Goat Rodeo:
A chaotic situation, often one that involves several people [or organizations], each with a different agenda/vision/perception of what’s going on; a situation that is very difficult, despite energy and efforts, to instill any sense or order into.
I don’t think there’s a much more apt expression for what is happening right now in the larger FATCA / FBAR / CBT universe. The calm-before-the-storm waiting game of the last few years is now clearly giving way to frenzied activity and veritable verbal warfare across multiple organizations and web sites around the globe. The big-picture dots of this reality have not yet been fully connected into a single post and thread, so that’s why I’m starting this one.
In no particular order, here are some of the latest developments to consider:
1. The ADCS summary trial is poised to begin next Tuesday, August 4th. Even now, the Canadian Government is wheeling out their propaganda machine to fight our lawsuit in the court of public opinion as well as in the Federal Court in Vancouver. One of the first targets of their inevitable smear campaign is our legal counsel, Joe Arvay, via a Conservative Party soapbox piece published in today’s Globe and Mail. And, as I write this, news that the Canadian federal government, “…may seek an adjournment of the summary trial scheduled to be heard on August 4-5,” as reported in the ADCS thread.
2. Mirroring the Canadian Charter Challenge is last week’s filing of the James Bopp / Republicans Overseas Action FATCA lawsuit whose seven plaintiffs include Rand Paul and Stephen Kish.
3. Republicans Overseas reports on the US Federal government response to their motion to expedite a Preliminary Injunction:
On July 22, Republicans Overseas Action and the seven Plaintiffs asked the District Court to expedite the consideration of the request for a preliminary injunction to give the Court adequate time decide the matter before some of Plaintiffs’ sensitive account information is reported to the IRS at the end of September. The government’s response is to say that shortening its response time would be too burdensome and that it needs even more time to respond. Normally, they would have 21 days to respond, and we’ve only asked to have that time shortened by a week. The federal government instead has asked the Court to delay the suit and give them 60 days to respond to Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction—three times the amount of time to which it would normally be entitled! The truth is that the Plaintiffs are the ones playing catch up in this case. The government has had nearly five years to consider the constitutional underpinnings of FATCA. They should not be allowed to complain now that they need more time to understand it when American citizens’ constitutional rights are being pushed aside.
4. Democrats Abroad has published a couple of trash-talk pieces here and here condemning the Bopp/RO suit. So far, every one of the 22 comments on the DA Switzerland piece has been uniformly opposed to DA’s positions on FATCA and Same Country Safe Harbor (SCSH), which has also been referred to as SCE (Same Country Exception).
5. Democrats Abroad has doubled-down on its SCSH campaign by re-igniting its FATCA Reform 1000 letters sign-on campaign, apparently completely ignoring the frustration of its dwindling constituency, as exemplified by one of the comments:
Most of us will not support this. Same country exemption is a diversion from the issue. It will enable you to try and tell people that you have done something. 90% of us see right through this and want nothing to do with this. Full repeal of FATCA and CBT is what needs to be done. Anything else is a distraction. Time for the democrats to join the rest of the world and use the world standard tax practice of residence based taxation (RBT). Why does the party of “progress” want to hold onto an outdated, civil war era tax policy that all other countries have abandoned?
6. Republicans Overseas is also pushing back on SCSH and the letter writing campaign:
By delaying the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, it gives DA time to push for the Same Country Safe Harbor (SCSH) exemption
DA is asking expats to write 1,000 letter to Congress to support SCSH by pressuring Treasury Secretary Lacob Lew and IRS Commissioner John Koskinen to selectively enforce FATCA based on expats’ accounts in one foreign country or more than one foreign country. DA knows better than that. This is lawlessness because neither Secretary Lew nor Commissioner Koskinen have the constitutional authority to amend or selectively enforce FATCA without a vote in Congress to amend the law.
7. Meanwhile, other organizations have apparently chosen to hitch their wagons to the increasingly-maligned Safe Harbor campaign, including FAWCO (Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas) and AARO (Association of Americans Resident Overseas), though the latter has posted a position paper calling for the replacement of CBT with RBT. American Citizens Abroad has remained rather low-key, focussing on its own, rather convoluted RBT proposal and partnering with the University of Nevada via its ACA Global Foundation on a research study about the effects of FATCA on American citizens living abroad. Other groups, such as American Expatriates, appear to be inundated by a confusing and often contradictory array of opinions from across the political spectrum, though the same thing can often be said of IBS.
8. The Trump factor. Will his brand of demagoguery help or hurt our cause? Here is a quote from his most recent advertorial for his own book:
America has become the world’s “dumping ground” for everyone else’s problems. A “whipping boy” for other countries as we sink further and further into the debt of no return.
Trump warns of so-called leaders willingly giving our jobs to foreign hands and further crippling the economy. Literally taking future opportunities from our children and grandchildren.
Meanwhile those same leaders feed America’s looming debt beast — an $18 trillion tab — with foreign aid and terrible negotiations.
And what then do we get for extending our wealth to help a legion of other countries? Lack of respect. We’re the “laughingstock” of the world.
These are just a few examples of how fragmented and confusing the landscape has become, and just how far away US Persons are from achieving any kind of consensus about how best to fight back against FATCA and CBT. The dominant “camps” now emerging are, predictably, identifiable largely along traditional party lines, but with some important exceptions. On one hand, “Safe Harbor” has crystallized into the Democrats singular take-it-or-leave-it proposition. On the other hand are the lawsuits in both the US and Canada, initiated by an increasingly diverse mix of Republicans, disaffected Democrats and untold numbers of other supporters who have no allegiance to any US party. In the case of Canada, our battle is dishearteningly with our own Canadian government, which has lowered itself to becoming a mere proxy for the US. Nevertheless, when it comes to the issues of FATCA, FBAR and CBT, it would appear that the most dominant fault line now starkly divides an increasingly out-of-touch and disingenuous Democratic Party with, literally, everyone else on the planet.
@GwEvil
Not logic, just terribly misinformed and misguided envy, methinks, plus a healthy dose of de rigeur anti-Americanism. Our challenge is to demonstrate to such people that being an American-Canadian dual citizen is really a curse nowadays, not a blessing. Unfortunately, we’ll be vilified anyway, the same way the witches were in Salem. We might eventually convince them that we’re not actually (American) witches, but only after we’ve already been burned at the stake.
I believe Monty Python explored this phenomenon of logic, identity and the scales of justice much better than any of us have so far:
Interesting exchange.
In spite of (or perhaps because of) globalization and multicultural thinking, dual or multiple citizenship really bothers a lot of people. There is a woman in the French parliament who is a dual (Norway, I think) and she takes it on the chin occasionally for her “dual loyalties”. I think it’s fair to say that most nation-states resigned themselves to it (some notable exceptions to this like Japan) but they’ve never been very happy about it.
Canada is a country of immigration (as is the US, Australia and other former settler colonies). It seems to me that in countries that are constantly incorporating new members citizenship questions are front and center and constantly changing. My Canadian uncle had a conception of his citizenship which was formed in the mid 1950’s – he was adamantly against migrants from developing countries. His vision of what it meant to be Canadian meant someone having British or Anglo-Saxon origins. A vision that was certainly not shared by Canadians in Quebec, right? 🙂
What I’m saying is that one way of looking at this debate is that is it simply part of a much larger one where people are asking (as they have asked over the centuries Canada has existed) is What Does it Mean to be Canadian? I bet you that if you grabbed 100 Canadians from all over Canada, stuck them in a room and asked them what they THINK it means you will get wildly different answers but what they all will have in common is that they will exclude this or that group. And I think exactly the same thing is true of Americans and even the French.
That open question “What does it mean to be a citizen of X” is never EVER resolved to everyone’s satisfaction in countries of immigration. The ADCS lawsuit is part of that debate and unfortunately that means that it will be used by some to argue for exclusion, or different treatment or to try paint certain people as not really being true Canadians at all by virtue of dual status.
Just saw this one, an easy way to write to reps?
https://democracy.io/#/
“His vision of what it meant to be Canadian meant someone having British or Anglo-Saxon origins. A vision that was certainly not shared by Canadians in Quebec, right? 🙂 ”
And not shared by First Nations in Canada, right? 🙂
“dual loyalties”. I think it’s fair to say that most nation-states resigned themselves to it (some notable exceptions to this like Japan) but they’ve never been very happy about it.”
Some didn’t used to mind. However, digressing to Japan, there is a huge exception: Japan restored Japanese citizenship to Alberto Fujimori, making him a dual Peruvian and Japanese citizen. Beats me why he didn’t stay here, why he decided all on his own to travel through a country where his Peruvian citizenship could still get him extradicted to Peru.
I find it ironic that one of the Cons was recently posted to the US as a Canadian Consul. Did Harper and his fellow Conservatives consider him an “American abiding in Canada” up until he renounced a few months ago?
Remember David Alward, Premier of NB? https://expatsinca.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/new-brunswick-premier-david-alward-caught-in-fatca-nightmare/ http://intltax.typepad.com/intltax_blog/2011/10/new-brunswick-premier-caught-in-us-tax-net.html http://hodgen.com/new-brunswick-premier-is-in-the-ovdi/
He is in Boston as a new Canadian consul general, and apparently he renounced:
“……Alward, who had dual citizenship, had to renounce his U.S. citizenship to accept the diplomatic posting there….”
See:
‘David Alward named Canadian consul general in Boston
Former New Brunswick premier named to post by Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Nicholson’
CBC News
Posted:Apr 24, 2015 1:40 PM AT
Last Updated:Apr 24, 2015 4:25 PM AT
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/newbrunswick/story/1.3047614
He never spoke out after that first story about his US tax woes. He let his fellow Canadians flounder despite his firsthand experience of this mess (though I bet he was treated with special gloves by the US Treasury).
http://hodgen.com/new-brunswick-premier-is-in-the-ovdi/
https://expatsinca.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/new-brunswick-premier-david-alward-caught-in-fatca-nightmare/
Bubblebustin –
I have a secret. Being anti-American won’t make you more Canadian.
I have the opposite of a secret. Anti-Americanism is the essence of Canadianism. And statist derangement is the essence of both.
@Norman Diamond, Excellent point about First Nation. Thank you!
Interesting about Fujimori. What possessed them to restore his Japanese citizenship? I will check that one out.
One debate I had in mind when I wrote my previous post is the Canadian court ruling that says that the Canadian government can take away the right to vote in Canada if a Canadian lives more than 5 years away from Canada. That’s a tough one and there are editorials flying around with the pros and cons of that decision. Are Canadians who live outside Canada less than Canadians living in Canada? I’ve met a few Canadians here in Japan who are not Japanese (and don’t wish to be because they would have to renounce their Canadian citizenship) so they have no voting rights at all. On the other hand there are eloquent arguments that voting rights should be based on citizenship AND residency.
But how interesting that there are countries where the government wouldn’t think of trying to strip away voting rights. The example often given is France which not only allows its expats to vote but actually has real representation for them. Whys this is not controversial in France (a place where assimilation is the ideal and multiculturalism is a dirty word) and is controversial in Canada ( a place known for its tolerance pluralism and, yes, multiculturalism) is a mystery to me. My feeling is that French have a very strong collective identity and so fewer debates about what it means to be French. Could be wrong about that…
@Norman, @Victoria, Japan didn’t restore Alberto Fujimori’s citizenship, he was born with dual citizenship and never lost it. Japan allowed dual citizenship until 1985, and allowed people who already had it at that time to keep it.
“I’ve met a few Canadians here in Japan who are not Japanese (and don’t wish to be because they would have to renounce their Canadian citizenship) so they have no voting rights at all.”
Well, meet one more. Aside from the ironic observation that if I were to renounce Canadian citizenship then it would become possible to sponsor my wife for a tourist visa to Canada, there are other reasons why I have no wish to become a Japanese citizen. As the two years that I had hoped to be here dragged on and on and on to 27 years and counting, I am probably eligible for Japanese citizenship, which probably makes me a second-class Canadian citizen since a new law (discussed on IBS recently) lets the Canadian government revoke my citizenship if I’m eligible for another one. Well, I still don’t have any wish to apply for Japanese citizenship, so I think the Canadian government probably has the power to make me stateless if it wishes.
When I came here, there was no voting right for a non-resident Canadian, not even for the first five years. When a new law provided for voting during the first five years of absence, I had already been absent longer. I was unaware of a court decision upholding that law.
With the internet now it is possible to keep up with Canadian news more than it used to be, but I haven’t done much. It used to be nearly impossible. The Japan Times carries a lot of US news but not much Canadian news. Now the Japan Times comes with the International New York Times but not the Globe and Mail. When bookstores used to carry the International Herald Tribune and Asian Wall Street Journal, and a few carried the Financial Times and a few others, I never saw a Globe and Mail there. So it did make a lot of sense to bar us from voting. With the internet now maybe it doesn’t make as much sense any more.
In or around 2010, a Japanese political party mailed postcards to me asking me to vote for them. One might think my name in 100% katakana might give them a hint that I’m not eligible to vote. I don’t know where they got my name from. My listing in the phone book uses Italian characters.
“Japan didn’t restore Alberto Fujimori’s citizenship,”
Yes they did.
“he was born with dual citizenship”
I don’t think so.
“and never lost it.”
Yes he did. His parents took him to Peru when he was young. If he became Peruvian as a minor then he might have been allowed to be dual until age 22; I’ve never studied what happens to minors naturalizing elsewhere. But even if he was a dual, he still had to choose one at age 22. If he didn’t take action to choose Japanese citizenship and renounce Peruvian citizenship, then he lost his Japanese citizenship and was solely Peruvian.
“Japan allowed dual citizenship until 1985, and allowed people who already had it at that time to keep it.”
Children born as duals were allowed to remain dual until age 22, whether or not that happened before 1985. At age 22 they had to choose one, whether or not that happened before 1985. Japan made an exception for Fujimori.
Japan didn’t always take enforcement action, depending on what the other citizenship was. That’s just a matter of governments not being required to obey their own laws. That has nothing to do with what the law said.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the mirror:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/im-canadian-and-i-have-a-right-to-vote/article25731634/
I’m Canadian – and I should have a right to vote
It’s quite instructive to read the 693 + comments.
@Norman Diamond, Speaking of Japan I recently met the daughter of one of my Canadian friends here. She is “hafu”, not yet 22 and she went to Canada for high school and some college and now she’s back in Japan. Which means that her mom (my friend) is resigned to staying here as well.
This young lady had a very hard time in Canada. Was it culture shock? Hard to tell. But she didn’t feel welcome. She reports that people she met had a hard time wrapping their minds around the idea that she was a citizen of Canada and not an immigrant. Where are you from? I was born in Japan but I’m a Canadian citizen. Oh. You speak really good English for a Japanese. Where did you learn it? I was born in Japan but I’m a Canadian citizen…
Drove her crazy and she finally just gave up and came back to Japan and it looks like she’s resigned to dumping her Canadian citizenship when she turns 22.
And that story bothered me on so many levels – I hardly know where to start. I wish the Japanese would give her more time or accept dual citizenship. I wish she had had a better experience in Canada and perhaps if she had stayed longer (and maybe gone to other parts of Canada where things might have been very different) she might have made a different choice. She is so young and I wonder how things will look to her in another 10 years. And if I had to point to why I support dual citizenship, it’s situations like this one where a choice must be made between mom’s country and dad’s country. I will admit to having a dog in this fight – my children are duals – one has chosen the US (in spite of all the problems which she knows all about) and the other is still thinking about it. But I’m glad that they don’t have to choose unless they want to and that’s their business. I’m so very sorry that my friend’s daughter has to.
Until recently that young lady would have had the same problem in Japan. Where are you from? Japan. Well, where were you from before that? I was born in Japan. Where were your parents from? Japan and Canada. Wow, you speak really good Japanese for a Canadian! I’m Japanese, I was born in Japan, my father’s a Japanese citizen, and I’m a Japanese citizen. Wow, you speak really good Japanese for a Canadian!
I’ve read that racism is getting pretty bad in Vancouver. Albinos think that because Albinos stole the land from the First Nations, Albinos should own the land and shouldn’t share it with Asians and halves. Maybe there will be a repeat of what happened during World War II. Someone commented on IBS a few days ago about Americans of Japanese ancestry who were put in American concentration camps, well Canadians of Japanese ancestry were put in Canadian concentration camps too. (And Chinese were put in Japanese concentration camps in China, etc.). Is the book “Obasan”, by a Canadian of Japanese ancestry, still in print?
Don’t know where else to post this, so why not here? From Twitter, as reported on the American Expatriates Facebook group. Your chance for stardom (and maybe a good chance to spread the word and even mention the Bopp and ADCS lawsuits):
Newest from Democrats Abroad / 10,000 messages / at least messages getting through and getting attention / One can use this push to send their own suggested solutions
Dear Democrats Abroad Members,
We are pleased to report that after 2 days our FATCA grassroots campaign has yielded an excellent response! We asked you to message members of Congress asking them to sign the Congressional letter to the Treasury Secretary and IRS Commissioner in support of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) Same Country Safe Harbor reform.
More than 3,000 of you have participated! Nearly 10,000 messages have been sent to your Representatives and Senators asking them to sign the letter and throw their support behind this common sense reform to provide relief to Americans abroad from the burden of FATCA reporting.
Please help us send that number soaring towards 20,000 messages! We need your help URGENTLY!
The sponsors of the letter (Rep Maloney and Rep Mulvaney) anticipate “closing it off” to signatures at the end of this legislative session – that’s the end of this week! We need to demonstrate that there is growing momentum in Congressional support for this reform in order to keep the letter open to more signatures. The more signatures on the letter the louder the call coming from Congress for Treasury and the IRS to act.
If you have not yet participated, please send your message to your Senators and Representative RIGHT NOW, reminding them about the letter and asking them to sign it.
I worry that in spite of our “statist derangement”, Canadian readers of the Sutherland article would join with Americans in believing that a citizen’s voting right should be contingent on continuing to pay taxes to the Homeland. “No representation without taxation” could be a rallying cry for the entire world’s governments!
@Victoria
Your comment about the young Japanese-Canadian student in Canada reminds me of this video:
“What kind of Asian are you?”
http://youtu.be/DWynJkN5HbQ
Please go to this must-read article at the Wall Street Journal:
http://blogs.wsj.com/expat/2015/07/28/fatca-relief-coming-for-u-s-expats-via-same-country-exception-opinion/
I just left this comment:
@bubblebustin
I am among the Canadian expats in a similar situation to Mr. Sutherland who will not be able to vote come October barring last minute Supreme Court intervention. I’ve been a supporter of that Charter challenge (with plaintiffs Gillian Frank and Jamie Duong) as well as this one. For those who aren’t familiar with that challenge, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently ruled that Canadian expats CANNOT vote in Canada if they’ve lived abroad for more than five years–overturning a lower court ruling. Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is likely but it is less certain whether there will be time to get any meaningful relief in the short time remaining before the next election.
The arguments against expats voting seem pretty weak when you consider the fact that prisoners can vote. For example, a prisoner may never live in their old riding again and may never pay taxes again–arguments often used to justify denying expats the vote–yet prisoners are allowed to vote.
This guy has flogged his wares before in the WSJ.
http://blogs.wsj.com/expat/2015/07/28/fatca-relief-coming-for-u-s-expats-via-same-country-exception-opinion/
1. He comes from MA one of the bluest states in the US. It comes to no surprise that he supports DAs ‘Same Country’ nonsense.
2. Although he lists a Swiss office for his company, he’s not a true ex-pat in the sense that he only pays tax to Switzerland. He’s probably still trapped in the US tax system.
3. Same Country only complicates things, FFIs need to know clearly a resident citizen is not a US Reportable Account regardless whether they fit the description of a ‘US Person’ or not.
Jonathan no halfway houses, scrap CBT and resident citizens need to claim back their rights from their respective governments not the US make exemptions.
“The arguments against expats voting seem pretty weak when you consider the fact that prisoners can vote.”
In some countries, former prisoners later became president or prime minister. They had been prisoners because, in days of old when their countries had even less human rights than the US and Canada and Japan have now, their laws and courts punished what they were doing. Maybe the right thing to do is let prisoners vote.
If Obama’s parents had visited Virginia around the time they were conceiving him, they could have been jailed under laws that Virginia had at the time.
Prisoners in Canadian jails probably get more Canadian news than I do, though thanks to the internet I get more Canadian news than I used to.
@NormanDiamond
I’m not arguing either for or against the rights of prisoners to vote. What I’m saying is that it is already established case law in Canada that prisoners can vote, and the precedent established in case law when prisoners got the right to vote has already established that being informed on the issues is NOT a prerequisite for voting.
Moreover, as you observe, the Internet makes it possible to follow Canadian news as an expat. I doubt there is anything holding back Canadian expats–at least in countries with reasonable Internet access–from keeping at least as well informed as Canadian prisoners.
I’m not sure I understand your comment about Obama’s parents, though. Obama himself has admitted to smoking marijuana which is still illegal in most places. Why mention Obama’s parents’ violation of laws from the past when you could have mentioned Obama’s own violation of present day laws? Plus his uncle was jailed, and far more recently than Obama’s parents’ day. I’m just confused as to the point you’re trying to make about Obama’s parents?
“the precedent established in case law when prisoners got the right to vote has already established that being informed on the issues is NOT a prerequisite for voting.”
Thank you for informing me, though the information is sad.
Now I guess I understand how Harper keeps his job. Being informed on the issues is not a prerequisite for voting.
“I’m not sure I understand your comment about Obama’s parents, though.”
Sex between people of different races was illegal.
@USX “Anti-Americanism is the essence of Canadianism.”
Just like anti-offshore-ism is the essence of Americanism.
What’s your point?
@Norman Diamond
Thank you for informing me, though the information is sad.
Well I don’t see the information as at all sad. I wouldn’t want to live in a world where only a certain elite–having achieved a certain level of education on the issues (who gets to judge?)–can vote. In fact part of the point of voting is that people get to choose what is important to them. Someone may choose to be uninformed on many issues that don’t affect them–perhaps appearing rather ignorant on most issues–voting only on the one or two issues that are important to them. That is their right in a democratic system.
Sex between people of different races was illegal.
I suppose you are arguing that if someone is jailed for an unjust law, then they should still get the chance to vote against it and possibly overturn it. While I’d agree (if that is indeed your point), I don’t really see that as the point of the Canadian precedent legalizing voting by prisoners. The point is that even if everyone agrees they justly belong in prison (eg a murderer whose guilt is not in dispute) they still get to vote. There doesn’t have to be anything sympathetic about their situation to qualify them to vote.
It would also seem to me that Barack Obama Sr is actually an good example illustrating the expat side of this discussion. Barack Sr was a Kenyan expat who returned to Kenya to a senior position–seemingly a good example of how someone can be an expat but still retain a strong interest in their country’s affairs.
Yes, the abovementioned article is important:
http://blogs.wsj.com/expat/2015/07/28/fatca-relief-coming-for-u-s-expats-via-same-country-exception-opinion/
And I just left this comment (slightly edited):
The ironic thing about FATCA is that is was signed into law by a President who himself lived abroad with his mother. President Obama has either actively supported or done nothing to avoid creating a situation in which his own mother would have 1) been dumped by her American bank within 30 days, regardless of how long she had been banking with them and 2) unable to open a bank account abroad. Would he really have wanted to be a small child watching his mother store her family’s shekels under a mattress as a result of decisions his adult self would make? Does President Obama consider his own mother to be a suspicious person deserving of the same treatment as money launderers, terrorists, and tax cheats resident in the U.S. who are hiding their money in the Cayman Islands (or whatever rich domestic tax cheats do with their money these days)? Does he think his mother would ever have been able to go abroad for her studies in the first place if she had faced the situation that he has now created? I agree that many Democrats abroad will in the future, with a heavy heart, have to support the Republican Party for reasons of self-preservation if the Democratic Party doesn’t get their heads out of their ***** on this issue.