5 ms·

If you want the protection and support of US embassies and military while abroad then pay your American taxes. If you don't want to participate in American soc

• joelhaasnoot 15y ago
  Won't they come get you and then charge you for the privilege? Plus this only works ofcourse if you've registered and told them the precise location of your house to the embassy.
• Game_Ender 15y ago
  > I suppose I could renounce, too – but they won’t let you do that until you’ve filed your back tax returns. According to the article that is impossible.
  • parfe 15y ago
    According to the article they reneged on tax obligations while keeping their American citizenship. It's one or the other.
    • unreal37 15y ago
      According to the article, she left the US when she was 11 and has never lived in the US since. And now the US government wants a significant amount of all the money she has ever earned through adulthood. Is that fair?
      • parfe 15y ago
        She failed to file tax returns. Likely she never owed any money. How is the IRS supposed to know she falls below the collection limits if she never filed?
        • jarek 15y ago
          Hmm... how does the IRS know people file fraudulent claims?
        • numeromancer 15y ago
          Dear Mr/Ms Parfe, Please provide definitive proof that you are not a pederast by no later than thursday of this week. Please provide the requested material so that we can resolve this matter as quickly as possible. Thank You. Ima Cog, Undersecretary of Legal Enchainment.
• rickdangerous1 15y ago
  Other countries give consular support to non resident citizens without ridiculous tax laws. Citizens don't get military support so I don't understand that point.
  • parfe 15y ago
    >Citizens don't get military support so I don't understand that point. Except when they do. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-us-to-evacuate-americans-from-japan-031711/ http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-us-to-evacua... http://www.businessinsider.com/senior-us-marine-says-multiple-platoons-are-headed-to-egypt-2011-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/senior-us-marine-says-multipl...
    • rickdangerous1 15y ago
      Other countries do evacuations like that using military or civilian transports without needing crazy taxation laws.
• nhebb 15y ago
  While you are technically correct, the idea of needing the US military support while "abroad" in Canada is pretty funny. What are they going to do, call in an air strike if attacked by a puffin?
  • parfe 15y ago
    You don't think these US citizens in Canada ever vacation elsewhere? Did you see Canada deploying troops to Egypt during their revolution to evacuate Canadian citizens? Canada issued a travel warning. America deployed Marines. Which passport would you wave around if you were stuck in Cairo?
    • lutorm 15y ago
      Of course this is circular reasoning. It's precisely because America deploys Marines everywhere that Americans NEED to be rescued. Their country's actions make them targets.
      • pyre 15y ago
        If you were visiting another country and ended up in the middle of a civil war, you would probably want Marines to extract you even if you were from a country that doesn't 'make you a target.' In general, Americans have been seen as targets for a long time (even when foreign relations were good) because they were seen as 'rich foreigners.' My grandpa would even say that when going back to Poland to visit family, there were a lot of people that were just looking for hand-outs that assumed he was rich because he was an American (he was not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination).
        • gst 15y ago
          If I were stuck in Cairo I would just drive to the airport by myself, where my country has organized flights to extract the citizens. No problem at all. If you live in a neutral country that does not attack other countries for fun, people around the world are quite friendly to you. And even the sitation in Cairo wasn't as bad as reported in the media (at least according to what I've heard from the people who've been stuck there).
• objclxt 15y ago
  I think you're being a bit misleading there: if you live in Canada or the UK you'll get the protection and support of their consulates and government whilst abroad, and you won't have to pay taxes on your earnings (if you're a genuine expat, rather than short-term travel). I used to work in the Middle East in a western compound, and this was a huge bug-bear between the US citizens and the EU/Canadian ones. Under the US's system you could leave the US as a baby, never take advantage of any of the services provided by the US, and still be expected to pay taxes on your foreign earnings in perpetuity.
• Maxious 15y ago
  As it clearly says in the third last paragraph linked article, they won't "let" you do this if you owe taxes. Indeed the page you linked confirms this in the bottom section entitled "Expatriation After June 16, 2008" that renouncing your citizenship at the present date will make you immediately liable to pay "income tax on the net unrealized gain in your property as if the property had been sold for its fair market value" if you earn more than $145k, are worth more than $2mil, or -most importantly- you have failed to pay the IRS in any of the 5 previous years. So it's not a solution for these American-born-Canadians that were not aware until now that they were required to pay tax in the US.
  • parfe 15y ago
    >So it's not a solution for these American-born-Canadians that were not aware until now that they were required to pay tax in the US. They knew. I know! and I've never been out of the US for longer than two weeks! It's not some secret or trap the IRS has set. What they are complaining about now is that the IRS is finally trying to collect.
    • pyre 15y ago
      Microsoft's Windows is stable, I tell you! I've never once had a crash! All those BSODs that people complain about are their own damn fault!
      • srl 15y ago
        I know, right? It says right on page 673 of the manual not to click that button twice without at least six intervening seconds - and it's even in bold! More seriously: yes, what they are complaining about is that the IRS is finally trying to collect. So one could claim that "they are complaining because the law is finally being enforced", and be technically correct. The important point here though is that the law (as with many American laws) is somewhat nonsensical, and therefore relies on the enforcers to use their own best judgement (cringe) and not do anything brain-dead and/or clearly outside the spirit of the law (which was meant to keep then-millionairs, now-billionairs from leaving the country to escape back taxes). Additionally. In general, you can hardly expect the finest citizen to have an understanding of the law even approaching what one might reasonably call "adequate". Aside from the bloated body of legislation passed by Congress (where previous laws are often modified by lines like "replacing the word 'as' of section 4, subparagraph 3, with the word 'of'), one must also contend with case law (i.e. precedents set by courts - harder to understand and arguably more important), regulations (have more of a direct impact on individuals, are thankfully somewhat easier to comprehend, but there are /way/ more), and the occasional executive order (500-word sentences, anybody?). And that's just at the national level - state and local governing bodies are their own legal morass. And, of course, if you leave the country, you get to deal with extradition treaties and, quite likely, whatever treaties are most relevant to your "crime" - and therefore the relevant regulations (on both sides) etc. So, when Americans complain about enforcement of laws, it's because the laws were never actually meant to be enforced. And it's a symptom of a broken legal system, but one that is unlikely to be fixed in the near future. So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past. (Yes, I just stuck that last part in because I felt I needed a profound closer.)
• brador 15y ago
  In a sense, you are correct. They must have known of the option to renounce, yet never took it, no doubt taking advantage of the laws and protections afforded by both countries as it suited them. However, the fact that this has happened now is shocking for many.
  • pyre 15y ago
    > no doubt taking advantage of the laws and protections > afforded by both countries as it suited them. It's more likely that they just wanted easier passage into the United States for vacationing and/or visiting relatives by using their US passport than their Canadian one. Also, if you lived in Canada since you were 13 and committed a crime in Canada, I doubt that you would be able to claim that you were immune due to your US citizenship. On the same token, I've heard that the US enforces its laws overseas if your a US citizen. E.g. if you go to another country to have sex with a child prostitute, you can still be charged with a crime in the US, or so I was told on some message board (want to say slashdot.org) some years ago in a US/foreign discussion.
    • parfe 15y ago
      >if you go to another country to have sex with a child prostitute, you can still be charged with a crime in the US, or so I was told on some message board Now you've been told on this message board. Mann Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act Protect Act of 2003 http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1467.html http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1467.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
    • Hyena 15y ago
      Yep. It is illegal for a US citizen to travel abroad to solicit sex with a child. But I'm not sure the concept is so outrageous; I think most countries illegalize certain behavior overseas, like smuggling, weapons or person trafficking, or corrupting officials.
      • pyre 15y ago
• timsco 15y ago
  The Canadian government advises you to go to a British consulate if a Canadian one can't be reached while abroad. I think it's the only benefit of having the queen on our money left.
  • arethuza 15y ago
    Canada might be left our nuclear submarines in the national equivalent of a will: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort Whether you would want them is another question!
  • jarek 15y ago
    To be fair, it's pretty standard for smaller nations to collaborate and share resources with allied larger nations when it comes to embassy matters.