywhere. This information will be shared with their members ( over 40 countries to date , some of which are dictators and thug governments anxious to know where they can pillage and plunder what is not their own) The OECD tax initiative is funded by US Taxpayers without their knowledge or consent and pays the salaries (tax free) of the miscreants who have put this plan in place and soon intend to implement it. ( by September of this year)
The IGA Canada signed specifies clearly that it “adheres to OECD guidelines”
Many have cited OECD guidelines as a positive thing in that it relies on resident taxation rather than citizenship taxation ( how could they otherwise with only two countries exercising citizenship taxation: Eritrea and the United States!)
The fact that the OECD intentions rely on residency is not positive for they consider you their tax slave if you ‘reside’ on this planet!
And they have rubbed their hands with glee ( in writing) at the prospect of knowing all they need to know to be able to ‘fleece’ all peoples regardless of borders or sovereignty. They intend we all have no place to hide what we have earned, paid tax on and is rightfully ours from their prying eyes and their intention to steal.
They intend to impoverish the entire wealth of the world for their own profit.
Never crossing a border becomes moot when they intend to erase those borders and end all sovereignty for their nefarious ends.
TPP will end sovereignty of nations worldwide replacing power from countries to multi national corporations who will sue countries whose laws they deem will have impeded their ‘perceived’ profits.
All of which makes plain that at this point in time ADCS lawsuit IS the only game in town and really the only game of defense of the individual and sovereignty on this PLANET!!