3 ms·

Your statement that the US cannot impose criminal penalties against non-citizens is very wrong. There are a bunch of non-citizens in the USA who are arrested a

by gm 14y ago

Your statement that the US cannot impose criminal penalties against non-citizens is very wrong. There are a bunch of non-citizens in the USA who are arrested and penalized if they commit a crime. there are countless extraditions that happen for foreigners who commit crimes against US interests while being outside of this country. and of course there is Guantanamo. No one is unreachable from the US, American citizen or not. And what Saverin did is _legal_. You cannot have something be partially legal, or technically legal but somehow still illegal; it's the same with being pregnant. You either are, or are not. There is no middle ground. And if we were smart, we would grant Saverin a visa right away. Anyone in the USA would prefer that money is invested in the USA than anywhere else. Or do we not want outside investment? "We don't want your money, go create jobs somewhere else!"

mistercow 14y ago
The law provides for a deterrent penalty to be used against people who renounce their citizenship to avoid taxation. Whether or not that makes it "illegal" is a matter of semantics and completely irrelevant to whether or not the law should be enforced. And yes, there is some revenue lost by not letting a billionaire into the country, but that has to be weighed against the consequences of letting people skip out to avoid taxation.
- intev 14y ago
  I think you're making an assumption here that when they forgo citizenship they get all the good stuff (money) and they don't have to deal with the bad stuff (taxes). Saverin won't be able to make an investment in the US easily. He also won't be able to own or buy properties/businesses. If he truly wanted to earn more, he would pay up the taxes in order to take advantage of the privileges of being in a country like the USA. I'm not from here, and you guys have it great. If I were in Saverin's position, I would choose to stay because I would still want to contribute to the economy. But I also see the argument for wanting to take time off in other countries. I think its incredibly unfair for a ex-citizen to be denied a visa just because he chose to forgo its privileges and taxes.

by gm 14y ago

mistercow 14y ago

The law provides for a deterrent penalty to be used against people who renounce their citizenship to avoid taxation. Whether or not that makes it "illegal" is a matter of semantics and completely irrelevant to whether or not the law should be enforced. And yes, there is some revenue lost by not letting a billionaire into the country, but that has to be weighed against the consequences of letting people skip out to avoid taxation.

intev 14y ago
I think you're making an assumption here that when they forgo citizenship they get all the good stuff (money) and they don't have to deal with the bad stuff (taxes). Saverin won't be able to make an investment in the US easily. He also won't be able to own or buy properties/businesses. If he truly wanted to earn more, he would pay up the taxes in order to take advantage of the privileges of being in a country like the USA. I'm not from here, and you guys have it great. If I were in Saverin's position, I would choose to stay because I would still want to contribute to the economy. But I also see the argument for wanting to take time off in other countries. I think its incredibly unfair for a ex-citizen to be denied a visa just because he chose to forgo its privileges and taxes.