tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2424131704277823220.post7199484107462343639..comments2023-09-23T11:16:00.352+02:00Comments on The Franco-American Flophouse has moved: Citizenship 101 for AmericansVictoria FERAUGEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16319699673885400472noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2424131704277823220.post-30752240878122712362013-02-05T07:16:39.432+01:002013-02-05T07:16:39.432+01:00@badger, Ah thank you for the book recommendation...@badger, Ah thank you for the book recommendations. I don't have either of them.<br /><br />Yep, that was a pretty sad period in American history. But the Americans were not unusual in doing this. In fact a lot of countries especially in Europe did this including France at one point. Here's a post on it:<br /><br />http://thefranco-americanflophouse.blogspot.fr/2011/04/citizenship-by-jus-sanguinis-not-so.html<br /><br />"The Civil Code of 1803 which instituted jus sanguinis in France was restricted to children of French fathers. The man was considered the head of the house and so citizenship, like the family name, followed the father's line, not the mother's. This led to a rather disagreeable situation: most people born of foreign fathers in France were not French citizens and so could not be drafted into the army. Given the events of late 19th century Europe, this was a terrible state of affairs from the point of view of the French State. This was rectified by a law passed in 1889 which allowed for double jus soli - a child born in France of a French-born non-citizen parent became a French citizen automatically."<br /><br />So it was changed in France not for any reasons of equality or justice but because too many sons of these former Frenchwomen were escaping the army and the draft. :-)<br />Victoria FERAUGEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16319699673885400472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2424131704277823220.post-79413721415782569092013-02-05T06:27:41.540+01:002013-02-05T06:27:41.540+01:00Victoria, I just saw this article, and thought it ...Victoria, I just saw this article, and thought it tied in with your post.<br />http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/186542121.html?refer=y<br />'The citizens a nation and time forgot' by: DANIEL SWALM<br /> Updated: January 12, 2013 - 11:58 AM<br /><br />"Back then, the women who were wed to unnaturalized immigrants remained noncitizens"<br />..."the 59th Congress of the United States passed a really bad law (even by congressional standards): The Expatriation Act of 1907.<br /><br />One provision of the law was this: If an American-born woman, a native-born U.S. citizen, married a legal immigrant, well, then, that woman lost her American citizenship. Poof. Gone. Kaput. Vanished into thin air. Congress, in all its wisdom, didn't trust a woman to be both a good wife to an immigrant husband and a good citizen of the country in which she was born.<br />".....<br /><br />There is more here: <br />A Nationality of Her Own<br />Women, Marriage, and the Law of Citizenship<br />Candice Lewis Bredbenner<br />UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS<br />Berkeley · Los Angeles · Oxford<br />© 1998 The Regents of the University of California<br /><br />and, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_Act_of_1907#cite_note-14<br />......"However, the Cable Act itself continued to provide for the loss of citizenship by American women who married "aliens ineligible to citizenship", namely non-whites.[14]...<br /><br />and this book:<br />see<br />Chapter 2<br />America's Prodigal Daughters and Dutiful Wives:<br />Debating the Expatriation Act of 1907http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft0g500376&chunk.id=d0e1630&toc.id=&brand=ucpress<br /><br />badgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2424131704277823220.post-50300217130331032982012-03-26T08:28:26.737+02:002012-03-26T08:28:26.737+02:00Hello Marcio,
Welcome to the Flophouse and thanks...Hello Marcio,<br /><br />Welcome to the Flophouse and thanks for your question which is a very good one. I'm not a tax lawyer so you might also want to ask this question on a blog like this one http://hodgen.com/phils-blog/ This is Phil Hodgen's International Tax Blog and it's one of the best sources of info I've found.<br /><br />However I was also able to find this site on the IRS website http://www.irs.gov/businesses/article/0,,id=187083,00.html<br /><br />and the answer is "it depends." What's clear is that the US person (citizen or Green card holder) receiving that pension income must declare it to the US government wherever they happen to be living. And then that person must check to see if there is a treaty between the US and the foreign country. If there isn't then that person might be able to claim a Foreign Tax Credit to lessen the amount of US tax due.<br /><br />I read through the entire page and my best take on this is that this not a "Do It Yourself" situation. I think anyone in this situation definitely needs professional help (a good international tax lawyer).<br /><br />And that means, I'm sorry to say, that even if the person doesn't owe US taxes he or she is looking at paying a fairly expensive tax professional in order to file correctly.<br /><br />Hope that helps,<br /><br />VictoriaVictoria FERAUGEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16319699673885400472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2424131704277823220.post-30885088596048713862012-03-25T16:37:15.446+02:002012-03-25T16:37:15.446+02:00Is it true that Americans living in France don´t p...Is it true that Americans living in France don´t pay US Income Tax on their French pensions?Marcionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2424131704277823220.post-91737242838662474492012-03-21T15:53:12.460+01:002012-03-21T15:53:12.460+01:00Hi Dorothy,
Thanks so much for your comment and f...Hi Dorothy,<br /><br />Thanks so much for your comment and for pointing out that children of diplomats are exempt. You are absolutely right that they do not get U.S. citizenship by jus soli.<br /><br />And thanks for adding the additional requirements that American fathers must comply with in order to transmit his citizenship to an out-of-wedlock child. I did get a note about this that explained that the rules that favor unmarried American women constitutes extra protection for fatherless children. My answer would be: are motherless children less worthy and not in need of protection? I just can't see how gender discrimination in this matter can be justified. I agree with you that, in a modern age these rules are simply archaic and unfair.<br /><br />If someone out there has a different take on it I'd love to hear the argument. Perhaps there is something in here I'm missing?Victoria FERAUGEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16319699673885400472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2424131704277823220.post-51905065673173021512012-03-21T09:14:35.582+01:002012-03-21T09:14:35.582+01:00Victoria, thanks for your clear explanations.
Not...Victoria, thanks for your clear explanations.<br /><br />Note that a child born to foreign diplomats in the U.S. does not get American nationality.<br /><br />Also, on the out-of-wedlock births, not only does the U.S. citizen father - assuming a non-citizen mother - have to have the 5 yrs/2 yrs residence in U.S. to transmit, but ALSO there must be clear proof of a blood relationship; paternity must be formally acknowledged before child is 18; and father must agree to give financial support until age of 18.<br /><br />It's hard not to see this as legislation of a bygone era, with presumptions of a U.S. girl seduced by the wily "foreigner", but on the other side, a U.S. guy having a fling with a "loose" foreign woman (well, boys will be boys)and being protected from the consequences. Nowadays, with DNA testing, it's just as clear who the father is as who the mother is, and similar rules should apply.Dorothynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2424131704277823220.post-76731896733088534632012-03-18T11:13:33.124+01:002012-03-18T11:13:33.124+01:00The different rules for unmarried mothers versus u...The different rules for unmarried mothers versus unmarried fathers were maintained by the Supreme Court in the Flores-Villar case (2011).Karl Jauchhttp://www.aca.chnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2424131704277823220.post-34608918548005393182012-03-18T08:16:39.576+01:002012-03-18T08:16:39.576+01:00Karl,
Thank so much for reading and for leaving y...Karl,<br /><br />Thank so much for reading and for leaving your comment. <br /><br />Yes, you are absolutely right about the residency requirements which, quite honestly, don't seem terribly onerous. I could well imagine a situation where the citizen parent lived in the US from birth to school age (4-5 years) and then left for another country and then came back to the US for 2 years of high school, college or to work.<br /><br />That is for a child born to a married couple where one parent is an American citizen. I went back and read the DOS website and looked again at the rules for out of wedlock births and that seems to be an entirely different story. The only residency requirements seems to be 1 year of continuous residency by the mother in the US at some point before the birth. <br /><br />That seems strange. Why would there be different residency requirements for transmission of US citizenship by married versus unmarried US citizens?<br /><br /> Does anyone know?Victoria FERAUGEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16319699673885400472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2424131704277823220.post-71963565844830917252012-03-17T19:56:23.466+01:002012-03-17T19:56:23.466+01:00Thanks for an interesting blog. It should be point...Thanks for an interesting blog. It should be pointed out that the US residency requirement for transmission of US citizenship to a child born abroad to an American and non-American married couple is a total of at least five years, at least two of which have to be after the age of 14 but before the birth of the child.Karl Jauchhttp://www.aca.chnoreply@blogger.com