17 ms·

> surrendering US citizenship is a logical choice Only because of US laws. I have two citizenships, but one residency. In most Western countries, being a resid

by mgbmtl 5y ago

> surrendering US citizenship is a logical choice Only because of US laws. I have two citizenships, but one residency. In most Western countries, being a resident is associated with healthcare and pension, so having one residency is logical.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Only because of US laws. I have two citizenships, but one residency. U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits. For example, we're pretty good at getting our people out of thorny situations, even at great national expense. If someone isn't paying to support that, it makes sense to force a revocation decision.
- not-so 5y ago
  What circumstances are those? There are a ton of homeless Americans where I live and the embassy doesn't do anything until they commit a crime as far as I know.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > What circumstances are those? If there is an act of war or natural disaster, the U.S. is good at extracting its citizens. There is also a decent precedent of negotiating to release people taken hostage or held prisoner by unfriendly regimes. (Or causing a fuss when Americans are harmed in a friendly country.) That, in turn, has a deterrent effect. For Americans with access to legal counsel and the State Department, the benefits expand. Rich, overseas Americans thus present a unique free-rider problem.
    - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 5y ago
      For example, Israel goes to extremely great lengths extracting its citizens in trouble (search Operation Entebbe), and no, they don't charge you any taxes if you reside permanently abroad.
      - adolph 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe Such a gruesome story: Kenyan sources supported Israel, and in the aftermath of the operation, Idi Amin issued orders to retaliate and slaughter several hundred Kenyans then present in Uganda. There were 245 Kenyans in Uganda killed and 3,000 fled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin Amin first escaped to Libya, where he stayed until 1980, and ultimately settled in Saudi Arabia, where the Saudi royal family allowed him sanctuary and paid him a generous subsidy in return for staying out of politics.[18] Amin lived for a number of years on the top two floors of the Novotel Hotel on Palestine Road in Jeddah. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455590/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455590/ Movie The Last King of Scotland is Based on the events of the brutal Ugandan dictator Idi Amin's regime as seen by his personal physician during the 1970s.
      - mljoe 5y ago
        You don't have to go that far back. See the recent Surfside tragedy. Israel sent an elite rescue team and set up relief centers to assist displaced persons, regardless if they were Israeli or not.
        robocat 5y ago
        “Casualties have been disproportionately Jewish because about a third of Surfside residents are Jewish.”
- dlisboa 5y ago
  That’s only relevant to a tiny percentage of American immigrants who travel/work in conflict zones and unfriendly countries. It could even be said Americans are more at risk in those countries for being American and no other reason. So for people outside of that there won’t be any benefit.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > only relevant to a tiny percentage of American immigrants who travel/work in conflict zones and unfriendly countries I know a (thankfully small) handful of cases in which Americans' kids were arrested in a friendly country. The State Department provided invaluable support. (Recommendations on legal counsel, prudent next steps, relevant authorities' phone numbers...nothing nefarious, just context and support.) I am under no illusion that I, with my resources, would get that sort of access. But it exists, and probably benefits U.S. international business concerns. Since this article concerns itself with rich overseas Americans, I think it's relevant.
    - dlisboa 5y ago
      I think you're under the impression this doesn't happen with other countries too. That's the job of embassies. Obviously the State Department has more funding and resources, but that's really only relevant to how big of a trouble you got yourself into. One thing the US has is more bargaining power to force early release of some people accused of crimes (like Liangelo Ball in China, Anne Sacoolas in UK). That's significant leverage, but again: most people will never find themselves in that situation. But even then it's not like other countries will not imprison you if you're American.
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      > Since this article concerns itself with rich overseas Americans, I think it's relevant Not many millionaires are getting arrested in general, due to the availability of lawyers and so on. The US support might be very relevant for a war reported captured by ISIS. But most millionaires are not going to be in those locations and/or able to afford good private security.
- dustinmoris 5y ago
  > U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits. Not sure about actual benefits. The US passports is one of the worst when it comes to travel. Many countries have stricter entry rules only for US citizen, or require at least a higher Visa fee in comparison to other Western nations or outright don't allow US citizens entry at all. I found my Austrian passport to be actually extremely beneficial. Most powerful passport is still from Singapore when it comes to extraterritorial benefits. In terms of getting people out of thorny situations, countries which don't have citizenship based tax laws are also pretty good at that, if not even better, because the US has in fact a lot of scarred relations with other nations whereas other Western nations have it easier to get a country pull some strings in order to get their people out.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    "One of the worst" maybe if you're comparing to the EU, but definitely not in a wider global sense.
    - ElFitz 5y ago
      > "One of the worst" maybe if you're comparing to the EU, but definitely not in a wider global sense. Definitely. But comparing the benefits of US citizenship to that of, say, Venezuela or Tchad would be pointless, now, wouldn’t it?
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        Why would that be pointless?
        ElFitz 5y ago
        Mostly because the gap in international political reach and leverage, respective economic situations and means are too huge for there to be a point. Also because I suspect the population here to likely be mostly from Western countries. Cf dang’s comment[1] stating that 50% of the userbase is from the US [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25787770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25787770
- leoedin 5y ago
  Most Western countries have some level of extraterritorial benefits. At least in the UK they're nominally "paid for" by the cost of the passport. If you're a dual citizen with another country you have no obligation to get a passport - but shouldn't expect help without one.
- MangoCoffee 5y ago
  >we're pretty good at getting our people out of thorny situations, even at great national expense. If someone isn't paying to support that, it makes sense to force a revocation decision. how many American get into that kind of shit storm? it seem like this benefit isn't worth the taxes that you pay
  - rs999gti 5y ago
    The US may or may not have paid $2M to get Warmbier our of North Korea https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/north-korea-issued-2-million-bill-for-comatose-otto-warmbiers-care/2019/04/25/0e8022a0-66ad-11e9-a698-2a8f808c9cfb_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/north-kore...
    - petre 5y ago
      He died, so it didn't do much help.
      - emodendroket 5y ago
        What difference does that make? Is the ambulance worthless because not everybody it picks up lives?
        stickfigure 5y ago
        The value I assign to "my government will ensure repatriation of my corpse" is $0.
        emodendroket 5y ago
        Which is not what happened, given that he died after he got home. Again, not seeing how this is different than blaming the ambulance because you died in the ER.
        imwillofficial 5y ago
        Too little too late makes all the difference in the world.
- vagrantJin 5y ago
  I needed to laugh really hard at this because it encapulates the US citizen's mind so perfectly. Partly because the US lives in my head rent free. Is it because every single US diplomatic relation is in one way or other tied to the military? If a jibali captures an operator then fair enough. The US is very preachy about their soldiers. But for a civilian to think about that as a benefit is just wild.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    "cīvis rōmānus sum" It's not like the US made this up. The Roman citizens had this protection too as they wandered the globe.
    - aerostable_slug 5y ago
      Yes, but we can actually make it happen (relatively quickly). Last year, Navy SEALs from the Navy's Special Mission Unit parachuted in the dead of night to save a missionary. When's the last time the armed forces of Brunei did that? Or DRC? Or Azerbaijan? The answer is never. Intent != capability. I'm sure Paraguay wishes they could put commandos on the ground anywhere in the world in hours, but the fact is that they can't. Being American is like having an American Express Card: membership has its privileges.
      - dylan604 5y ago
        The Romans might not have been able to air drop centurians into battle overnight, so yeah, you might wind up a martyr for Rome, but when they eventually did get there vengance was a mofo.
- consumer451 5y ago
  > U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits. For example, we're pretty good at getting our people out of thorny situations, even at great national expense. Are we? I’ve been told to use my other passport if ever in a situation like that. Are there any stats that support either case?
- tshaddox 5y ago
  So what about American citizens who legally don’t pay any federal taxes? Like, say, children? Should they receive “extraterritorial benefits”?
- SerLava 5y ago
  Just a warning: this isn't necessarily true. They'll only do it if there is a political benefit. Otherwise there is no duty to assist you.
  - janeroe 5y ago
    > They'll only do it if there is a political benefit. This is also how it works with other countries (e.g., Russia). They'll help if they get something out of it, or won't give a damn otherwise.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  Most countries grant those same benefits.
  - aerostable_slug 5y ago
    But they don't have a MEU sitting off conflict zones waiting to leap into action. The United States will literally send the Marines to save a citizen. A person from, say, Ecuador probably doesn't enjoy the same amount of risk coverage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_expeditionary_unit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_expeditionary_unit
    - 1024core 5y ago
      You've been watching too many movies, I'm afraid. The reality is (and it happened in Yemen recently) that the US will just shrug and tell you to go ask some other country for help. No MEUs set foot in Yemen when things went south there.
      - aerostable_slug 5y ago
        The last I heard, the Houthis let the Americans go. Navy SEALs from the Navy SMU parachuted into Africa in the dead of night to save a missionary kidnapped from a known conflict zone, killing 6 of 7 combatants (one wonders if they let the last guy go to spread Fear amongst his fellows). Perhaps some of you had different experiences (and/or perhaps the State Department really, really wanted you to leave), but that doesn't erase the rescue of Americans such as this man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nigeria_hostage_rescue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nigeria_hostage_rescue We sent the best of the best in to save him. Not the JV team, the varsity. Before you whine, ask yourselves if perhaps there was some motive to telling you that nobody would help you if you didn't leave. Maybe they were trying to manage their risk.
        1024core 5y ago
        > to save a missionary That could have been just Trump pandering to his base. Moreover, from your link: > Additionally American aid worker Jeffery Woodke was kidnapped from Abalak in October 2016, and is believed to be held in Mali. How come no SEALs have parachuted to rescue Jeffery yet, huh? Reinforces my theory that it was just election-time pandering by Trump. You're telling me that the US will do that for every Tom, Dick and Harry who gets caught by some $EVILDOER anywhere on this planet? Fat chance! > The last I heard, the Houthis let the Americans go. But how did they get out? Who picked them up?
- janeroe 5y ago
  > For example, we're pretty good at getting our people out of thorny situations How thorny a situation has to be? Because I'm aware of a case when an American couldn't bring his own children to the states because his ex wife didn't consent to issue them American passports. Petitions, letters to the embassy and his congressman, nothing helped. A 3rd world country his ex wife's a citizen of had no issue with consents, it just issued passports allowing her to get the kids and leave the country they were residing in.
- bnralt 5y ago
  Many Americans seem to believe that, but it doesn't actually seem to be the case. For instance, when Yemen was falling apart, countries like China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and Indonesia all worked hard to evacuate their citizens, many using their military to do so[1]. The U.S. response was to tell American citizens they were on their own[2]. The U.S. embassy even recommended that Americans seek assistance from India if they needed to evacuate[3]. So if anything, I'd say America is worse than other countries at getting citizens out of bad situations. But there seems to be a tendency for people to not look at what other countries actually do and just assume that America is the best. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32162364 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32162364 [2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/21/washington-to-americans-stuck-in-yemen-youre-on-your-own-evacuation/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/21/washington-to-americans... [3] https://twitter.com/SMedia4/status/585286801968893954 https://twitter.com/SMedia4/status/585286801968893954
  - madengr 5y ago
    As a US citizen, you are less likely to be tortured in a foreign prison. This book is a good read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Acid_Gambit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Acid_Gambit
    - ljf 5y ago
      (you seem to have been shadow banned, might be working asking dang why - I couldn't see anything in your history from a mod)
      - maxerickson 5y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23559004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23559004
        aerostable_slug 5y ago
        If non-PC thoughts are against the rules, post those rules in the acceptable use policy. I don't think it's hateful to critically discuss BLM. I do think it's hateful to say "x group is bad", but that's not what I read. I believe BLM to be led by Marxists and that is backed up by objective evidence. I'm not sure why that's controversial. It's also objectively true that George Floyd had a criminal record. Again, I'm not sure why that's controversial. One can be very socially aware and also recognize those two facts. It is indeed problematic that Floyd pointed a gun at the abdomen of a woman whom he thought was pregnant during a home invasion robbery, or that he had significant amounts of narcotics in his system when he died. That doesn't make his death justifiable, it's just the real life complications of a real life case (which tend not to be overly clean). When did we get afraid of objective facts? EDIT: Downvoters: explain why. Simple Q. What is it about facts you don't like?
- e12e 5y ago
  Since the US has preformed drone strikes on its own citizens, I think it's pretty clear that "some citizens are more equal than others" ?
- ska 5y ago
  > U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits. Many citizenship's include extraterritorial benefits, but few of them are as aggressive with foreign income. It's a fair question which countries approaches are the most effective, but this is hardly unique.
- mxfh 5y ago
  That's nothing unique american and quite standard for western democracies. Way more important than military force is legal support and diplomatic weight, to get you extradited, if you end up in your host countries legal system for whatever reason, which is the way more likely thing to happen. It's not unheard of, that dual citizens renounce their more or less vaguely authoritarian citizenship when it's too dangerous to live or visit there with a dual one. Since then the other state has no obligation to intervene and is even blocked from reigning into the affairs of another nation.
- splintercell 5y ago
  > U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits. Since we are stepping out of playing world police, we have stopped doing that FYI in the past 15-20 years incrementally so. This ain't the late 20th century anymore.
- abroadsaver 5y ago
  The US can’t be bothered to help its citizens living abroad with vaccinations even though it has expiring doses. Other countries have done so, AND without the tax compliance demands. So let’s drop this extraterritorial benefits stuff. No benefit the US has provided has been worth the worry, anger, and tedium of trying to be tax compliant in a situation where it’s impossible to be truly compliant (thanks to how irreconcilable foreign arrangements often are to US tax law). https://americanexpatfinance.com/news/item/782-state-dept-reiterates-us-policy-not-to-distribute-vaccines https://americanexpatfinance.com/news/item/782-state-dept-re...
- ReallyOldLurker 5y ago
  Personal anecdote: my brother was robbed in Mexico of everything including shoes. He went to the embassy for assistance. He was give some McDonalds coupons and told to use them when he got across the border. He even asked them to check against police records, knowing that he had an outstanding misdemeanor warrant. No go. No help. At least one of the persons at the embassy was honest and told him that embassies only help government officials, rich, or public figures. Fortunately he eventually found a way to get in contact with us (much, much later). In the end the way to get back is to just try to push through a border gate so that you'll get arrested. Then they'll be forced to confirm your identity.
PeterisP 5y ago
Residency, at least for overseas tax purposes, generally is presumed to transfer whenever (and wherever) you spend 180 days of a year somewhere, so you by definition can't have multiple residencies (unlike nationalities); you can have residency rights/permits in multiple places, but once you become resident somewhere you cease to be resident at your previous country of residence.
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  Can you live without residence? Say I'm sailing around the world. My home country could be thousands of miles away, pretty much unreachable in a practical way. Should that still count as my residence?
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    In some countries Canada for example if you don't take a new residence they will treat your last residence as your residence. India is the opposite. You can work on a boat get paid in India and owe no taxes.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    > Can you live without residence? ding You've just discovered another hidden trick that the ultra-wealthy use to minimize their tax-burdens: in each year, they travel and ensure they do not reside long enough in each country to be considered resident fir tax purposes.
    - dzhiurgis 5y ago
      It's not really a trick if you don't use the services, especially healthcare or education system. I'd be all in for nomad tax at something sane like 10% or some trade pact that you can get healthcare and edu for free anywhere in the world (already the case within EU).
paulddraper 5y ago
> In most Western countries, being a resident is associated with healthcare and pension Then that's the difference. American citizens can collect Social Security while residing in foreign countries. Same with VA benefits.
- mellavora 5y ago
  I think you misunderstood. Most (EU) pension systems also payout worldwide. It is the 'putting in' part which depends on residency.
  - paulddraper 5y ago
    They have one criterion for putting in and a different one for paying out? That would seem.....unfair.
    - ithinkso 5y ago
      What do you mean? You pay in the country you live/work in. You get back your pension wherever you are, from every country you've worked for in your life. Sounds pretty fair to me

by mgbmtl 5y ago

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> Only because of US laws. I have two citizenships, but one residency. U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits. For example, we're pretty good at getting our people out of thorny situations, even at great national expense. If someone isn't paying to support that, it makes sense to force a revocation decision.

not-so 5y ago
What circumstances are those? There are a ton of homeless Americans where I live and the embassy doesn't do anything until they commit a crime as far as I know.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > What circumstances are those? If there is an act of war or natural disaster, the U.S. is good at extracting its citizens. There is also a decent precedent of negotiating to release people taken hostage or held prisoner by unfriendly regimes. (Or causing a fuss when Americans are harmed in a friendly country.) That, in turn, has a deterrent effect. For Americans with access to legal counsel and the State Department, the benefits expand. Rich, overseas Americans thus present a unique free-rider problem.
  - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 5y ago
    For example, Israel goes to extremely great lengths extracting its citizens in trouble (search Operation Entebbe), and no, they don't charge you any taxes if you reside permanently abroad.
    - adolph 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe Such a gruesome story: Kenyan sources supported Israel, and in the aftermath of the operation, Idi Amin issued orders to retaliate and slaughter several hundred Kenyans then present in Uganda. There were 245 Kenyans in Uganda killed and 3,000 fled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin Amin first escaped to Libya, where he stayed until 1980, and ultimately settled in Saudi Arabia, where the Saudi royal family allowed him sanctuary and paid him a generous subsidy in return for staying out of politics.[18] Amin lived for a number of years on the top two floors of the Novotel Hotel on Palestine Road in Jeddah. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455590/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455590/ Movie The Last King of Scotland is Based on the events of the brutal Ugandan dictator Idi Amin's regime as seen by his personal physician during the 1970s.
    - mljoe 5y ago
      You don't have to go that far back. See the recent Surfside tragedy. Israel sent an elite rescue team and set up relief centers to assist displaced persons, regardless if they were Israeli or not.
      - robocat 5y ago
        “Casualties have been disproportionately Jewish because about a third of Surfside residents are Jewish.”
dlisboa 5y ago
That’s only relevant to a tiny percentage of American immigrants who travel/work in conflict zones and unfriendly countries. It could even be said Americans are more at risk in those countries for being American and no other reason. So for people outside of that there won’t be any benefit.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > only relevant to a tiny percentage of American immigrants who travel/work in conflict zones and unfriendly countries I know a (thankfully small) handful of cases in which Americans' kids were arrested in a friendly country. The State Department provided invaluable support. (Recommendations on legal counsel, prudent next steps, relevant authorities' phone numbers...nothing nefarious, just context and support.) I am under no illusion that I, with my resources, would get that sort of access. But it exists, and probably benefits U.S. international business concerns. Since this article concerns itself with rich overseas Americans, I think it's relevant.
  - dlisboa 5y ago
    I think you're under the impression this doesn't happen with other countries too. That's the job of embassies. Obviously the State Department has more funding and resources, but that's really only relevant to how big of a trouble you got yourself into. One thing the US has is more bargaining power to force early release of some people accused of crimes (like Liangelo Ball in China, Anne Sacoolas in UK). That's significant leverage, but again: most people will never find themselves in that situation. But even then it's not like other countries will not imprison you if you're American.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    > Since this article concerns itself with rich overseas Americans, I think it's relevant Not many millionaires are getting arrested in general, due to the availability of lawyers and so on. The US support might be very relevant for a war reported captured by ISIS. But most millionaires are not going to be in those locations and/or able to afford good private security.
dustinmoris 5y ago
> U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits. Not sure about actual benefits. The US passports is one of the worst when it comes to travel. Many countries have stricter entry rules only for US citizen, or require at least a higher Visa fee in comparison to other Western nations or outright don't allow US citizens entry at all. I found my Austrian passport to be actually extremely beneficial. Most powerful passport is still from Singapore when it comes to extraterritorial benefits. In terms of getting people out of thorny situations, countries which don't have citizenship based tax laws are also pretty good at that, if not even better, because the US has in fact a lot of scarred relations with other nations whereas other Western nations have it easier to get a country pull some strings in order to get their people out.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  "One of the worst" maybe if you're comparing to the EU, but definitely not in a wider global sense.
  - ElFitz 5y ago
    > "One of the worst" maybe if you're comparing to the EU, but definitely not in a wider global sense. Definitely. But comparing the benefits of US citizenship to that of, say, Venezuela or Tchad would be pointless, now, wouldn’t it?
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      Why would that be pointless?
      - ElFitz 5y ago
        Mostly because the gap in international political reach and leverage, respective economic situations and means are too huge for there to be a point. Also because I suspect the population here to likely be mostly from Western countries. Cf dang’s comment[1] stating that 50% of the userbase is from the US [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25787770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25787770
leoedin 5y ago
Most Western countries have some level of extraterritorial benefits. At least in the UK they're nominally "paid for" by the cost of the passport. If you're a dual citizen with another country you have no obligation to get a passport - but shouldn't expect help without one.
MangoCoffee 5y ago
>we're pretty good at getting our people out of thorny situations, even at great national expense. If someone isn't paying to support that, it makes sense to force a revocation decision. how many American get into that kind of shit storm? it seem like this benefit isn't worth the taxes that you pay
- rs999gti 5y ago
  The US may or may not have paid $2M to get Warmbier our of North Korea https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/north-korea-issued-2-million-bill-for-comatose-otto-warmbiers-care/2019/04/25/0e8022a0-66ad-11e9-a698-2a8f808c9cfb_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/north-kore...
  - petre 5y ago
    He died, so it didn't do much help.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      What difference does that make? Is the ambulance worthless because not everybody it picks up lives?
      - stickfigure 5y ago
        The value I assign to "my government will ensure repatriation of my corpse" is $0.
        emodendroket 5y ago
        Which is not what happened, given that he died after he got home. Again, not seeing how this is different than blaming the ambulance because you died in the ER.
      - imwillofficial 5y ago
        Too little too late makes all the difference in the world.
vagrantJin 5y ago
I needed to laugh really hard at this because it encapulates the US citizen's mind so perfectly. Partly because the US lives in my head rent free. Is it because every single US diplomatic relation is in one way or other tied to the military? If a jibali captures an operator then fair enough. The US is very preachy about their soldiers. But for a civilian to think about that as a benefit is just wild.
- dylan604 5y ago
  "cīvis rōmānus sum" It's not like the US made this up. The Roman citizens had this protection too as they wandered the globe.
  - aerostable_slug 5y ago
    Yes, but we can actually make it happen (relatively quickly). Last year, Navy SEALs from the Navy's Special Mission Unit parachuted in the dead of night to save a missionary. When's the last time the armed forces of Brunei did that? Or DRC? Or Azerbaijan? The answer is never. Intent != capability. I'm sure Paraguay wishes they could put commandos on the ground anywhere in the world in hours, but the fact is that they can't. Being American is like having an American Express Card: membership has its privileges.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      The Romans might not have been able to air drop centurians into battle overnight, so yeah, you might wind up a martyr for Rome, but when they eventually did get there vengance was a mofo.
consumer451 5y ago
> U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits. For example, we're pretty good at getting our people out of thorny situations, even at great national expense. Are we? I’ve been told to use my other passport if ever in a situation like that. Are there any stats that support either case?
tshaddox 5y ago
So what about American citizens who legally don’t pay any federal taxes? Like, say, children? Should they receive “extraterritorial benefits”?
SerLava 5y ago
Just a warning: this isn't necessarily true. They'll only do it if there is a political benefit. Otherwise there is no duty to assist you.
- janeroe 5y ago
  > They'll only do it if there is a political benefit. This is also how it works with other countries (e.g., Russia). They'll help if they get something out of it, or won't give a damn otherwise.
marcosdumay 5y ago
Most countries grant those same benefits.
- aerostable_slug 5y ago
  But they don't have a MEU sitting off conflict zones waiting to leap into action. The United States will literally send the Marines to save a citizen. A person from, say, Ecuador probably doesn't enjoy the same amount of risk coverage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_expeditionary_unit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_expeditionary_unit
  - 1024core 5y ago
    You've been watching too many movies, I'm afraid. The reality is (and it happened in Yemen recently) that the US will just shrug and tell you to go ask some other country for help. No MEUs set foot in Yemen when things went south there.
    - aerostable_slug 5y ago
      The last I heard, the Houthis let the Americans go. Navy SEALs from the Navy SMU parachuted into Africa in the dead of night to save a missionary kidnapped from a known conflict zone, killing 6 of 7 combatants (one wonders if they let the last guy go to spread Fear amongst his fellows). Perhaps some of you had different experiences (and/or perhaps the State Department really, really wanted you to leave), but that doesn't erase the rescue of Americans such as this man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nigeria_hostage_rescue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nigeria_hostage_rescue We sent the best of the best in to save him. Not the JV team, the varsity. Before you whine, ask yourselves if perhaps there was some motive to telling you that nobody would help you if you didn't leave. Maybe they were trying to manage their risk.
      - 1024core 5y ago
        > to save a missionary That could have been just Trump pandering to his base. Moreover, from your link: > Additionally American aid worker Jeffery Woodke was kidnapped from Abalak in October 2016, and is believed to be held in Mali. How come no SEALs have parachuted to rescue Jeffery yet, huh? Reinforces my theory that it was just election-time pandering by Trump. You're telling me that the US will do that for every Tom, Dick and Harry who gets caught by some $EVILDOER anywhere on this planet? Fat chance! > The last I heard, the Houthis let the Americans go. But how did they get out? Who picked them up?
janeroe 5y ago
> For example, we're pretty good at getting our people out of thorny situations How thorny a situation has to be? Because I'm aware of a case when an American couldn't bring his own children to the states because his ex wife didn't consent to issue them American passports. Petitions, letters to the embassy and his congressman, nothing helped. A 3rd world country his ex wife's a citizen of had no issue with consents, it just issued passports allowing her to get the kids and leave the country they were residing in.
bnralt 5y ago
Many Americans seem to believe that, but it doesn't actually seem to be the case. For instance, when Yemen was falling apart, countries like China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and Indonesia all worked hard to evacuate their citizens, many using their military to do so[1]. The U.S. response was to tell American citizens they were on their own[2]. The U.S. embassy even recommended that Americans seek assistance from India if they needed to evacuate[3]. So if anything, I'd say America is worse than other countries at getting citizens out of bad situations. But there seems to be a tendency for people to not look at what other countries actually do and just assume that America is the best. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32162364 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32162364 [2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/21/washington-to-americans-stuck-in-yemen-youre-on-your-own-evacuation/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/21/washington-to-americans... [3] https://twitter.com/SMedia4/status/585286801968893954 https://twitter.com/SMedia4/status/585286801968893954
- madengr 5y ago
  As a US citizen, you are less likely to be tortured in a foreign prison. This book is a good read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Acid_Gambit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Acid_Gambit
  - ljf 5y ago
    (you seem to have been shadow banned, might be working asking dang why - I couldn't see anything in your history from a mod)
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23559004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23559004
      - aerostable_slug 5y ago
        If non-PC thoughts are against the rules, post those rules in the acceptable use policy. I don't think it's hateful to critically discuss BLM. I do think it's hateful to say "x group is bad", but that's not what I read. I believe BLM to be led by Marxists and that is backed up by objective evidence. I'm not sure why that's controversial. It's also objectively true that George Floyd had a criminal record. Again, I'm not sure why that's controversial. One can be very socially aware and also recognize those two facts. It is indeed problematic that Floyd pointed a gun at the abdomen of a woman whom he thought was pregnant during a home invasion robbery, or that he had significant amounts of narcotics in his system when he died. That doesn't make his death justifiable, it's just the real life complications of a real life case (which tend not to be overly clean). When did we get afraid of objective facts? EDIT: Downvoters: explain why. Simple Q. What is it about facts you don't like?
e12e 5y ago
Since the US has preformed drone strikes on its own citizens, I think it's pretty clear that "some citizens are more equal than others" ?
ska 5y ago
> U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits. Many citizenship's include extraterritorial benefits, but few of them are as aggressive with foreign income. It's a fair question which countries approaches are the most effective, but this is hardly unique.
mxfh 5y ago
That's nothing unique american and quite standard for western democracies. Way more important than military force is legal support and diplomatic weight, to get you extradited, if you end up in your host countries legal system for whatever reason, which is the way more likely thing to happen. It's not unheard of, that dual citizens renounce their more or less vaguely authoritarian citizenship when it's too dangerous to live or visit there with a dual one. Since then the other state has no obligation to intervene and is even blocked from reigning into the affairs of another nation.
splintercell 5y ago
> U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits. Since we are stepping out of playing world police, we have stopped doing that FYI in the past 15-20 years incrementally so. This ain't the late 20th century anymore.
abroadsaver 5y ago
The US can’t be bothered to help its citizens living abroad with vaccinations even though it has expiring doses. Other countries have done so, AND without the tax compliance demands. So let’s drop this extraterritorial benefits stuff. No benefit the US has provided has been worth the worry, anger, and tedium of trying to be tax compliant in a situation where it’s impossible to be truly compliant (thanks to how irreconcilable foreign arrangements often are to US tax law). https://americanexpatfinance.com/news/item/782-state-dept-reiterates-us-policy-not-to-distribute-vaccines https://americanexpatfinance.com/news/item/782-state-dept-re...
ReallyOldLurker 5y ago
Personal anecdote: my brother was robbed in Mexico of everything including shoes. He went to the embassy for assistance. He was give some McDonalds coupons and told to use them when he got across the border. He even asked them to check against police records, knowing that he had an outstanding misdemeanor warrant. No go. No help. At least one of the persons at the embassy was honest and told him that embassies only help government officials, rich, or public figures. Fortunately he eventually found a way to get in contact with us (much, much later). In the end the way to get back is to just try to push through a border gate so that you'll get arrested. Then they'll be forced to confirm your identity.

PeterisP 5y ago

Residency, at least for overseas tax purposes, generally is presumed to transfer whenever (and wherever) you spend 180 days of a year somewhere, so you by definition can't have multiple residencies (unlike nationalities); you can have residency rights/permits in multiple places, but once you become resident somewhere you cease to be resident at your previous country of residence.

dzhiurgis 5y ago
Can you live without residence? Say I'm sailing around the world. My home country could be thousands of miles away, pretty much unreachable in a practical way. Should that still count as my residence?
- ipaddr 5y ago
  In some countries Canada for example if you don't take a new residence they will treat your last residence as your residence. India is the opposite. You can work on a boat get paid in India and owe no taxes.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > Can you live without residence? ding You've just discovered another hidden trick that the ultra-wealthy use to minimize their tax-burdens: in each year, they travel and ensure they do not reside long enough in each country to be considered resident fir tax purposes.
  - dzhiurgis 5y ago
    It's not really a trick if you don't use the services, especially healthcare or education system. I'd be all in for nomad tax at something sane like 10% or some trade pact that you can get healthcare and edu for free anywhere in the world (already the case within EU).

paulddraper 5y ago

> In most Western countries, being a resident is associated with healthcare and pension Then that's the difference. American citizens can collect Social Security while residing in foreign countries. Same with VA benefits.

mellavora 5y ago
I think you misunderstood. Most (EU) pension systems also payout worldwide. It is the 'putting in' part which depends on residency.
- paulddraper 5y ago
  They have one criterion for putting in and a different one for paying out? That would seem.....unfair.
  - ithinkso 5y ago
    What do you mean? You pay in the country you live/work in. You get back your pension wherever you are, from every country you've worked for in your life. Sounds pretty fair to me