Thisthread reminded me of a question that I have had for a while.
If you give up your US citizenship in favor of citizenship in another country, and assuming you haven’t broken any US laws, don’t have outstanding taxes, etc, what are the possible negative consequences of doing so? Most former Americans will still have various family, legal and professional ties to the US. How would these be affected? As this is GQ, I am looking for specific examples.
In particular, would a former American still be allowed to work in the US? Of course they would have to apply for a working visa, but would the visa officer have grounds to refuse the visa for an ex-American?
I assume once you give up US citizenship, you are treated as a citizen of that country. Except for Mexicans and Canadians, all arrivals at the USA were being fingerprinted and eye-scanned. Only certain countries’ citizens (mostly first world) are allowed to arrive without pre-arranging visas, which could be a difficult process from third world countries. The customs people could still turn you back for any reason the can drag out of a hat, and you really have no way to contest that.
If you renounce citizenship to escape the tax filing, that does not exempt you from having to file up to that point - so if you are behind on your tax returns from before that, you may get a hard time. If they think you owe back taxes, they might arrest you.
There’s a limit to how long you can stay in the USA. IIRC, 180 days is the limit. If you spend a substantial amount of time in the USA over a 3-year period, even foreigners must file US tax returns. (Canadian “snowbirds” who travel to Florida or Arizona every winter have to be careful of this).
Of course, a returning ex-citizen may get special scrutiny, not just for the “traitor” implications. I remember talking to a guide during a tour of Egypt. The guy had gone through extraordinary effort for a US family during the 2011 revolution, and they suggested he could come visit them. The visa requirements - show you have a steady job, a decent income, a decent amount in the bank, and ties to your community to show this is a visit and you have a lot reasons to come back, rather than sneaking into the USA to find work. (He lost on all accounts - single, young, tourism jobs are erratic, not a lot of savings, etc.) The same would apply to a returning ex-American - “How do we know you’re not coming home to hide out and live with Uncle Jack and work under the table? Show us that you intend to leave?” Saying the wrong thing, being vague about plans, etc. - bad.
(I recall reading threads about people trying to visit their (online) girlfriend or boyfriend. Many border guards are not up on or sympathetic with how modern life goes, and their suspicion is that someone is instead sneaking in to get married and then apply for residency. It’s a catch-22 - if you appear too close, but try to minimize the relationship; or you admit you are “real close” to a committed relationship - either way it looks like you are lying to try to get in. And of course, once you have started the years-long application for residency etc. apparently that means you are even more screwed trying to get in as a tourist. )
Your visa application would be treated essentially the same way as anyone else’s. The USCIS doesn’t really have time to be holding grudges; you’re basically just a number to them, unless you’re on a terrorist watch list or something. Assuming you have family remaining here, they can sponsor you for a K-3 or K-4 visa depending on the specific relationship.
It’s exception would be seriously wealthy people; they are watched like hawks. Kenneth Dart renounced his US citizenship and then basically bribed the government of Belize to make him a “consular officer” in Fort Lauderdale - about twenty minutes from his house - so he could stay but avoid being taxed on foreign income. There is a little-cited federal law called the Reed Amendment ((8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E)) which allows the Attorney General to exclude any citizenship renouncer from reentering the US permanently if he determines the person did so for tax reasons.
You also don’t get the federal estate tax exemption if your assets pass to an heir who is not your spouse.
Basically, it’s not a very good idea unless you are never coming back.
However individual border guards can and do act arbitrarily depneding on how they feel about what you did. If they ask deep and personal questions and you refuse to answer, if they think you are hiding something, if they think you are not just returning for a visit, or if they are offended by what you did and can make up a pretext to deny entry… you is screwed.
Of course, to be a diplomatic official the US must approve your entry. It’s not automatic, and they can expel any diplomat with a simple say-so to the foreign goverment. I imagine they have limited sympathy for people playing these games.
The border guard isn’t going to know that you previously renounced your citizenship. They’ll just be inspecting your passport and visa. If you’re talking about visiting from a visa waiver country, that’s different of course.
Why would they not, given that they know things such as the way a librarian misspelled a foreign student’s name once? I would have thought a change of citizenship to be more important than someone’s spelling skills.
However, if your “appearance” at the US border is that of a “typical” American, but you display a passport other than what should reasonably be expected to be carrying a US Passport, you should expect the ICE agent to question you a bit more than if you had showed a US Passport. Questioning could determine you are a former US citizen who renounced their citizenship, and depending upon the ICE agent and what may be going on in the greater border crossing world, you could enter the US with nary a scratch, or be subject to considerable interrogation before entering, or denied entry altogether.
You certainly have no more a chance of getting the visa than anyone else; whether you have less is probably down to the individual deciding.
Border officials seem to operate on the presumption that every visitor secretly wants to take up residence in the US. There also seems to be a widespread belief that the only reason to give up US citizenship is to avoid taxes. I think both of these beliefs are wrong, though certainly not groundless, but in that climate you can imagine why the visa interview would be more difficult for an ex-American.
Anyone with a US birthplace on a foreign passport is subject to extra scrutiny. I got a stern lecture when crossing to the US on a Canadian passport (at the time I mistakenly thought you had to enter and leave on the same passport), and just yesterday I was talking to a young woman born in Hawai’i who seemed to think she wasn’t a US citizen, complaining about the hassles she got from the US border guards. I told her she was a citizen and should check into the tax situation, but she chose not to believe me.
Passports list place of birth. So they will certainly know. I think you can ask the Canadian passport office to omit that information, but that omission would likely be a red flag, I assume. Some of the border guards are not stupid.
The Mayor of London got this, because he chanced to be born in New York City. He was told he had to travel on a US passport, whether he wanted to or not.
I believe the general rule is that if you are a citizen of a country you cannot claim the protection offered by a foreign passport. So, if you have a US passport then you have to use that in the USA and the Government of the USA will not recognize any consular protections offered by other countries.
But if you have several passports and you go to a country from which you have no passport then you can choose which one to use.
I know a person who has passports from USA, Uruguay and Italy. In the USA he has to use the USA passport, in Uruguay the Uruguayan passport and I believe in all Schengen countries the Italian passport (I am not entirely certain about this last one, maybe only Italy).
Yes, I was wondering what the questions were about. Passports list place of birth, and if the customs bozo reads it at all, he will then ask - why are you not using your US passport? Depending on your demeanour, how you answer, and whether his breakfast burritos disagree with him, you may simply dig yourself deeper. At very least I’m sure he’ll look you up on the computer.
I’ve entered the UK on my Canadian passport, and no questions, but then I was born in Canada so it probably never occurred to them to check for that. (Easier when travelling with the wife than saying “You go in that lineup and I’ll waltz through this one…”)
IANAL but there are apparently different rules for foreign citizens who were previously American citizens. They apparently do not have the same residency rights other foreign citizens have. As I wrote in a recent thread, Terry Gilliam is an example of this. He was born in the United States but became a British citizen and later renounced his American citizenship. He can only visit the United States for less than 30 days a year. But his wife, who is a native-born British citizen, can visit the United States for up to 180 days a year.
I believe this policy is directed at people seeking tax advantages from foreign citizenship. Some Americans would supposedly get a foreign citizenship in order to avoid paying American taxes even though they had no intent to leave the United States and take up residency in another country. The law apparently tries to stop this by telling people that if they choose to give up their American citizenships, they’re expected to give up their residency rights as well.
My list of aliases according to US border guards includes, among others:
a misspelling of my name which a librarian commited on a library card (note it wasn’t even in a computerized record)
and Maria García, the Hispanic female equivalent of Joe Brown (not of John Doe). I once received a call from a debt collector asking whether I had purchased a washing machine on debit using that name. I said “no” and asked whether they planned on calling every Hispanic woman in Florida; the caller sighed “yes”. That would be over 1M “Marias García” from that washing machine alone.
As of 2004, the list was 21 names long. Given the many new ways in which my name has been getting misspelled thanks to OCR software, it could be up to 60 by now.
The US border system is fucked up beyond redemption and anything can happen.
I was getting extra scrutiny so I went to the consulate in Madrid to get a visa and the guy there said there said my name brought up some other wanted people and my visa was issued with a note saying I was not one of the bad guys the US government was looking for.
Well, when I arrived in the US with that visa in hand they detained me, abused me for a while, cancelled my visa and sent me back to Spain. It seems the border people can choose whether a a visa is any good or not, without justification or explanation. A low level employee can decide who is let in and who is not and there is no recourse. And they just abuse you until you sign a form saying you are returning voluntarily and without coercion. Fuckers.
The consulate did not reply to my letters. Basically the only thing I can do is apply for a visa again. Ha!
I wasted a substantial amount of effort , time and money to get a visa which turns out to be worthless. Not to mention the cost of the air ticket. Fuckers.
The incompetence is just astounding. They have more information than they can handle but they want still more information. May they all get what they deserve.
Incidentally, Canada does not require a Canadian passport for a citizen; a US passport and a Canadian citizenship ID card is sufficient. I have never gotten a Canadian passport and if anyone asks why, I will tell that it lasts only 5 years, can take up to a year to be issued and, in the meantime, they will keep my citizenship ID and then how do I get back?
And yes, border guards a law unto themselves. Canada requires immigrants to get a special immigrant ID card. The Foreign Affairs web site claims that it is needed to reenter Canada except by private car. But border guard claimed that they are not under the rule of Foreign Affairs and they have their own rules which also require that you have the card when you come in by private car. I had applied for citizenship and hadn’t bothered to renew this card since I expected the citizenship (which took nearly 2 years) to come before I traveled by plane.
As Really Not All That Bright noted, the Reed Amendment gave the Attorney General of the United States the authority to prohibit entry to any person who renounced US citizenship for tax purposes.
In 2002 that authority was transferred to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
Anecdotally, it appears those with authority never specifically barred entry of a former citizen under these laws. However consular officers may have refused to issue a visa to such a person using these laws as guidance.
In 2012 legislation was proposed, dubbed the Ex-PATRIOT Act, to permanently bar entry to such persons, effectively removing the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. The legislation did not pass.
The only expatriates covered under Sen Schumer’s proposed EX-PATRIOT ACT are those meeting any of the following criteria:
With worldwide assets over US$2 million, or
Annual federal income tax liability of $151,000 in the five years preceding expatriation, or
Anyone who failed to meet tax filing and/or reporting requirements at any time during the five years prior to expatriation.
That net is broad and would continue to catch many who are not “big fish” and who do not have tax issues at the heart of their expatriation.
The question is still debated in international law. The traditional rule is as you describe it: States do not have to treat their own national as a foreigner even if they possess another nationality. The debate continues, however; rather recently, the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal (an international court set up jointly by the U.S. and Iran to decide disputes brought by the national of one state against the government of the other in relation with Irani nationalisations of foreign property after the revolution of 1979 and the hostage crisis) has ruled that dual nationals of both countries may still bring a case against one of the two governments under certain circumstances, effectively arguing that dual nationals may invoke their other nationality against their own country where this is beneficial to them. The question is not finally resolved in international law.
There are a large number of Canadians with dual citizenship. Years ago, going across the border to get to a hospital to give birth was not uncommon. A lot of children immigrated with their parents. Many of them only woke up to the requirement that they needed to file with the new laws about reporting assets.
Of course, if you haven’t filed, how do they know your liability? $151,000 over 5 years is $30,000 a year. A person with a pretty good income could owe that, before subtracting taxes already paid in Canada. Is every customs agent going to become a tax estimator, or more likely would the bill have simply meant anyone with a decent income would be turned back, until they could prove their taxes were up to date?
Like the brother of one acquaintance of mine (in Canada since age 5), they have the dilemma - do they spend a fortune getting caught up now that they discover the need to file? Probably still wouldn’t meet the deadline. Do they ask for an extension and put themselves on the government radar? Do they renounce thier citizenship and also put themselves on the US radar? Unless you are living there, it seems US citizenship is nmore of a liability than an asset. Well done, Washington.