Remember: if the felon pardons you in the USA you are still a criminal. Your country, for instance Honduras, can still ask Interpol to arrest you if the oportunity arises:
On Monday, Honduran Attorney General Johel Zelaya urged national security agencies and Interpol to execute an arrest warrant against former President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was pardoned last week by US President Donald Trump.
‘I inform the Honduran people that I have instructed the ATIC (Technical Agency for Criminal Investigation) and I also urge state security agencies and our international allies, such as INTERPOL, to execute the international arrest warrant against former President Juan Orlando Hernández, who is accused of money laundering and fraud,’ Zelaya said on social media.
This is not correct. For example, 26 U.S.C. §7345 establishes the authority for the IRS to report a tax delinquent to the State Department, who will then refuse to renew the individual’s passport. They never have to set foot in the U.S. for this to happen.
There are also circumstances where the IRS has options for freezing the overseas resident’s bank accounts and attempting to seize funds. This requires the overseas resident to have an account in a foreign bank with a presence in the U.S. (like BNP Paribas); if the accounts are with an exclusively foreign bank, this option is not available to the IRS. However, due to FATCA reporting obligations, U.S. authorities still know exactly how much money every overseas American is making, and where it’s being held.
It’s true that these consequences apply only in the case of a significant tax delinquency (mid five figures is the rule of thumb). Failure to file is a breach, but there’s no real penalty. Things get dicey only when you start making enough money for the IRS to notice you. Because if the IRS starts to suspect you’re a tax dodge, or even just an annoyance, they may choose to invent a tax return on your behalf in which they will make all the worst possible assumptions and come up with the largest tax bill they can, and force you to engage in order to prove they’re wrong.
So, as long as my daughters (a) have a backup citizenship to use when the U.S. passport becomes unavailable, and (b) never earn enough money to make them worth the trouble, then the IRS will probably just start a file on them and not take substantial action beyond tallying up the accumulating bill. But if either condition doesn’t apply, they’re at risk.
Your recommendation is a gamble. You’re free to make your own choices, but forgive me if I don’t find this a wise path for my children.
P.S. It also occurs to me that this might create problems collecting on the inheritance that’s expected from their various grandparents, all of whom are in the U.S., though I’d need to look into that further to make a more concrete assessment.
I know people who often spout things like, “I have no problem with immigrants if they do it the right way!!” I’m interested to see how they pivot to defend blocking those who are trying to become US citizens the “right way.”
Always, always have a backup citizenship. I have two backups… none of which are American.
I’ve visited South America but no way am I going to the United States. With much respect to the majority of the posters on this very USA board, I say, fuck your politicians. Abject wankers on both sides.
They’ve already had ICE goons standing by in government buildings and courtrooms intercepting immigrants reporting to required interviews and appearances, i.e. people who have been doing it the right way. And this has been going on for months now.
The response from the asshats: crickets
Strike that. Their response is to buy the line that these are dangerous criminals being taken off the streets and out of the country.
No, it doesn’t make any damned sense but that has never been an impediment to them before.
And it’s gotten worse! Now, they’re telling people who have gone all the way to having their citizenship ceremonies actually scheduled that they’re stopping the process of them becoming citizens. These people have jumped through every hoop, successfully, only to be deliberately tripped just before crossing the finish line.
I know about pulling immigrants out of line because of their country of origin, what I meant was dragging them away to Coventry a detention center for immediate deportation to Eritrea or whatever the destination of the day happens to be.
1. January 6, 2021 was an insurrection. Federal courts, the Department of Justice, and Congress have repeatedly described the events at the United States Capitol as an insurrection aimed at stopping the lawful transfer of presidential power.
2. Hundreds of individuals have been convicted for offenses arising from their participation in that attack. Courts have affirmed that the conduct constituted an assault on the constitutional order.
3. The President, while in office, issued mass clemency to individuals who engaged in the January 6 attack and directed federal prosecutors to dismiss pending charges.
4. Clemency is an act of state power that nullifies punishment, confers legal protection, signals governmental validation, and materially aids the beneficiaries.
5. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 provides:
“No person shall… hold any office, civil or military, under the United States… who, having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, OR given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof . But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House remove such disability.”
6. Issuing mass pardons and commutations to individuals who engaged in an insurrection constitutes “aid or comfort” within the meaning of Section 3.
7. Section 3 does not require impeachment, criminal conviction, or the success of the insurrection. It is self-executing , as confirmed by Reconstruction-era enforcement, including the exclusion of sitting officials from office without impeachment proceedings.
8. Congress has not removed this disability by the required two-thirds vote.
And thus, Donald J. Trump is diqualified from holding office:
This action does not invoke impeachment. Impeachment removes a President; Section 3 disqualifies a person from holding office. These are distinct mechanisms. Section 3 operates independently, and its disability remains unless Congress affirmatively lifts it.
Plaintiff seeks only a declaration of what the Constitution requires.
As I said: I see no chance of success, but it sounds good to me. IANAL.
