As I was writing the post on Turkey and dual nationality, a conversation I had here in Japan flashed through my mind but I decided to leave it for later. The core issue is: Can you get your French national back if you renounce it? The person (French) I was talking to believed that it was easy to reclaim French nationality, and therefore, no worries for a French about becoming Japanese. The day she wants to leave Japan she simply applies to be "reintegrated." Easy peasy.
Now far be it from me to argue with a French citizen about this. But I have lived in France for a long time and in my experience French citizens don't always follows changes to immigration or citizenship law. This person could be wrong, could have missed something. On the other hand I sure hope this person does check it out before doing something irrevocable. Because it turns out that, well, it's complicated. So complicated that I read a bunch of articles that seemed to say conflicting things and so I threw up my hands and went to look at the law and at government websites. What follows here is what I was able to determine from those sources, which I tried to verify in the décret n° 93-1362 du 30 décembre 1993, (the updated version as of 29 septembre 2017). I nearly went blind reading so if there are any errors or nuances I missed, please let me know.
Voluntarily Losing French Nationality: There are different ways to do this depending on the situation: Repudiation is available to French citizens with a non-French parent upon reaching their majority or following the naturalization of a French citizen who has married a citizen of another country and that country does not accept dual nationality. Or it can be done through a declaration following the acquisition of another nationality. The Declaration is a limited time offer - 1 year to apply after acquiring another citizenship. After the year is up one can still ask to be Liberated from the Ties of Allegiance to France under certain conditions.
Some of the conditions are pretty standard like having another nationality so the person won't be stateless. The would-be-renouncer must also prove that he or she is French and that may involve getting a certificat de nationalité française - something that takes time in my experience. He must also provide a certificate from the country of which he is a citizen with information about how and when it was acquired. And he must prove that he habitually and durably lives abroad (at least 10 years) and has no unmet obligations to the French state. The state also reserves the right to examine the motives that the citizen has for making the request. Tax avoidance, for example. If those conditions are not met and they are not satisfied that the motives are pure, the French government can refuse the request. If it is granted than a decree is issued and published in the paper version of the official government journal.
Reclaiming French Nationality: How she gets it back depends on how the French citizen gave it up. The process is called reintegration. Yes, it can be done but again there are conditions.
The easiest is Reintegration by Declaration which is available to those who lost French nationality via marriage. The I-want-to-be-a-citizen-again must show that she has retained ties to France and may not have acted against the interests of France abroad or have committed crimes.
In the case of a French citizen who was Liberated from the Ties of Allegiance (decree) it's more complicated and there are more conditions. It can't be done through a declaration; it must be done via another decree. And, in essence, the I-want-to-be-a-citizen-again is treated as if he was an immigrant seeking naturalization. The state asks for proof of assimilation and adherence to the values of the Republic. Her life is examined in terms of morals and good conduct in addition to not having been caught doing something criminal like not paying taxes. And, finally, he must come back and live in France. Here again the state has the right to refuse the request.
So the French citizen I spoke to is, in principle, correct that it is possible to renounce French citizenship and then get it back. That said, it appears loss via declaration due to marriage or naturalization (if done within 1 year) would be much safer and easier than trying to get it back via decree. I can also see how a French citizen could theoretically do an end run around Japan's laws against dual nationality: become Japanese, renounce via declaration, apply for reintegration, move back to France as a French citizen, retain Japanese citizenship on the sly. However, getting that French citizenship back is not at all a sure thing and is contingent on things like how the former French citizen has lived his/her life abroad.
Fascinating.
Showing posts with label citizenship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label citizenship. Show all posts
Friday, September 29, 2017
Sunday, April 9, 2017
Not Everyone Wants to Be a Citizen (Updated)
Today's post is one that I have already updated twice. The more people I talk to, the more I learn. In my research, I found more reasons why people don't want to become citizens of the countries where they have lived for many years. These conversations further challenge two assumptions in many articles about citizenship and dual nationality: 1. Everyone wants to become a citizen and 2. becoming a citizen is always in the best interests of all migrants.
Not every migrant hits a distant shore with the intention of seeking full citizenship. This may be because he or she does not plan to stay very long (though he might change his mind over time) or because he or she sees that it is clearly not in his best interests. Yes, you heard me - becoming a citizen of a nation-state is not necessarily a good deal for everyone.
Today, let's take off the rose-colored glasses and examine a few reasons why many prefer to be legal residents (they may just seek the Right to Reside) and may never choose to become citizens in their host countries:
The Rights of a Citizen are not Attractive: Many migrants are not interested in voting or running for office and some do not intend to reside permanently in that country. Many migrants are not planning to bring over their families and they have no desire to work in sectors restricted to citizens like the defense industry or to become a "fonctionnaire." In some places migrants see that full citizenship does not guarantee them the same level of rights as other citizens. Within the spectrum of citizens from birthright to naturalized, they see clearly that some are more privileged than others. Why would they want to go through the hassle just to become a "second-class citizen" with fewer de facto rights than the native born?
The Duties of a Citizen are Unacceptable: Military service in that country, for example, or taxation. The U.S. taxes ALL its citizens at home and abroad regardless of where they are living. Why would a bright young highly-qualified global migrant take that deal? Let's say he moves to the U.S. to work for a few years, becomes a citizen, and then is offered a wonderful opportunity in Asia. Since he is a U.S. citizen, the US government taxation and reporting requirements will follow him to China and he will spend much time and energy staying compliant. If marrying the United States means having the American Internal Revenue Service as a mother-in-law for life, then, frankly, for many migrants that is a ball and chain they do not need or want.
Loss of Other Citizenship(s): For some it is possible that they will lose or put at risk the citizenship of their country or countries of origin. Most states now accept dual nationality but not all and some migrants do not want to deprive their future children of the right to be born citizens of the country of their parents and grand-parents. It becomes even more of a loss when the individual already has two or even three citizenships. If giving up one is hard, imagine multiple trips to multiple consulates in order to renounce. This can be particularly hard for those who have a very desirable citizenship that is harder to get and opens doors in many countries like EU citizenship.
Loss of Spouse: All migrants live in a web of relationships and there are other people who have interests he/she can not ignore. A spouse may want the migrant to maintain that citizenship in the hopes of one day moving to the other country under favorable family reunification laws. Or the spouse may have entered the marriage with the idea that their children would be dual nationals by birth. When a migrant wants to become a citizen in a country that does not allow him or her to keep the former citizenship(s), the spouse may be vehemently opposed to it because he/she sees that it is not in his/her interest or in the interests of their future children. Delicate negotiations ahead and the citizen spouse has real power and influence here.
Loss of Protection: Citizens have the right to ask for the aid and protection of their states of citizenship. In the case of dual nationals the principle of "dominant nationality" may be applied and they may no longer be able to ask for help of the country of which which they are a citizen but not a resident. So a French/American in the U.S would in theory not be able to ask France to help him in the event he falls afoul of U.S. law.
Political Ambitions: Just because some democratic nation-states allow dual nationality does not mean that the public accepts it. If a migrant would like one day to run for office in his home country or serve in a high position in the government, his other nationality may be a problem. Even where it is allowed by law, there is a real possibility that he won't be selected or elected by the home country constituents if he voluntarily naturalized on another country.
Loss of property and inheritance rights: Apparently this used to be true of certain countries. It is still, theoretically, possible. Imagine a migrant has an inheritance or property dispute in the home country. The sheer effort that will be required to defend his rights (not to mention the look on the judge's face when he/she find out that the migrants lives in and is now a citizen of another country) will be substantial which gives a distinct "home court advantage" to his adversaries.
Family Responsibilities: Many migrants have aging or ill parents in the home country. If taking on another citizenship means that they cannot easily go back to the home country to care for them, that's a problem for the migrant, for his family and even for the country they live in. Who will take care of them if the migrant cannot return?
Social Pressure: The people in the home country may be genuinely offended that a migrant is considering becoming the citizen of another country and they let them know it. Even where the law permits dual nationality, public feeling is against it.
Not every migrant hits a distant shore with the intention of seeking full citizenship. This may be because he or she does not plan to stay very long (though he might change his mind over time) or because he or she sees that it is clearly not in his best interests. Yes, you heard me - becoming a citizen of a nation-state is not necessarily a good deal for everyone.
Today, let's take off the rose-colored glasses and examine a few reasons why many prefer to be legal residents (they may just seek the Right to Reside) and may never choose to become citizens in their host countries:
The Rights of a Citizen are not Attractive: Many migrants are not interested in voting or running for office and some do not intend to reside permanently in that country. Many migrants are not planning to bring over their families and they have no desire to work in sectors restricted to citizens like the defense industry or to become a "fonctionnaire." In some places migrants see that full citizenship does not guarantee them the same level of rights as other citizens. Within the spectrum of citizens from birthright to naturalized, they see clearly that some are more privileged than others. Why would they want to go through the hassle just to become a "second-class citizen" with fewer de facto rights than the native born?
The Duties of a Citizen are Unacceptable: Military service in that country, for example, or taxation. The U.S. taxes ALL its citizens at home and abroad regardless of where they are living. Why would a bright young highly-qualified global migrant take that deal? Let's say he moves to the U.S. to work for a few years, becomes a citizen, and then is offered a wonderful opportunity in Asia. Since he is a U.S. citizen, the US government taxation and reporting requirements will follow him to China and he will spend much time and energy staying compliant. If marrying the United States means having the American Internal Revenue Service as a mother-in-law for life, then, frankly, for many migrants that is a ball and chain they do not need or want.
Loss of Other Citizenship(s): For some it is possible that they will lose or put at risk the citizenship of their country or countries of origin. Most states now accept dual nationality but not all and some migrants do not want to deprive their future children of the right to be born citizens of the country of their parents and grand-parents. It becomes even more of a loss when the individual already has two or even three citizenships. If giving up one is hard, imagine multiple trips to multiple consulates in order to renounce. This can be particularly hard for those who have a very desirable citizenship that is harder to get and opens doors in many countries like EU citizenship.
Loss of Spouse: All migrants live in a web of relationships and there are other people who have interests he/she can not ignore. A spouse may want the migrant to maintain that citizenship in the hopes of one day moving to the other country under favorable family reunification laws. Or the spouse may have entered the marriage with the idea that their children would be dual nationals by birth. When a migrant wants to become a citizen in a country that does not allow him or her to keep the former citizenship(s), the spouse may be vehemently opposed to it because he/she sees that it is not in his/her interest or in the interests of their future children. Delicate negotiations ahead and the citizen spouse has real power and influence here.
Loss of Protection: Citizens have the right to ask for the aid and protection of their states of citizenship. In the case of dual nationals the principle of "dominant nationality" may be applied and they may no longer be able to ask for help of the country of which which they are a citizen but not a resident. So a French/American in the U.S would in theory not be able to ask France to help him in the event he falls afoul of U.S. law.
Political Ambitions: Just because some democratic nation-states allow dual nationality does not mean that the public accepts it. If a migrant would like one day to run for office in his home country or serve in a high position in the government, his other nationality may be a problem. Even where it is allowed by law, there is a real possibility that he won't be selected or elected by the home country constituents if he voluntarily naturalized on another country.
Loss of property and inheritance rights: Apparently this used to be true of certain countries. It is still, theoretically, possible. Imagine a migrant has an inheritance or property dispute in the home country. The sheer effort that will be required to defend his rights (not to mention the look on the judge's face when he/she find out that the migrants lives in and is now a citizen of another country) will be substantial which gives a distinct "home court advantage" to his adversaries.
Family Responsibilities: Many migrants have aging or ill parents in the home country. If taking on another citizenship means that they cannot easily go back to the home country to care for them, that's a problem for the migrant, for his family and even for the country they live in. Who will take care of them if the migrant cannot return?
Social Pressure: The people in the home country may be genuinely offended that a migrant is considering becoming the citizen of another country and they let them know it. Even where the law permits dual nationality, public feeling is against it.
Security: It's not terribly fair but, let's face it, people have opinions (and lots of stereotypes) about citizens of other countries. In some parts of the world a citizen from a particular country may be the object of suspicion, or he may even be confronted by people's anger about the policies and actions of his country of citizenship. The protection offered by the country of citizenship outside of the national territory is very limited. Even the U.S. has limited resources and influence when it comes to its citizens abroad and Americans should know that evacuation services provided by the U.S. government are offered for a fee. (This is not true of all countries.) Taking on a citizenship that could cause controversy, make a person less safe in some parts of the world, and that doesn't even offer basic protection and assistance as part of the basic citizenship package may not be a good deal if one travels a lot or intends to live in another country.
Integration Seems impossible: Some migrants do not have the sense that the citizens around them like immigrants much (regardless of whether they are undocumented, legal residents or citizens). and the society is either ambivalent or actively hostile to their presence. The political climate makes the migrant uneasy. Some may feel that, no matter what they do, they will never be accepted by, and will always face discrimination from the citizens of the host country even if they become citizens themselves.
Citizenship is Nothing Special: the citizens of the receiving country do not seem proud of their country or of their citizenship. They don't see it as having value. When asked, they are unsure as to why anyone would bother. Most citizens themselves don't vote or participate in any meaningful way in the political arena. Many citizens talk openly of emigrating and renunciations of that citizenship are common or rising.
Just as no state can make citizenship laws in a vacuum, no individual makes a decision to ask for citizenship without doing some very deep thinking within his own particular context. Even where both countries accept dual nationality and the process is relatively simple, the choice to ask for citizenship is a complicated moral, emotional, and financial calculation where the individual must weigh all the factors for and against before making a decision. If it is the desire of a nation-state to add to its citizenry, then it must take into account as many of these factors as possible.
Integration Seems impossible: Some migrants do not have the sense that the citizens around them like immigrants much (regardless of whether they are undocumented, legal residents or citizens). and the society is either ambivalent or actively hostile to their presence. The political climate makes the migrant uneasy. Some may feel that, no matter what they do, they will never be accepted by, and will always face discrimination from the citizens of the host country even if they become citizens themselves.
Citizenship is Nothing Special: the citizens of the receiving country do not seem proud of their country or of their citizenship. They don't see it as having value. When asked, they are unsure as to why anyone would bother. Most citizens themselves don't vote or participate in any meaningful way in the political arena. Many citizens talk openly of emigrating and renunciations of that citizenship are common or rising.
Just as no state can make citizenship laws in a vacuum, no individual makes a decision to ask for citizenship without doing some very deep thinking within his own particular context. Even where both countries accept dual nationality and the process is relatively simple, the choice to ask for citizenship is a complicated moral, emotional, and financial calculation where the individual must weigh all the factors for and against before making a decision. If it is the desire of a nation-state to add to its citizenry, then it must take into account as many of these factors as possible.
Failure to do so means more undocumented aliens, more legal residents, and fewer citizens.
Is that necessarily a bad thing?
I'll let you be the judge of that.
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Are There Limits to the Right to Change One's Nationality?
Yes.
Just as there are no universally accepted standards for the attribution of nationality, there are no universal standards governing loss of nationality initiated by a citizen or subject. The European Convention on Nationality, for example, does not have the same standards as US citizenship law. States are jealous guardians of their sovereignty when it comes to deciding the conditions, rules, and procedures surrounding a citizen who wishes to change his or state allegiance. States reserve the right to deny such a request under certain circumstances.
These circumstances are not consistent from one state to another. Some states restrict the right to change one's nationality if an individual is trying to avoid military service or tax obligations. Kay Hailbronner writes that Austria will not release a citizen if a criminal procedure or execution of a criminal sentence is pending. German citizens, she says, who are "officials, judges, military personnel and other persons employed in a professional or official capacity" can also be denied the right to renounce. Canada has six requirements, one of which concerns national security; the individual cannot be "a threat to Canada’s security or part of a pattern of criminal activity." US law permits a US citizen to renounce even if he or she becomes stateless as a result - something most states do not allow. Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal, according to Gerard-René de Groot and Maarten Peter Vink, do not even require residence outside the country in order to renounce as long as the renunciant has another citizenship.
What this cursory review reveals is while that most liberal democracies agree in principle with the right to expatriate, do not wish to be seen as keeping their citizens captive, and have procedures and processes in place to allow their citizens/subjects to exercise that right, they do not see it as an absolute right under international law. Serena Forlati sums up the state perspective well when she writes, "the role of the individual's choices needs to be balanced against the possibly competing interests of the state whose nationality is to be renounced..."
Finding that balance is not easy. One might even say that it's a work in progress. There are other more pressing citizenship topics on the international agenda; statelessness, for example, or involuntary loss of nationality.
But there is one convention, The European Convention on Nationality (ECN), that is a bit more explicit than the UNDHR about both conditions for voluntary loss of nationality and the limits on state power over renunciants.
The European Convention on Nationality Article 8 has two explicit limitations on the right to renounce one's nationality:
"Each State Party shall permit the renunciation of its nationality provided the persons concerned do not thereby become stateless.
However, a State Party may provide in its internal law that renunciation may be effected only by nationals who are habitually resident abroad."
Just as there are no universally accepted standards for the attribution of nationality, there are no universal standards governing loss of nationality initiated by a citizen or subject. The European Convention on Nationality, for example, does not have the same standards as US citizenship law. States are jealous guardians of their sovereignty when it comes to deciding the conditions, rules, and procedures surrounding a citizen who wishes to change his or state allegiance. States reserve the right to deny such a request under certain circumstances.
These circumstances are not consistent from one state to another. Some states restrict the right to change one's nationality if an individual is trying to avoid military service or tax obligations. Kay Hailbronner writes that Austria will not release a citizen if a criminal procedure or execution of a criminal sentence is pending. German citizens, she says, who are "officials, judges, military personnel and other persons employed in a professional or official capacity" can also be denied the right to renounce. Canada has six requirements, one of which concerns national security; the individual cannot be "a threat to Canada’s security or part of a pattern of criminal activity." US law permits a US citizen to renounce even if he or she becomes stateless as a result - something most states do not allow. Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal, according to Gerard-René de Groot and Maarten Peter Vink, do not even require residence outside the country in order to renounce as long as the renunciant has another citizenship.
What this cursory review reveals is while that most liberal democracies agree in principle with the right to expatriate, do not wish to be seen as keeping their citizens captive, and have procedures and processes in place to allow their citizens/subjects to exercise that right, they do not see it as an absolute right under international law. Serena Forlati sums up the state perspective well when she writes, "the role of the individual's choices needs to be balanced against the possibly competing interests of the state whose nationality is to be renounced..."
Finding that balance is not easy. One might even say that it's a work in progress. There are other more pressing citizenship topics on the international agenda; statelessness, for example, or involuntary loss of nationality.
But there is one convention, The European Convention on Nationality (ECN), that is a bit more explicit than the UNDHR about both conditions for voluntary loss of nationality and the limits on state power over renunciants.
The European Convention on Nationality Article 8 has two explicit limitations on the right to renounce one's nationality:
"Each State Party shall permit the renunciation of its nationality provided the persons concerned do not thereby become stateless.
However, a State Party may provide in its internal law that renunciation may be effected only by nationals who are habitually resident abroad."
In the Explanatory Report of the ECN they directly address the question of renunciation and outstanding citizenship obligations and say: "It is not acceptable under Article 8 to deny the renunciation of nationality merely because persons habitually resident in another State still have military obligations in the country of origin or because civil or penal proceedings may be pending against a person in that country of origin. Civil or penal proceedings are independent of nationality and can proceed normally even if the person renounces his or her nationality of origin."
4. the fees for the acquisition, retention, loss, recovery or certification of its nationality be reasonable;
5. the fees for an administrative or judicial review be not an obstacle for applicants."
And finally in Chapter IV the ECN places boundaries around European states' nationality procedures and processes:
"Each State Party shall ensure that:
1. applications relating to the acquisition, retention, loss, recovery or certification of its nationality be processed within a reasonable time;
2. decisions relating to the acquisition, retention, loss, recovery or certification of its nationality contain reasons in writing;
3. decisions relating to the acquisition, retention, loss, recovery or certification of its nationality be open to an administrative or judicial review in conformity with its internal law;
2. decisions relating to the acquisition, retention, loss, recovery or certification of its nationality contain reasons in writing;
3. decisions relating to the acquisition, retention, loss, recovery or certification of its nationality be open to an administrative or judicial review in conformity with its internal law;
4. the fees for the acquisition, retention, loss, recovery or certification of its nationality be reasonable;
5. the fees for an administrative or judicial review be not an obstacle for applicants."
A reasonable balancing of states' versus citizens' rights? I thought so, but I note that some European countries have not signed it and quite a few that did, did so with reservations.
A convention is one thing, how it is implemented in law and interpreted and applied by the courts is another. In the next post let's look at one case I saw cited in numerous places: Riener v. Bulgaria (European Court of Human Rights). This is a case where a dual citizen, was 1. denied the right to leave a country of citizenship and 2. refused renunciation. And yes, citizenship obligations (taxes) were an issue in this case.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Birthright Citizenship: Anchor Babies and Accidental Americans
The concept of citizenship never fails to fascinate me. There are so many ways to think about it and so many different angles from which to approach it.
Lately, the always simmering national debate over the finer details of birthright citizenship moved to a slow boil after one of the US presidential candidates chose to share his views about one kind of birthright citizenship, jus soli or citizenship by place of birth.
Donald Trump is not, as far as I can tell, in favor of completely overturning the 14th amendment to the US Constitution which says:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. "
This has been interpreted by the US courts to mean anyone born on US soil (with the exception of children of diplomats) is a US citizen. Nothing more is required - not even the consent of the child or his parents.
What Trump is against is this unconditional granting of US citizenship to people he feels should not have it: children of illegal immigrants and children whose mothers come to the US for the sole purpose, he says, of giving birth on US soil so that their children are US citizens. He used a rather nasty term for the latter - anchor babies - one that is also used in the Canadian national citizenship debates which have a distressingly similar tone.
Trump would put conditions on the transmission of US citizenship by jus soli and, frankly, he's not proposing anything that other countries (and there are many) haven't considered or implemented. Jus soli is not unusual or uncommon in the world, but many countries do require a bit more than just an accident of geography before they call a person a citizen. In France, for example, residency is required; a child born in France to a short-term foreign expatriate who takes the infant back to the home country is not a French citizen.
There are advantages and disadvantages to the unconditional nature of US jus soli laws. One advantage is that it is very very practical. It is easy to administer and absurdly simple to prove one's status. One document, a birth certificate which can be ordered on-line can be presented today and be accepted as an almost 100% positive proof of an individual's birthright citizenship status.
Let's consider what would happen if it was no longer true that a US birth certificate is proof of citizenship. There would be a doubt attached to every child born in the US which could only be cleared by some agency charged with doing that detective work and issuing that certificate of citizenship after investigating the status of the parents (or even grandparents).
The disadvantages of unconditional jus soli go beyond the minor number of children born to "birth tourists" or even the larger number of children born to undocumented residents. Every year the US, like many countries, welcomes short-term residents from all over the world: students, businessmen/women, au pairs, entertainers, IT workers.
In 2014 alone the US State Department issued 467,370 immigrant visas, the majority of which were in two categories: Immediate Relatives and Family Sponsored Preference. That number is a mere fraction of the number of non-immigrant visas issued: 10 million. While these short-term, non-immigrant residents are in the United States many will do a very human thing - they will have children. When they leave the US they will take their offspring with them and the children grow up as citizens of their parent's country. It has been a huge surprise to many of these "Accidental Americans" to discover that they are US citizens by birth and that there are obligations as well as rights that come along with that status.
This is a consequence of the current interpretation of the 14th amendment that I would argue is a hundred times worse than the alleged "birth tourists" having "anchor babies" or undocumented aliens having children in the US.
Because by their actions the parents of these so called "anchor babies" are saying something positive about the United States that should warm every American's heart: that American citizenship is valuable and desirable. There are people in the world that want it so much that they are willing to travel thousands of miles and cross oceans to have their children be born in the US. Others are willing to brave border guards and risk jail and deportation to stay in the US, raise a family there and live out their years celebrating Thanksgiving and the 4th of July with their American children and grandchildren .
But the parents of an "Accidental American" born on a short-term stay in the US who return permanently to their home country do not want to stay in the US and have little or no interest in becoming American citizens. I would not go so far as to say that they don't value US citizenship at all, but they don't want it for themselves and at best, if it comes with no attachments or obligations, they are only mildly interested in the possibility some day in a distant future of a second passport for that child of he or she wants one.
And when that child reaches his majority and does not inquire at the US consulate, apply for a US passport, or show any interest whatsoever in spending any time in the US, what does that say? That he doesn't value US citizenship and has no intention or desire to be an American. A perfectly reasonable point of view for someone who already has another citizenship that he does value above and beyond the one he got by an accident of birth. If confronted with some of the less desirable obligations of US citizenship, he may prefer to renounce it. Though, for some reason (one that defies all rationality) the United States actually makes it difficult for him to do so: two interviews at the nearest US consulate, a mass of paperwork, tax filings, and fee of 2,450 USD.
With all that in mind here is another way of looking at US jus soli birthright citizenship. On one hand Americans like Trump want to prevent people who think US citizenship is valuable and desirable, and who actually want to be US citizens (or for their children to be US citizens) from being eligible for it. And on the other the US Constitution confers citizenship automatically on people who don't value it and who wish to get rid of it, and the US government holds them hostage until they jump through some significant bureaucratic hoops and cough up a few thousand dollars.
Does this situation make any sense whatsoever? Of course it doesn't.
And yet, I don't really know of an ideal solution. Fixing the 14th Amendment is unlikely and I suspect the motives of those in the US who wish to do so. Look at the examples Trump and company give of people they feel are undesirable: Mexicans or Asians. It reeks of exclusion by race. As a practical matter putting conditions on jus soli transmission citizenship will create a lot more government bureaucracy and make a simple matter more complicated.
As for those "Accidental Americans" who want to renounce US citizenship, how about we take a complicated matter and make it simple:
Just let them go.
Lately, the always simmering national debate over the finer details of birthright citizenship moved to a slow boil after one of the US presidential candidates chose to share his views about one kind of birthright citizenship, jus soli or citizenship by place of birth.
Donald Trump is not, as far as I can tell, in favor of completely overturning the 14th amendment to the US Constitution which says:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. "
This has been interpreted by the US courts to mean anyone born on US soil (with the exception of children of diplomats) is a US citizen. Nothing more is required - not even the consent of the child or his parents.
What Trump is against is this unconditional granting of US citizenship to people he feels should not have it: children of illegal immigrants and children whose mothers come to the US for the sole purpose, he says, of giving birth on US soil so that their children are US citizens. He used a rather nasty term for the latter - anchor babies - one that is also used in the Canadian national citizenship debates which have a distressingly similar tone.
Trump would put conditions on the transmission of US citizenship by jus soli and, frankly, he's not proposing anything that other countries (and there are many) haven't considered or implemented. Jus soli is not unusual or uncommon in the world, but many countries do require a bit more than just an accident of geography before they call a person a citizen. In France, for example, residency is required; a child born in France to a short-term foreign expatriate who takes the infant back to the home country is not a French citizen.
There are advantages and disadvantages to the unconditional nature of US jus soli laws. One advantage is that it is very very practical. It is easy to administer and absurdly simple to prove one's status. One document, a birth certificate which can be ordered on-line can be presented today and be accepted as an almost 100% positive proof of an individual's birthright citizenship status.
Let's consider what would happen if it was no longer true that a US birth certificate is proof of citizenship. There would be a doubt attached to every child born in the US which could only be cleared by some agency charged with doing that detective work and issuing that certificate of citizenship after investigating the status of the parents (or even grandparents).
The disadvantages of unconditional jus soli go beyond the minor number of children born to "birth tourists" or even the larger number of children born to undocumented residents. Every year the US, like many countries, welcomes short-term residents from all over the world: students, businessmen/women, au pairs, entertainers, IT workers.
In 2014 alone the US State Department issued 467,370 immigrant visas, the majority of which were in two categories: Immediate Relatives and Family Sponsored Preference. That number is a mere fraction of the number of non-immigrant visas issued: 10 million. While these short-term, non-immigrant residents are in the United States many will do a very human thing - they will have children. When they leave the US they will take their offspring with them and the children grow up as citizens of their parent's country. It has been a huge surprise to many of these "Accidental Americans" to discover that they are US citizens by birth and that there are obligations as well as rights that come along with that status.
This is a consequence of the current interpretation of the 14th amendment that I would argue is a hundred times worse than the alleged "birth tourists" having "anchor babies" or undocumented aliens having children in the US.
Because by their actions the parents of these so called "anchor babies" are saying something positive about the United States that should warm every American's heart: that American citizenship is valuable and desirable. There are people in the world that want it so much that they are willing to travel thousands of miles and cross oceans to have their children be born in the US. Others are willing to brave border guards and risk jail and deportation to stay in the US, raise a family there and live out their years celebrating Thanksgiving and the 4th of July with their American children and grandchildren .
But the parents of an "Accidental American" born on a short-term stay in the US who return permanently to their home country do not want to stay in the US and have little or no interest in becoming American citizens. I would not go so far as to say that they don't value US citizenship at all, but they don't want it for themselves and at best, if it comes with no attachments or obligations, they are only mildly interested in the possibility some day in a distant future of a second passport for that child of he or she wants one.
And when that child reaches his majority and does not inquire at the US consulate, apply for a US passport, or show any interest whatsoever in spending any time in the US, what does that say? That he doesn't value US citizenship and has no intention or desire to be an American. A perfectly reasonable point of view for someone who already has another citizenship that he does value above and beyond the one he got by an accident of birth. If confronted with some of the less desirable obligations of US citizenship, he may prefer to renounce it. Though, for some reason (one that defies all rationality) the United States actually makes it difficult for him to do so: two interviews at the nearest US consulate, a mass of paperwork, tax filings, and fee of 2,450 USD.
With all that in mind here is another way of looking at US jus soli birthright citizenship. On one hand Americans like Trump want to prevent people who think US citizenship is valuable and desirable, and who actually want to be US citizens (or for their children to be US citizens) from being eligible for it. And on the other the US Constitution confers citizenship automatically on people who don't value it and who wish to get rid of it, and the US government holds them hostage until they jump through some significant bureaucratic hoops and cough up a few thousand dollars.
Does this situation make any sense whatsoever? Of course it doesn't.
And yet, I don't really know of an ideal solution. Fixing the 14th Amendment is unlikely and I suspect the motives of those in the US who wish to do so. Look at the examples Trump and company give of people they feel are undesirable: Mexicans or Asians. It reeks of exclusion by race. As a practical matter putting conditions on jus soli transmission citizenship will create a lot more government bureaucracy and make a simple matter more complicated.
As for those "Accidental Americans" who want to renounce US citizenship, how about we take a complicated matter and make it simple:
Just let them go.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Restoring Lost Citizenship
Very good post up today on the Isaac Brock Society website. Eric, who writes from Asia, calls attention to the case of a South Korean pop star who renounced S. Korean citizenship in 2002. Yoo Seung-jun (these days a resident of China) now wishes to reverse that decision - he wants to renounce his American citizenship and have his South Korean citizenship restored to him. Here is the link to Eric's post:
An exile wants to give up U.S. citizenship and come home to South Korea.
An exile wants to give up U.S. citizenship and come home to South Korea.
Is it possible to regain a citizenship that a person has lost or renounced? The answer is that it depends on the circumstances and the country.
Between 1973 and 1990 about 400 members of the Original African Israelite Nation of Jerusalem official renounced US citizenship. After some members left the group, they asked that their US citizenship be restored. "In 1990, the board dealt with eight cases. It decided to restore citizenship in five cases, and rejected the other three. Later that year, the board revisited those three cases and concluded that the renunciation had been psychologically forced and hence reversed its prior decisions."
So, regaining US citizenship even after a formal renunciation was possible; the State Department had a procedure and a board that reviewed such cases. A reversal was never guaranteed but there was a chance.
It appears that the Board of Appellate Review ceased to exist around 1991 - about the time the State Department changed its policies (following the results of US court cases that set a new standard for "voluntary" and emphasized "intent") about expatriating acts and dual citizenship.
Today in 2015 a renunciant can ask the State Department for an administrative review (see U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7) of that loss of US nationality if any one of the following apply:
Given that standard for "voluntary" and "intent" what are we to make of the cases before us today? US citizens are renouncing in record numbers, but many openly say that they feel forced into doing so. Not, mind you, because of taxes, but because of a tax system with onerous requirements with which it is difficult and expensive to comply.
I am dead certain that there will be requests for restoration of US citizenship in the future from some of today's renunciants. How will the State Department judge those cases? No idea. Will it go to the courts? Absolutely.
A suivre.
Italy, for example, has a pretty straightforward procedure for re-acquisition of citizenship. Italian citizenship is restored in two ways:
"1. Automatically one year from the date in which they established residence on Italian soil, unless they renounce it within that term of time.The conditions (as of 2008) for restoring Vietnamese citizenship are even more interesting:
2. By specific declaration:
- serving in the Italian armed forces;
- by being or having been in the employ of the Italian government, even abroad;
- if a foreign resident, once legal residence in Italy is established, within one year of the declaration for reacquisition submitted to the Italian consular authorities;
- once legal residence in Italy has been established for at least 2 years, and it can be proven that the applicant has left the foreign government employ or military service undertaken despite express prohibition by Italian law."
"1. A person who has lost his/her Vietnamese nationality as prescribed in Article 26 of this Law and applies for restoration of Vietnamese nationality may restore his/her Vietnamese nationality, if he/she falls into any of the following cases:And what about U.S. citizenship? The one where potential renunciants are warned and warned again that their loss of citizenship is "irrevocable"? Well, not quite. Read the fine print in the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 9:
- Having applied for permission to return to Vietnam;
- His/her spouse, a natural parent or a natural offspring is a Vietnamese citizen;
- Having made meritorious contributions to Vietnam’s national construction and defense;
- Being helpful to the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam;
- Conducting investment activities in Vietnam;
2. Persons applying for restoration of Vietnamese nationality may not restore Vietnamese nationality, if such restoration is detrimental to Vietnam’s national interests."
- Having renounced Vietnamese nationality for acquisition of a foreign nationality but failing to obtain permission to acquire the foreign nationality.
"A loss of citizenship is permanent and irrevocable, unless the U.S. Government subsequently overturns the loss for involuntariness or lack of intent." (Italics are mine)According to Ben Herzog in Revoking Citizenship, between 1982 and 1985 the US Board of Appellate Review (the entity responsible for validating or reversing loss of citizenship cases at the time) reversed the loss of US citizenship in 35% of the cases reviewed - even those that involved a individual who had formally renounced US citizenship at a US consulate.
Between 1973 and 1990 about 400 members of the Original African Israelite Nation of Jerusalem official renounced US citizenship. After some members left the group, they asked that their US citizenship be restored. "In 1990, the board dealt with eight cases. It decided to restore citizenship in five cases, and rejected the other three. Later that year, the board revisited those three cases and concluded that the renunciation had been psychologically forced and hence reversed its prior decisions."
So, regaining US citizenship even after a formal renunciation was possible; the State Department had a procedure and a board that reviewed such cases. A reversal was never guaranteed but there was a chance.
It appears that the Board of Appellate Review ceased to exist around 1991 - about the time the State Department changed its policies (following the results of US court cases that set a new standard for "voluntary" and emphasized "intent") about expatriating acts and dual citizenship.
Today in 2015 a renunciant can ask the State Department for an administrative review (see U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7) of that loss of US nationality if any one of the following apply:
"(1) The law under which the holding of loss of nationality was made is later held unconstitutional; for example, a law concerning voting in a foreign election;And if the former US citizen is denied, then he or she can then file a court case asking that State's decision be over-ruled.
(2) A major change in the interpretation of the law on expatriation is made as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision; for example, the decision in Afroyim v. Rusk or Vance v. Terrazas;
(3) A major change is made in the interpretation of the law by the Department or is made by another agency and adopted by the Department. Most of these changes arose under previous statutes and prior to the decision in Afroyim v. Rusk; for example, cases involving naturalization of a minor; and
(4) Substantial new evidence of involuntariness or intent, not previously considered but contemporaneous to the time when the potentially expatriating act was performed, is presented by the individual."
Given that standard for "voluntary" and "intent" what are we to make of the cases before us today? US citizens are renouncing in record numbers, but many openly say that they feel forced into doing so. Not, mind you, because of taxes, but because of a tax system with onerous requirements with which it is difficult and expensive to comply.
I am dead certain that there will be requests for restoration of US citizenship in the future from some of today's renunciants. How will the State Department judge those cases? No idea. Will it go to the courts? Absolutely.
A suivre.
Friday, May 15, 2015
Another Front in the Fight Against FATCA: The Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty
"And it came to passe in those dayes, that there went out a decree from Cesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed..."
Luke 2:1, King James Bible (1611)
Luke 2:1, King James Bible (1611)
The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is, in its own weird way, a kind of census. Among other things, it tells the American government where those it considers to be taxable under US law live and work and raise families.
Having tried and failed miserably at conducting an accurate census of Americans abroad, the American government looked for other ways to find those "US Persons" (a term that includes US residents and Green Card holders, as well as US citizens). Their method was delegation - an admission of failure in a sense - because FATCA requires foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to do what the US government couldn't manage to accomplish on its own: to seek out all US persons in the world (their names, addresses, and account balances).
Those of you who have already been FATCAed, know all too well what that means. Those of you who have not yet signed a W-9 or had your accounts closed, please don't feel left out, your time will come.
Americans abroad organizations like AARO, ACA, Democrats abroad and Republicans Overseas are fighting FATCA and you can read about their efforts here.
But I would be remiss if I did not mention other efforts which are equally important. The one I have been following (and cheering on) is the other lawsuit filed in Canada by the Alliance for the Defense of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS).
This is a grassroots initiative that pushes back against FATCA in Canada. ADCS argues that the Canadian legislation that implements the FATCA intergovernmental agreement with the United States "violates the Canadian Constitution, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the principles of Canadian sovereignty and democracy, and the fundamental rights of all Canadians."
By signing an agreement to turn over the private information of Canadian citizens to a foreign government (the United States) the Canadian government is violating, they say, the rights of those whom the US is unilaterally claiming as taxable US Persons, but who consider themselves to be Canadians first and foremost. They reject utterly the idea that another country can simply demand that Canada provide the private information of individuals who have some connection to the United States, however nebulous it may be.
The plaintiffs in the case are two Canadian women "who have never held a U.S. passport or developed any meaningful relationship with the U.S." but who are, nonetheless, considered to be US citizens by virtue of being born in the US." They never consented to that citizenship and see no reason why it should be foisted on them now just because the US says so.
There are citizens in just about every country in the world right now who are in exactly the same position as the two plaintiffs: people who thought they were "just French" living in France or "just Thai " living in Thailand. Many are finding out that they are indeed US Persons when they receive a note from their local banks informing them that they appear to be US citizens under US law.
I could not think of a worse way (or a worse source) for someone to learn that he or she might be a US citizen. I find this not just shameful on the part of the US, but an extreme and worrisome delegation of sovereign power. Foreign financial institutions should not be in any way arbiters of US citizenship or status, or be tasked with implementing a US extraterritorial national census of any sort for any purpose whatsoever.
Among the different fronts against FATCA, this is a very worthy effort because it asks a nation-state like Canada to take a stand: Are these people claimed by the US really Canadian citizens with all the right enumerated in the Charter? Or has the Canadian government downgraded them to semi-citizenship status based on the claims of a foreign power?
Funded entirely by small donors, ADCS has miraculously raised enough money so far to hire very competent legal counsel, and on August 14, 2014 they filed their suit in Canadian Federal Court. I back them 100% and have contributed even though I am not an "Accidental American" or even a dual.
You can support ADCS by making a donation here. They are excellent transparent communicators and you can follow the progress of the lawsuit on their website, at the Isaac Brock Society, or at Maple Sandbox.
And finally I invite you to watch this superb video which they prepared after testifying last year before the House of Commons Finance Committee.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Dangerous Assumptions about Dual Citizenship
Making assumptions is hardly a mortal sin but it can get us into real trouble when when crossing cultures or national boundaries. The consequences on a personal level are bad enough, but they are life-altering when they touch on legal matters - the kind that come about when the laws of different countries are different (even subtly so) or when they collide.
Citizenship law is one where making assumptions is downright deadly. Most of us have only a broad understanding of what our citizenship law is that we've gleaned over the years from personal stories and news reports. To add to the confusion, citizenship law changes - what might have been true a few years ago, may be not true today - and the interpretation of the law may or may not be the same from one year to the next. Just ask the average American, Japanese, or French native about what his country's citizenship laws are and how they actually work right now in 2015, and I doubt they could give you an accurate answer.
It's pretty chaotic out there and a few days ago a friend on Facebook sent me a link to this case which I think is a very good (and horrible) example of the kind of life-altering trouble those matters can cause an individual and his or her family.
A bi-national couple where the wife is Norwegian and the husband is Australian, they have three girls: one born in Australia and the other two in Norway. So a reasonable (but dangerous) assumption might be that three girls could be dual citizens by either jus sanguinas (blood) or by jus soli (soil). But to be safe, the couple asked when the eldest was born in Australia and it was confirmed by the Norwegian authorities that she could indeed be a dual Norwegian/Australian citizen. (Norway is a country that limits dual citizenship.)
So when the couple had twins, this time in Norway, they thought no more about it and they applied for and obtained Australian citizenship (by descent) for the younger girls. To their utter shock this resulted in Norway stripping the two younger girls (the ones born in Norway to a Norwegian mother) of their Norwegian citizenship. How did that happen?
The rule in Norway is that applying for and obtaining another citizenship means losing Norwegian citizenship (there are some exceptions to this but that is the general rule). Their elder child didn't need to apply for Australian citizenship - she was born there to an Australian father. But when that Australian father signed the papers to request citizenship by descent for the twins, the Norwegian authorities decided that this application for another citizenship by a parent on behalf of minors meant they could no longer be Norwegian.
The irony is that the child born in Australia could legally be a dual, no problem. But her sisters born in Norway, couldn't because of the way the Norwegian authorities interpreted citizenship laws.
You can read more about the case here. This citizenship case really rocked one of my assumptions; under US law a parent cannot renounce or relinquish US citizenship on behalf of a minor child. It appears that Norway will allow that and that really surprised me. Depriving a child of a nationality because of the actions of a parent seems the antithesis of the "best interests of that child."
I also note that the consequences of that decision fell hardest on one of their own - the Norwegian citizen spouse. It changed the balance of power in the bi-cultural marriage since it basically gave the non-Norwegian spouse effective veto power over whether or not the children can be Norwegians or not. How interesting that under that ruling it was the non-Norwegian spouse who could make that decision unilaterally by simply applying for citizenship by descent in his or her home country. A move that could be useful in the case of marital problems or custody battles.
In addition, the Norwegian wife could not return to Norway easily with all her children - she could move back with the eldest (provided her spouse agreed because that child's residence is in Australia) leaving the other two behind for a year, and then apply for family reunification to bring the other two to Norway.
And one had to ask: was the Norwegian citizenry OK with that? Is losing citizens on a technicality the will of the people, or would the average Norwegian be just as shocked as I was?
I'm happy to report that they were shocked and the family received a lot of support. In 2014 the Norwegian authorities changed their minds and reinstated the girls' Norwegian citizenship.
A happy ending but the lesson for me is crystal clear: Never assume anything when it comes to citizenship law.
Citizenship law is one where making assumptions is downright deadly. Most of us have only a broad understanding of what our citizenship law is that we've gleaned over the years from personal stories and news reports. To add to the confusion, citizenship law changes - what might have been true a few years ago, may be not true today - and the interpretation of the law may or may not be the same from one year to the next. Just ask the average American, Japanese, or French native about what his country's citizenship laws are and how they actually work right now in 2015, and I doubt they could give you an accurate answer.
It's pretty chaotic out there and a few days ago a friend on Facebook sent me a link to this case which I think is a very good (and horrible) example of the kind of life-altering trouble those matters can cause an individual and his or her family.
A bi-national couple where the wife is Norwegian and the husband is Australian, they have three girls: one born in Australia and the other two in Norway. So a reasonable (but dangerous) assumption might be that three girls could be dual citizens by either jus sanguinas (blood) or by jus soli (soil). But to be safe, the couple asked when the eldest was born in Australia and it was confirmed by the Norwegian authorities that she could indeed be a dual Norwegian/Australian citizen. (Norway is a country that limits dual citizenship.)
So when the couple had twins, this time in Norway, they thought no more about it and they applied for and obtained Australian citizenship (by descent) for the younger girls. To their utter shock this resulted in Norway stripping the two younger girls (the ones born in Norway to a Norwegian mother) of their Norwegian citizenship. How did that happen?
The rule in Norway is that applying for and obtaining another citizenship means losing Norwegian citizenship (there are some exceptions to this but that is the general rule). Their elder child didn't need to apply for Australian citizenship - she was born there to an Australian father. But when that Australian father signed the papers to request citizenship by descent for the twins, the Norwegian authorities decided that this application for another citizenship by a parent on behalf of minors meant they could no longer be Norwegian.
The irony is that the child born in Australia could legally be a dual, no problem. But her sisters born in Norway, couldn't because of the way the Norwegian authorities interpreted citizenship laws.
You can read more about the case here. This citizenship case really rocked one of my assumptions; under US law a parent cannot renounce or relinquish US citizenship on behalf of a minor child. It appears that Norway will allow that and that really surprised me. Depriving a child of a nationality because of the actions of a parent seems the antithesis of the "best interests of that child."
I also note that the consequences of that decision fell hardest on one of their own - the Norwegian citizen spouse. It changed the balance of power in the bi-cultural marriage since it basically gave the non-Norwegian spouse effective veto power over whether or not the children can be Norwegians or not. How interesting that under that ruling it was the non-Norwegian spouse who could make that decision unilaterally by simply applying for citizenship by descent in his or her home country. A move that could be useful in the case of marital problems or custody battles.
In addition, the Norwegian wife could not return to Norway easily with all her children - she could move back with the eldest (provided her spouse agreed because that child's residence is in Australia) leaving the other two behind for a year, and then apply for family reunification to bring the other two to Norway.
And one had to ask: was the Norwegian citizenry OK with that? Is losing citizens on a technicality the will of the people, or would the average Norwegian be just as shocked as I was?
I'm happy to report that they were shocked and the family received a lot of support. In 2014 the Norwegian authorities changed their minds and reinstated the girls' Norwegian citizenship.
A happy ending but the lesson for me is crystal clear: Never assume anything when it comes to citizenship law.
Monday, May 11, 2015
The Making and Unmaking of a Citizen in Japan
A few weeks ago a blogging confrère left a link to his site Becoming Legally Japanese.
I have had a look since and I recommend the site to you if you have an interest in citizenship law. The site is in English and has good information on how to become a Japanese citizen, and testimonials about why people have taken this step - the latter, of course, being the more interesting question. You can also read this Flophouse post by an American emigrant and long-term resident here in Japan who is also On the Path to Citizenship in Japan.
Citizenship in a democratic nation-state is an odd beast. It retains some characteristics of an older status - that of subject - in that it is a personal status between an individual and a state (or a monarch). But unlike subjecthood, it is (in theory) a status that a person chooses and can be renounced unilaterally. A citizen (in theory) does not need the permission of his state to sever ties with one country and attach himself to another.
The reality is more complex than that. Often, there are conditions to be satisfied before a person can change allegiance. Some sending states require that another citizenship be obtained prior to renouncing. This is meant to prevent people from becoming stateless persons; the ideal being that every individual must be attached to some state, somewhere in the world.
On the other side, the receiving country has more power. There is no absolute right to naturalized citizenship in any nation-state I know of. Governments and their citizenry can and do place conditions that must be met before they allow an individual to become a full citizen. In short, nation-states can be very selective about whom they accept for full membership. In those conditions we find a blueprint of sorts for what that nation-state thinks is the "ideal citizen" and what they believe their citizenship means.
One of the conditions of Japanese citizenship is that the new citizen renounce all other citizenships. The Land of the Rising Sun is well known for its rejection of dual or multiple citizenships. To be Japanese is to have allegiance to one state, Japan, and no other. Since the trend in citizenship law in the world is toward acceptance of multiple citizenship (even Germany has blinked), there is speculation that Japan, too, will change its ways.
Perhaps. And I say this because I am discovering that the current system is far more flexible than people think. There is the law and then there are the "facts on the ground." There are Japanese citizens in France who have become French citizens. The Japanese embassy in Paris is aware of this.
According to my source, they don't seek them out, but they will investigate if it comes to their attention - a Japanese citizen, for example, who has lived a very long time in France and cannot produce a French residency card when he visits the consulate for some reason or another. Since France and Japan do not exchange citizenship databases there is no easy way for the Japanese government to know that a Japanese national has become a citizen of the French Republic, or of any other country for that matter.
Where single citizenship can be enforced is when a person applies to become a naturalized Japanese citizen. The authorities can ask for documentation and proof of renunciation of all other citizenships, but even that isn't a sure thing. The Japanese authorities do make allowances for subjects of countries that do not allow for unilateral renunciation. Also, in some cases they have looked the other way unless the dual citizen is "outed" in some way so that it simply cannot be ignored.
So Japanese citizenship law is clear on the matter of dual citizenship, but the application of the principle is, well, a grey zone.
And that makes this post American had to forfeit naturalized citizenship due to hiding his lack of relinquishment up on Becoming Legally Japanese very interesting. Nation-states make citizens and they can unmake them, too. (For an excellent read about this I recommend Patrick Weil's outstanding The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic.)
What is fascinating about denaturalization (taking away a person's citizenship) is that nothing shows more clearly the difference between birthright and naturalized citizens. In democratic nation-states it is generally very difficult to take away the citizenship of someone who was born with that citizenship. Usually it requires proof of some sort of extreme wrongdoing incompatible with citizenship and even then it's not a simple process. At least, not in our time.
Naturalized citizens, on the other hand, can be unmade more easily and the most common method is to prove that there was some sort of fraud involved. Even Hirsi Ali who was an elected member of the Dutch Parliament was not immune to charges that she obtained her Dutch citizenship fraudulently.
And that was the charge against this American emigrant to Japan who applied for Japanese citizenship, received it and then had it revoked. To make matters worse, the authorities did not reinstate his previous status, that of Permanent Resident; he was downgraded to Long-Term Resident. (See this site for a summary of the difference between the two.)
I will stop here and let you read the story for yourself. I would appreciate comments or corrections from those who know more than I do about Japanese citizenship law. It is an interesting case on so many levels, and I have the feeling that there is more to the story. In particular I was curious about his rationale for not taking the steps to relinquish his US citizenship. Note that both FATCA and the US Exit tax are mentioned in the article.
I have had a look since and I recommend the site to you if you have an interest in citizenship law. The site is in English and has good information on how to become a Japanese citizen, and testimonials about why people have taken this step - the latter, of course, being the more interesting question. You can also read this Flophouse post by an American emigrant and long-term resident here in Japan who is also On the Path to Citizenship in Japan.
Citizenship in a democratic nation-state is an odd beast. It retains some characteristics of an older status - that of subject - in that it is a personal status between an individual and a state (or a monarch). But unlike subjecthood, it is (in theory) a status that a person chooses and can be renounced unilaterally. A citizen (in theory) does not need the permission of his state to sever ties with one country and attach himself to another.
The reality is more complex than that. Often, there are conditions to be satisfied before a person can change allegiance. Some sending states require that another citizenship be obtained prior to renouncing. This is meant to prevent people from becoming stateless persons; the ideal being that every individual must be attached to some state, somewhere in the world.
On the other side, the receiving country has more power. There is no absolute right to naturalized citizenship in any nation-state I know of. Governments and their citizenry can and do place conditions that must be met before they allow an individual to become a full citizen. In short, nation-states can be very selective about whom they accept for full membership. In those conditions we find a blueprint of sorts for what that nation-state thinks is the "ideal citizen" and what they believe their citizenship means.
One of the conditions of Japanese citizenship is that the new citizen renounce all other citizenships. The Land of the Rising Sun is well known for its rejection of dual or multiple citizenships. To be Japanese is to have allegiance to one state, Japan, and no other. Since the trend in citizenship law in the world is toward acceptance of multiple citizenship (even Germany has blinked), there is speculation that Japan, too, will change its ways.
Perhaps. And I say this because I am discovering that the current system is far more flexible than people think. There is the law and then there are the "facts on the ground." There are Japanese citizens in France who have become French citizens. The Japanese embassy in Paris is aware of this.
According to my source, they don't seek them out, but they will investigate if it comes to their attention - a Japanese citizen, for example, who has lived a very long time in France and cannot produce a French residency card when he visits the consulate for some reason or another. Since France and Japan do not exchange citizenship databases there is no easy way for the Japanese government to know that a Japanese national has become a citizen of the French Republic, or of any other country for that matter.
Where single citizenship can be enforced is when a person applies to become a naturalized Japanese citizen. The authorities can ask for documentation and proof of renunciation of all other citizenships, but even that isn't a sure thing. The Japanese authorities do make allowances for subjects of countries that do not allow for unilateral renunciation. Also, in some cases they have looked the other way unless the dual citizen is "outed" in some way so that it simply cannot be ignored.
So Japanese citizenship law is clear on the matter of dual citizenship, but the application of the principle is, well, a grey zone.
And that makes this post American had to forfeit naturalized citizenship due to hiding his lack of relinquishment up on Becoming Legally Japanese very interesting. Nation-states make citizens and they can unmake them, too. (For an excellent read about this I recommend Patrick Weil's outstanding The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic.)
What is fascinating about denaturalization (taking away a person's citizenship) is that nothing shows more clearly the difference between birthright and naturalized citizens. In democratic nation-states it is generally very difficult to take away the citizenship of someone who was born with that citizenship. Usually it requires proof of some sort of extreme wrongdoing incompatible with citizenship and even then it's not a simple process. At least, not in our time.
Naturalized citizens, on the other hand, can be unmade more easily and the most common method is to prove that there was some sort of fraud involved. Even Hirsi Ali who was an elected member of the Dutch Parliament was not immune to charges that she obtained her Dutch citizenship fraudulently.
And that was the charge against this American emigrant to Japan who applied for Japanese citizenship, received it and then had it revoked. To make matters worse, the authorities did not reinstate his previous status, that of Permanent Resident; he was downgraded to Long-Term Resident. (See this site for a summary of the difference between the two.)
I will stop here and let you read the story for yourself. I would appreciate comments or corrections from those who know more than I do about Japanese citizenship law. It is an interesting case on so many levels, and I have the feeling that there is more to the story. In particular I was curious about his rationale for not taking the steps to relinquish his US citizenship. Note that both FATCA and the US Exit tax are mentioned in the article.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
On the Path to Citizenship in Japan
What motivates a resident to become a citizen?
This is a decision so personal that a man or woman may spend years sorting through his deepest feelings to answer questions like:
Where is “home”? Where do I belong? What will I lose? How will this change my life?
I did not write today’s post. It was penned by one of my fellow Americans here in Japan who has done that thinking and has made his decision.
May it be of benefit to all of us who struggle with questions about identity, attachments, and allegiance.
******************************************************
I have been in Japan now for about 20 years. I have been a permanent resident for the last 14, and am comfortably settled. So why change from permanent resident status to full citizenship status?
A Full Member of Society with Rights: The biggest motivation for requesting Japanese citizenship is simply that I want to be a citizen in my own home. I want the right to vote and all the concrete and fuzzy meanings that attach to being a full citizen. To me this seems a natural progression for an immigrant: if one intends to live somewhere for the rest of one’s life, why would one go out of their way to remain a foreigner? Why hold back? If you don’t want to be a full member of the society you live in, then why are you still living there?
Stability: I’m tired of being a foreigner. I want to be a real person. Some people may enjoy the role of being a foreigner, to be seen as exotic or different. But that is not something that I think most people can tolerate for their entire lives. At some point, a desire for stability and a yearning to just be a plain old person will assert itself in most immigrants. This leads them to go back where they came from, or else go all the way and seek citizenship.
Home: Sooner or later, one has to decide where one is going to call “home”. For me, it has been a gradual process of setting roots down here. I was recently asked if I ever planned to “go back,” and all I could think was: Go back to what? If I ever returned to any of the places where I used to live, most of the people I knew would be gone, and the places themselves would have changed. So it would not really be going back, but more like going to a new place again.
A Good Life: Also, of course, my life is all here: I have a family, a house, and pets. I have a good job with stimulating work that I look forward to continuing until I retire. After retirement, I hope to spend time on outdoor activities in the mountains of Japan for as long as I am able, and perhaps do more volunteer work than I have time for now. I also want to visit many parts of the country that I have not yet had a chance to see.
Letting Go: Japan does not allow dual citizenship, so I will have to relinquish US citizenship. This is not a decision to be taken lightly – I can’t just take Japanese citizenship and hang onto the US one as a “spare”. I have to make the decision, from the start, that I am willing to give up my US citizenship.
What do I give up by relinquishing my US passport?
This is a decision so personal that a man or woman may spend years sorting through his deepest feelings to answer questions like:
Where is “home”? Where do I belong? What will I lose? How will this change my life?
I did not write today’s post. It was penned by one of my fellow Americans here in Japan who has done that thinking and has made his decision.
May it be of benefit to all of us who struggle with questions about identity, attachments, and allegiance.
******************************************************
On the Path to Citizenship in Japan
A Full Member of Society with Rights: The biggest motivation for requesting Japanese citizenship is simply that I want to be a citizen in my own home. I want the right to vote and all the concrete and fuzzy meanings that attach to being a full citizen. To me this seems a natural progression for an immigrant: if one intends to live somewhere for the rest of one’s life, why would one go out of their way to remain a foreigner? Why hold back? If you don’t want to be a full member of the society you live in, then why are you still living there?
Stability: I’m tired of being a foreigner. I want to be a real person. Some people may enjoy the role of being a foreigner, to be seen as exotic or different. But that is not something that I think most people can tolerate for their entire lives. At some point, a desire for stability and a yearning to just be a plain old person will assert itself in most immigrants. This leads them to go back where they came from, or else go all the way and seek citizenship.
Home: Sooner or later, one has to decide where one is going to call “home”. For me, it has been a gradual process of setting roots down here. I was recently asked if I ever planned to “go back,” and all I could think was: Go back to what? If I ever returned to any of the places where I used to live, most of the people I knew would be gone, and the places themselves would have changed. So it would not really be going back, but more like going to a new place again.
A Good Life: Also, of course, my life is all here: I have a family, a house, and pets. I have a good job with stimulating work that I look forward to continuing until I retire. After retirement, I hope to spend time on outdoor activities in the mountains of Japan for as long as I am able, and perhaps do more volunteer work than I have time for now. I also want to visit many parts of the country that I have not yet had a chance to see.
Letting Go: Japan does not allow dual citizenship, so I will have to relinquish US citizenship. This is not a decision to be taken lightly – I can’t just take Japanese citizenship and hang onto the US one as a “spare”. I have to make the decision, from the start, that I am willing to give up my US citizenship.
What do I give up by relinquishing my US passport?
- I am giving up the right to vote in US Federal elections and the right to go live in the US without the fear of deportation. For someone who plans on living in the US someday, these would indeed be very valuable rights. I find it more valuable to have those rights here in Japan.
- The other thing I give up is the requirement to file tax returns with the US. Trying to understand and keep up with the complex, ever-changing rules that apply to American citizens abroad is certainly a challenge that I can do without. It’s not the taxes that I mind; it’s the complexity and fear of unreasonable fines.
I have to pick one or the other, and the one I have come to choose for the remaining stages of my life is Japanese citizenship.
Monday, February 2, 2015
Not Everyone Wants to Be a Citizen
I thought I would dust this one off and repost. Articles about citizenship and dual nationality cross my path daily and it seems to me that many of them start with two assumptions that are, in my experience, erroneous: 1. Everyone wants to become a citizen and 2. Becoming a citizen is in the best interests of all migrants.
This is simply not true. Not every migrant hits a distant shore with the intention of seeking full citizenship. This may be because he or she does not plan to stay very long (though he might change his mind over time) or because he or she sees that it is clearly not in his best interests. Yes, you heard me - becoming a citizen of a nation-state is not necessarily a good deal for everyone.
Today let's take off the rose-colored glasses and examine a few reasons why many prefer to be legal residents (they seek the Right to Reside) and may never choose to become citizens in their host countries:
The Rights of a Citizen are not Attractive: Many migrants are not interested in voting or running for office and some do not intend to reside permanently in that country. Many migrants are not planning to bring over their families and they have no desire to work in sectors restricted to citizens like the defense industry or to become a "fonctionnaire." In some places migrants see that full citizenship does not guarantee them the same level of rights as other citizens. Within the spectrum of citizens from birthright to natualized, they see clearly that some are more privileged than others. Why would they want to go through the hassle just to become a "second-class citizen" with fewer de facto rights than the native born?
The Duties of a Citizen are Unacceptable: Military service in that country, for example, or taxation. The U.S. taxes ALL its citizens at home and abroad regardless of where they are living. Why would a bright young highly-qualified global migrant take that deal? Let's say he moves to the U.S. to work for a few years, becomes a citizen, and then is offered a wonderful opportunity in Asia. Since he is a U.S. citizen, the US government taxation and reporting requirements will follow him to China and he will spend much time and energy staying compliant. If marrying the United States means having the American Internal Revenue Service as a mother-in-law for life, then, frankly, for many migrants that is a ball and chain they do not need or want.
Loss of Other Citizenship: For some it is possible that they will lose or put at risk the citizenship of their country of origin. Most states now accept dual nationality but not all and some migrants do not want to deprive their future children of the right to be born citizens of the country of their parents and grand-parents.
Loss of Protection: Citizens have the right to ask for the aid and protection of their states of citizenship. In the case of dual nationals the principle of "dominant nationality" may be applied and they may no longer be able to ask for help of the country of which which they are a citizen but not a resident. So a French/American in the U.S would in theory not be able to ask France to help him in the event he falls afoul of U.S. law.
Political Ambitions: Just because some democratic nation-states allow dual nationality does not mean that the public accepts it. If a migrant would like one day to run for office in his home country or serve in a high position in the government, his other nationality may be a problem. Even where it is allowed by law, there is a real possibility that he won't be selected or elected by the home country constituents if he voluntarily naturalized on another country.
Loss of property and inheritance rights: Apparently this used to be true of certain countries. It is still, theoretically, possible. Imagine a migrant has an inheritance or property dispute in the home country. The sheer effort that will be required to defend his rights (not to mention the look on the judge's face when he/she find out that the migrants lives in and is now a citizen of another country) will be substantial which gives a distinct "home court advantage" to his adversaries.
Family Responsibilities: Many migrants have aging or ill parents in the home country. If taking on another citizenship means that they cannot easily go back to the home country to care for them, that's a problem for the migrant, for his family and even for the country they live in. Who will take care of them if the migrant cannot return?
Social Pressure: The people in the home country may be genuinely offended that a migrant is considering becoming the citizen of another country and they let them know it. Even where the law permits dual nationality, public feeling is against it.
This is simply not true. Not every migrant hits a distant shore with the intention of seeking full citizenship. This may be because he or she does not plan to stay very long (though he might change his mind over time) or because he or she sees that it is clearly not in his best interests. Yes, you heard me - becoming a citizen of a nation-state is not necessarily a good deal for everyone.
Today let's take off the rose-colored glasses and examine a few reasons why many prefer to be legal residents (they seek the Right to Reside) and may never choose to become citizens in their host countries:
The Rights of a Citizen are not Attractive: Many migrants are not interested in voting or running for office and some do not intend to reside permanently in that country. Many migrants are not planning to bring over their families and they have no desire to work in sectors restricted to citizens like the defense industry or to become a "fonctionnaire." In some places migrants see that full citizenship does not guarantee them the same level of rights as other citizens. Within the spectrum of citizens from birthright to natualized, they see clearly that some are more privileged than others. Why would they want to go through the hassle just to become a "second-class citizen" with fewer de facto rights than the native born?
The Duties of a Citizen are Unacceptable: Military service in that country, for example, or taxation. The U.S. taxes ALL its citizens at home and abroad regardless of where they are living. Why would a bright young highly-qualified global migrant take that deal? Let's say he moves to the U.S. to work for a few years, becomes a citizen, and then is offered a wonderful opportunity in Asia. Since he is a U.S. citizen, the US government taxation and reporting requirements will follow him to China and he will spend much time and energy staying compliant. If marrying the United States means having the American Internal Revenue Service as a mother-in-law for life, then, frankly, for many migrants that is a ball and chain they do not need or want.
Loss of Other Citizenship: For some it is possible that they will lose or put at risk the citizenship of their country of origin. Most states now accept dual nationality but not all and some migrants do not want to deprive their future children of the right to be born citizens of the country of their parents and grand-parents.
Loss of Protection: Citizens have the right to ask for the aid and protection of their states of citizenship. In the case of dual nationals the principle of "dominant nationality" may be applied and they may no longer be able to ask for help of the country of which which they are a citizen but not a resident. So a French/American in the U.S would in theory not be able to ask France to help him in the event he falls afoul of U.S. law.
Political Ambitions: Just because some democratic nation-states allow dual nationality does not mean that the public accepts it. If a migrant would like one day to run for office in his home country or serve in a high position in the government, his other nationality may be a problem. Even where it is allowed by law, there is a real possibility that he won't be selected or elected by the home country constituents if he voluntarily naturalized on another country.
Loss of property and inheritance rights: Apparently this used to be true of certain countries. It is still, theoretically, possible. Imagine a migrant has an inheritance or property dispute in the home country. The sheer effort that will be required to defend his rights (not to mention the look on the judge's face when he/she find out that the migrants lives in and is now a citizen of another country) will be substantial which gives a distinct "home court advantage" to his adversaries.
Family Responsibilities: Many migrants have aging or ill parents in the home country. If taking on another citizenship means that they cannot easily go back to the home country to care for them, that's a problem for the migrant, for his family and even for the country they live in. Who will take care of them if the migrant cannot return?
Social Pressure: The people in the home country may be genuinely offended that a migrant is considering becoming the citizen of another country and they let them know it. Even where the law permits dual nationality, public feeling is against it.
Security: It's not terribly fair but, let's face it, people have opinions (and lots of stereotypes) about citizens of other countries. In some parts of the world a citizen from a particular country may be the object of suspicion, or he may even be confronted by people's anger about the policies and actions of his country of citizenship. The protection offered by the country of citizenship outside of the national territory is very limited. Even the U.S. has limited resources and influence when it comes to its citizens abroad and Americans should know that evacuation services provided by the U.S. government are offered for a fee. (This is not true of all countries.) Taking on a citizenship that could cause controversy, make a person less safe in some parts of the world, and that doesn't even offer basic protection and assistance as part of the basic citizenship package may not be a good deal if one travels a lot or intends to live in another country.
Integration Seems impossible: Some migrants do not have the sense that the citizens around them like immigrants much (regardless of whether they are undocumented, legal residents or citizens). and the society is either ambivalent or actively hostile to their presence. The political climate makes the migrant uneasy. Some may feel that, no matter what they do, they will never be accepted by, and will always face discrimination from the citizens of the host country even if they become citizens themselves.
Citizenship is Nothing Special: the citizens of the receiving country do not seem proud of their country or of their citizenship. They don't see it as having value. When asked, they are unsure as to why anyone would bother. Most citizens themselves don't vote or participate in any meaningful way in the political arena. Many citizens talk openly of emigrating and renunciations of that citizenship are common or rising.
Any others?
Just as no state can make citizenship laws in a vacuum, no individual makes a decision to ask for citizenship without doing some very deep thinking within his own particular context. Even where both countries accept dual nationality and the process is relatively simple, the choice to ask for citizenship is a complicated moral, emotional, and financial calculation where the individual must weigh all the factors for and against before making a decision. If it is the desire of a nation-state to add to its citizenry, then it must take into account as many of these factors as possible.
Integration Seems impossible: Some migrants do not have the sense that the citizens around them like immigrants much (regardless of whether they are undocumented, legal residents or citizens). and the society is either ambivalent or actively hostile to their presence. The political climate makes the migrant uneasy. Some may feel that, no matter what they do, they will never be accepted by, and will always face discrimination from the citizens of the host country even if they become citizens themselves.
Citizenship is Nothing Special: the citizens of the receiving country do not seem proud of their country or of their citizenship. They don't see it as having value. When asked, they are unsure as to why anyone would bother. Most citizens themselves don't vote or participate in any meaningful way in the political arena. Many citizens talk openly of emigrating and renunciations of that citizenship are common or rising.
Any others?
Just as no state can make citizenship laws in a vacuum, no individual makes a decision to ask for citizenship without doing some very deep thinking within his own particular context. Even where both countries accept dual nationality and the process is relatively simple, the choice to ask for citizenship is a complicated moral, emotional, and financial calculation where the individual must weigh all the factors for and against before making a decision. If it is the desire of a nation-state to add to its citizenry, then it must take into account as many of these factors as possible.
Failure to do so means more undocumented aliens, more legal residents and fewer and fewer citizens.
Is that necessarily a bad thing?
I'll let you be the judge of that.
Monday, September 1, 2014
"Anchor" Babies and "Illegal" Children
I had an exchange recently with a family member here in France and it went something like this:
FM: If it weren't for all those immigrants our social security system wouldn't have a deficit. Foreigners are taking advange of us and we need to do something about it.
Me: You think so? All immigrants?
FM: Most of them.
Me: OK, can we quantify that? Do you have a percentage or a number of those who are cheating the system?
FM: I'm trying to drive here.
Immigration is a topic where feelings definitely trump facts. I was reminded of this when I read on Andrew's blog, Multicultural Meanderings, that some Canadians were getting a bit under the collar over "birth tourism". This is where foreign women come to Canada for the sole purpose of having their children born on Canadian soil and thus becoming Canadian citizens at birth (jus soli).
My first thought when I read that was: Wait a minute, I've seen this before... Oh yeah, people in the US worry about this, too. Well, if two countries in North America are concerned about this, it must be a big problem, right?
To my surprise and delight the Canadian government took the stories very seriously and went looking for evidence. (My goodness, what a sensible thing to do.) And what did they find?
Given that the same kind of arguments and anecdotal evidence appear in both Canada and the US - two counties of immigration with relatively generous jus soli laws (citizenship conferred at birth based on place of birth) - then clearly there is something about it that makes people uneasy and want to either restrict it or to move to a birthright citizenship system based on blood (jus sanguinas).
Those emotions make it very hard for the Canadian government to come up with a politically acceptable response. When human beings feel very strongly about something, law and policy-makers can be as rational and evidence-based as they please, but they can't make their constituents like (or accept) what they have to say. The facts as they stand today will not prevent this myth from coming back in a future news cycle.
Birthright citizenship (both jus soli and jus sanguinas) makes me uneasy but for reasons completely unrelated to "birth tourism" and you can read what I've said about it here and here.
And finally for your viewing pleasure is a wonderful Jon Stewart piece about a recent immigration crisis in the US: tens of thousands of children entering the US illegally causing a humanitarian and security crisis. What I love about Jon Stewart is how he uses humor to make his point. Every episode is a guided discovery where he invites his viewers to come along with him for a ride which almost always ends with "Aren't we being a bit silly about this, folks?"
And that's a damn good tactic. Answering an argument from the gut with facts is, alas, not very effective in changing people's minds about anything. Worse, it can stop the conversation completely; ("Just shut up and let me drive.") Just something to think about on a Monday morning...
FM: If it weren't for all those immigrants our social security system wouldn't have a deficit. Foreigners are taking advange of us and we need to do something about it.
Me: You think so? All immigrants?
FM: Most of them.
Me: OK, can we quantify that? Do you have a percentage or a number of those who are cheating the system?
FM: I'm trying to drive here.
Immigration is a topic where feelings definitely trump facts. I was reminded of this when I read on Andrew's blog, Multicultural Meanderings, that some Canadians were getting a bit under the collar over "birth tourism". This is where foreign women come to Canada for the sole purpose of having their children born on Canadian soil and thus becoming Canadian citizens at birth (jus soli).
My first thought when I read that was: Wait a minute, I've seen this before... Oh yeah, people in the US worry about this, too. Well, if two countries in North America are concerned about this, it must be a big problem, right?
To my surprise and delight the Canadian government took the stories very seriously and went looking for evidence. (My goodness, what a sensible thing to do.) And what did they find?
The proposal, marked “secret” and with inputs from various federal departments, found fewer than 500 cases of children being born to foreign nationals in Canada each year, amounting to just 0.14 per cent of the 360,000 total births per year in the country.Forgive me, but with numbers like that the brouhaha over "birth tourism" which is being used to attack jus soli citizenship law in Canada looks more like a solution in search of a problem and not the other way around.
Given that the same kind of arguments and anecdotal evidence appear in both Canada and the US - two counties of immigration with relatively generous jus soli laws (citizenship conferred at birth based on place of birth) - then clearly there is something about it that makes people uneasy and want to either restrict it or to move to a birthright citizenship system based on blood (jus sanguinas).
Those emotions make it very hard for the Canadian government to come up with a politically acceptable response. When human beings feel very strongly about something, law and policy-makers can be as rational and evidence-based as they please, but they can't make their constituents like (or accept) what they have to say. The facts as they stand today will not prevent this myth from coming back in a future news cycle.
Birthright citizenship (both jus soli and jus sanguinas) makes me uneasy but for reasons completely unrelated to "birth tourism" and you can read what I've said about it here and here.
And finally for your viewing pleasure is a wonderful Jon Stewart piece about a recent immigration crisis in the US: tens of thousands of children entering the US illegally causing a humanitarian and security crisis. What I love about Jon Stewart is how he uses humor to make his point. Every episode is a guided discovery where he invites his viewers to come along with him for a ride which almost always ends with "Aren't we being a bit silly about this, folks?"
And that's a damn good tactic. Answering an argument from the gut with facts is, alas, not very effective in changing people's minds about anything. Worse, it can stop the conversation completely; ("Just shut up and let me drive.") Just something to think about on a Monday morning...
Thursday, August 28, 2014
US Citizenship Renunciation Fees to be Raised 422%
The rumours over at the Isaac Brock Society are confirmed. This morning in my mailbox was this link from a lovely lady in the UK.
Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship About to Get More Expensive: From $450 to $2,350
That is, as the blogger points out, a 422% increase.
And the State Department's justification for this rather outrageous fee raise?
Well, it's a complicated labor-intensive procedure:
Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship About to Get More Expensive: From $450 to $2,350
That is, as the blogger points out, a 422% increase.
And the State Department's justification for this rather outrageous fee raise?
Well, it's a complicated labor-intensive procedure:
"The CoSM demonstrated that documenting a U.S. citizen’s renunciation of citizenship is extremely costly, requiring American consular officers overseas to spend substantial amounts of time to accept, process, and adjudicate cases. For example, consular officers must confirm that the potential renunciant fully understands the consequences of renunciation, including losing the right to reside in the United States without documentation as an alien. Other steps include verifying that the renunciant is a U.S. citizen, conducting a minimum of two intensive interviews with the potential renunciant, and reviewing at least three consular systems before administering the oath of renunciation. The final approval of the loss of nationality must be done by law within the Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services in Washington, D.C., after which the case is returned to the consular officer overseas for final delivery of the Certificate of Loss of Nationality to the renunciant."
And demand for this service is strong (yep, they say that). 450 USD, they say, was already below cost and they are just raising the fee in order to not lose (more) money on the service.
Now I'm just an old lady and I don't pretend to be the brightest crayon in the box but if the goal here is to "break even" then they are looking at this all wrong. Read the outline of the procedure again. Does that sound efficient to you? Just the assumption that any US citizen showing up to renounce his US citizenship doesn't really understand what he/she is doing and has to have it explained ad nauseum (intensive interviews?) and then be sent off to a corner like a little kid to reflect on it before being allowed to come back and do the deed, is just ridiculous. Right there I'd say just treating people like adults and assuming that they do know their own mind would save a lot of time, money and hassle all around.
And the narrative that will come out of this fee raise is not likely to focus on "cost recovery" at US consulates around the world but on what is going to be perceived as a punitive act on the part of the US government. It looks like they are so embarrassed by the renunciation numbers and the lines to renounce at the US consulates that they are looking for ways to reduce or slow down the demand. Think about that. Has the state of US citizenship in the world really come to the point where the US government thinks that Americans have to be actively discouraged from renouncing?
That is what people are likely to take away from this news. That the United States is trying to keep it's citizens captive by finding quasi-legal methods to interfere with their right to expatriate under international law.
(And there is a very good post and a lively discussion (as always) over at the Isaac Brock Society here. 79 comments already as I type this. )
(And there is a very good post and a lively discussion (as always) over at the Isaac Brock Society here. 79 comments already as I type this. )
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Want to Renounce? Join the Queue....
Patrick Cain of Global News has some new information about U.S. citizenship renunciations in his recent article, Want to shed U.S. citizenship? Get in line. He's reporting that the U.S. embassy in Toronto, Canada has so many requests for renunciation interviews that the first available appointment is now late January 2015.
For months now rumours have been floating around that such and such U.S. embassy's renunciation appointment calendar is filled up (Paris, for example) but this is the first hard evidence I've seen and it comes from a country that has one of the largest U.S. citizen populations in the world. Canada is estimated to have around a million U.S. citizens (that includes duals) while the American "colony" in Paris probably does not exceed 100,000. But even in Paris there is anecdotal evidence that the embassy is struggling to meet the demand. When a French citizen was outed as a U.S. citizen by his French bank earlier this year, Le Figaro had this to say:
And how many of those renunciations actually end up on the Name and Shame list in the Federal Register is any one's guess. What we do know is that there are individuals out there who have publicly renounced and for some reason their names were never included (or were included many months after the deed). Some of them are quite miffed about it.
Renunciations are not, however, the whole story. To appreciate the magnitude of this "rush to the exit" phenomenon and its impact on U.S. citizenship, I suggest that two other numbers should be looked into as well.
1. Certificates of Loss of Nationality. There is renunciation and there is relinquishment and the latter is often touted as an easier, softer, cheaper way. Maple Sandbox has a good explanation of the difference here but, in a nutshell, a U.S. citizen just has to commit an expatriating act with the intention of giving up U.S. citizenship to be halfway out the door.
One of those acts is taking on another citizenship. So what can happen is an American citizen who became a Canadian citizen in 1972 and never renewed her US passport or voted (or any other act that might imply that she wanted to remain an American citizen) can file papers with the local consulate documenting the act and the intent and requesting a certificate of loss of nationality (CLN) backdated to 1972 when the relinquishing act was performed.
And what works for her will also work for someone who took on, say, Italian citizenship a few days ago. He can go to the local U.S. consulate and file the same papers and then wait for the CLN to come in the mail. Not all cases are as simple as these two but hopefully you get the gist.
But what that means is that the most accurate number of U.S. citizenship renunciations/ relinquishments is not the count in the Federal Register but the number of Certificates of Loss of Nationality issued (renunciations + relinquishments = CLNs).
2. Consular Reports of Birth Abroad: U.S. citizens abroad can go to the local consulate in the host country to report the birth of a new US citizen (a child born abroad to parent(s) who fulfill the requirements to pass along their U.S. citizenship to their offspring). The purpose of such a pilgrimage to the local consulate is to get a determination that the child was indeed born an American citizen and acquire the documentation necessary to, say, apply for a US passport.
But here's the kicker - this is entirely voluntary. No American parent abroad has to make such a report and furthermore reporting or not reporting the birth makes no difference whatsoever in the status of that child: if his parent(s) fulfilled the requirements for passing along US citizenship then that child is a US citizen by birth, albeit an undocumented one. Nothing prevents that child from claiming US birthright citizenship later in life. It's just a matter of gathering the right paperwork.
So put yourself in the position of an American abroad with a new baby. Do you report the birth and get the passport/social security number right away? Or do you wait until the child can make up his or her own mind whether he wishes to claim US citizenship or not?
There is anecdotal evidence that the latter is becoming more and more common and that would make sense. But is it true? No one knows.
Both of these things should be looked into by an intrepid, inquisitive soul in order to get a much better perspective on the state of US citizenship today. A simple Freedom of Information Act request should suffice.
(And before I forget, there are rumours that the current US citizenship renunciation fee will be raised from 450 USD to 2 or 3,000 USD. No idea where it came from but welcome to an Internet world, folks, where information flows fast and furious and where a US cit with news in China can pass that info along to a US cit in Germany in minutes. And that is also something to look into - the new American abroad networks which connect American communities around the world. Something to watch and frankly I am amazed that more migration experts in the US haven't clued into this yet...)
For months now rumours have been floating around that such and such U.S. embassy's renunciation appointment calendar is filled up (Paris, for example) but this is the first hard evidence I've seen and it comes from a country that has one of the largest U.S. citizen populations in the world. Canada is estimated to have around a million U.S. citizens (that includes duals) while the American "colony" in Paris probably does not exceed 100,000. But even in Paris there is anecdotal evidence that the embassy is struggling to meet the demand. When a French citizen was outed as a U.S. citizen by his French bank earlier this year, Le Figaro had this to say:
"Désarçonné, le Franco-Américain, qui n'a aucune attache outre-Atlantique, envisage alors de renoncer à cette pesante nationalité. Mais renseignement pris auprès de l'ambassade américaine, le délai est bien trop long (plusieurs mois)."Phil Hogden's commentary on the Cain article is quite good. His last point in particular which is about the official renunciation procedure which went from one appointment to two appointments and is now back to one. Why it went to two in the first place is any one's guess (and furthermore it does not seem to have been consistently applied in all U.S. embassies worldwide) but, yes, it does look like an attempt to slow down the process and get people to reflect (perhaps change their minds?) before the deed is done.
("Flabbergasted, this Franco-American, who has no attachments on the other side of the Atlantic, thought to renounce this unwanted nationality. But after inquiring at the American embassy, the delay [to renounce] was too long (several months).")
And how many of those renunciations actually end up on the Name and Shame list in the Federal Register is any one's guess. What we do know is that there are individuals out there who have publicly renounced and for some reason their names were never included (or were included many months after the deed). Some of them are quite miffed about it.
Renunciations are not, however, the whole story. To appreciate the magnitude of this "rush to the exit" phenomenon and its impact on U.S. citizenship, I suggest that two other numbers should be looked into as well.
1. Certificates of Loss of Nationality. There is renunciation and there is relinquishment and the latter is often touted as an easier, softer, cheaper way. Maple Sandbox has a good explanation of the difference here but, in a nutshell, a U.S. citizen just has to commit an expatriating act with the intention of giving up U.S. citizenship to be halfway out the door.
One of those acts is taking on another citizenship. So what can happen is an American citizen who became a Canadian citizen in 1972 and never renewed her US passport or voted (or any other act that might imply that she wanted to remain an American citizen) can file papers with the local consulate documenting the act and the intent and requesting a certificate of loss of nationality (CLN) backdated to 1972 when the relinquishing act was performed.
And what works for her will also work for someone who took on, say, Italian citizenship a few days ago. He can go to the local U.S. consulate and file the same papers and then wait for the CLN to come in the mail. Not all cases are as simple as these two but hopefully you get the gist.
But what that means is that the most accurate number of U.S. citizenship renunciations/ relinquishments is not the count in the Federal Register but the number of Certificates of Loss of Nationality issued (renunciations + relinquishments = CLNs).
2. Consular Reports of Birth Abroad: U.S. citizens abroad can go to the local consulate in the host country to report the birth of a new US citizen (a child born abroad to parent(s) who fulfill the requirements to pass along their U.S. citizenship to their offspring). The purpose of such a pilgrimage to the local consulate is to get a determination that the child was indeed born an American citizen and acquire the documentation necessary to, say, apply for a US passport.
But here's the kicker - this is entirely voluntary. No American parent abroad has to make such a report and furthermore reporting or not reporting the birth makes no difference whatsoever in the status of that child: if his parent(s) fulfilled the requirements for passing along US citizenship then that child is a US citizen by birth, albeit an undocumented one. Nothing prevents that child from claiming US birthright citizenship later in life. It's just a matter of gathering the right paperwork.
So put yourself in the position of an American abroad with a new baby. Do you report the birth and get the passport/social security number right away? Or do you wait until the child can make up his or her own mind whether he wishes to claim US citizenship or not?
There is anecdotal evidence that the latter is becoming more and more common and that would make sense. But is it true? No one knows.
Both of these things should be looked into by an intrepid, inquisitive soul in order to get a much better perspective on the state of US citizenship today. A simple Freedom of Information Act request should suffice.
(And before I forget, there are rumours that the current US citizenship renunciation fee will be raised from 450 USD to 2 or 3,000 USD. No idea where it came from but welcome to an Internet world, folks, where information flows fast and furious and where a US cit with news in China can pass that info along to a US cit in Germany in minutes. And that is also something to look into - the new American abroad networks which connect American communities around the world. Something to watch and frankly I am amazed that more migration experts in the US haven't clued into this yet...)
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Flophouse Citizenship and International Migration Reading List Updated
Time for another update of the Flophouse citizenship/migration reading list. New books are in green. I highly recommend all the titles below - read them and you will never look at citizenship or migration the same way again. All the underlined titles take you directly to the book on Amazon (U.S.). I would really appreciate suggestions for other titles that might be of interest. I promise to read and add them to the list if I think they are good.
Global Marriage: Cross-Border Marriage Migration in Global Context (2010) by Dr. Lucy Williams. Outstanding look at cross-border marriages from a global perspective. Williams takes on the myths, stereotypes about foreign brides (and grooms) and counters them with solid research. A refreshing antidote to the many silly things said about those "marriage migrants."
The Scramble for Citizens: Dual Nationality and State Competition for Immigrants (2013) by David Cook-Martin. A fine book that looks at migration from Spain and Italy to Argentina in one era and the reverse migration from Argentina back to Spain and Italy of those immigrants' descendants in another. The author does a fine job of showing how it is almost impossible for a state to make (and make stick) immigration/emigration and citizenship law unilaterally. There is a larger context with sending and receiving states competing for the productive power and loyalty of immigants/emigrants. This competition takes place over generations which may (the author says) have interesting implications for large receiving states like the United States.
Global Marriage: Cross-Border Marriage Migration in Global Context (2010) by Dr. Lucy Williams. Outstanding look at cross-border marriages from a global perspective. Williams takes on the myths, stereotypes about foreign brides (and grooms) and counters them with solid research. A refreshing antidote to the many silly things said about those "marriage migrants."
The Scramble for Citizens: Dual Nationality and State Competition for Immigrants (2013) by David Cook-Martin. A fine book that looks at migration from Spain and Italy to Argentina in one era and the reverse migration from Argentina back to Spain and Italy of those immigrants' descendants in another. The author does a fine job of showing how it is almost impossible for a state to make (and make stick) immigration/emigration and citizenship law unilaterally. There is a larger context with sending and receiving states competing for the productive power and loyalty of immigants/emigrants. This competition takes place over generations which may (the author says) have interesting implications for large receiving states like the United States.
Democracy and the Foreigner (2003) by Bonnie Honig. Great read. Honig takes the idea of "the foreigner" as a vexing issue to be solved through assimilation or rejection and turns it around. Are there circumstances when the stranger is not a problem at all, but rather a solution to what ails a community?
The Citizen and the Alien: Dilemmas of Contemporary Membership (2006) by Linda Bosniak.
A Nation of Emigrants: How Mexico Manages Its Migration by David Fitzgerald (2009) The internal American battle over immigration from Latin America is a very public debate but it's only half the story. Mexico, the U.S.'s southern neighbor and a major sending country, has made and is still making policy to manage its emigration and its emigrants. This is an extraordinary book and there is much to be learned from Mexico's efforts and policies - even when they have failed.
Citizenship and Those Who Leave: The Politics of Emigration and Expatriation by Nancy L. Green and Francois Weil (2007) I contend that you cannot talk about immigration without also discussing emigration. A fine work - excellent chapters on how states (UK, Holland, U.S., France and others) have tried to manage emigration.
Immigration and Citizenship in Japan by Erin Aeran Chung (2010) Excellent book about Japan as a country of immigration. "Japan is currently the only advanced industrial democracy with a fourth-generation immigrant problem." Chung tells the story of how this came about and the impact this has had on modern Japanese citizenship law.
Rights and Duties of Dual Nationals: Evolution and Prospects edited by David A. Martin and Kay Hailbronner (2003) Fine set of articles on dual citizenship and such things as military service, extradition, political rights (Peter Spiro), denationalization and many others. Pricey but worth every penny.
Migration and the Great Recession: the Transatlantic Experience (2011) edited by Demetrios Papademetriou et al. If you were wondering how the economic crisis in the first decade of the 21st century had an impact on migration, this book of essays from the Migration Policy Institute is good place to begin. Data from the U.S., U.K., Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Sweden and Germany.
Anthropology and Migration: Essays on Transnationalism, Ethnicity, and Identity (2003) by Caroline Brettell. An anthropologist looks at migration, transnationalism, and assimilation/integration through a population she knows well: the Portuguese diaspora. (Flophouse review here.)
Moving Matters: Paths of Serial Migration (2013) by Susan Ossman. .A look into the minds of "serial migrants." Those who immigrate once (like all other migrants) and then do something that shatters the standard immigrant tale - they move on. (Flophouse review here.)
Anthropology and Migration: Essays on Transnationalism, Ethnicity, and Identity (2003) by Caroline Brettell. An anthropologist looks at migration, transnationalism, and assimilation/integration through a population she knows well: the Portuguese diaspora. (Flophouse review here.)
Moving Matters: Paths of Serial Migration (2013) by Susan Ossman. .A look into the minds of "serial migrants." Those who immigrate once (like all other migrants) and then do something that shatters the standard immigrant tale - they move on. (Flophouse review here.)
International Migration in the Age of Crisis and Globalization (2010) by Andres Solimano. Well-written, well-argued book. The author is ambitious and confronts some of the most difficult topics around migration: Why is International Migration Such a Contentious Issue? Are Goods and Capital More Important than People? Don't Always 'Blame' the North, and so on.
Refreshing take on the dilemmas of citizenship and democratic ideals. Who is included/excluded and on what basis? The problem of democracy and the legal permanent resident. Complex questions with no easy answers.
The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic (2013) by Patrick Weil Really superb book. Excellent research into the un-making of American citizens in the 20th century.
Citizenship and Those Who Leave: The Politics of Emigration and Expatriation by Nancy L. Green and Francois Weil (2007) I contend that you cannot talk about immigration without also discussing emigration. A fine work - excellent chapters on how states (UK, Holland, U.S., France and others) have tried to manage emigration.
Citizenship and Immigration by Christian Joppke (2010) This one covers a wide variety of old and new ideas about citizenship. A good place to begin for someone who is just delving into how immigration/emigration and citizenship are entwined. Joppke refutes the idea of the decline of citizenship - an argument worth reading..
International Migration and the Globalization of Domestic Politics edited by Rey Koslowski. Some very good insights into how international migration and diaspora politics affect politics back in the home country.
Rights and Duties of Dual Nationals: Evolution and Prospects edited by David A. Martin and Kay Hailbronner (2003) Fine set of articles on dual citizenship and such things as military service, extradition, political rights (Peter Spiro), denationalization and many others. Pricey but worth every penny.
International Migration and Citizenship Today by Niklaus Steiner (2009). A very fine book on the political, economic and cultural impact of immigration. He frames the discussion around two essential questions: What Criteria to Admit Migrants? and What Criteria to Grant Citizenship?
Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices edited by T. Alexander Aleinikoff and Douglas Klusmeyer (2001). This was one of the best books I read on the topic of citizenship with essays by Patrick Weil, Karen Knop and Richard T. Ford, among many others. I particularly enjoyed Ford's contribution called "City-States and Citizenship" which was, for me, a real revelation.
States without Nations: Citizenship for Mortals by Jacqueline Stevens (2009) A strong critique of birthright citizenship in all forms and a call for citizenship based on residency.
The Perils of Belonging: Authochthony, Citizenship, and Exclusion in Africa and Europe by Peter Geschier (2009). Outstanding read. States make citizens and states can also "unmake" them. Nativism and the never-ending debate over who really "belongs."
The Politics of Citizenship in Europe by Marc Morje Howard (2009). A really fine study of the citizenship policies of the oldest member-states of the EU. Read this book to grasp how citizenship laws have changed over time and the reasons why.
The Future Governance of Citizenship by Dora Kostakopoulou ((2008). Good overview of the current citizenship models and a proposal for an "anational" citizenship framework.
Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization by Peter Spiro (2008). Excellent book that examines how globalization has changed the value of citizenship overall and American citizenship in particular. Very thoughtful. Very well-written.
Qu'est-ce qu'un Français? by Patrick Weil (2002). Mr. Weil spent over 8 years in the archives researching this book and it is fascinating. France has been something of a test lab for just about every combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship possible. Everything has been tried and tried again. I read the book in French but it is also available in the usual places in English.
Gender and International Migration in Europe by Eleonore Kofman, Annie Phizacklea, Parvati Raghuram and Rosemary Sales (2000). If you are looking for some empirical evidence (as I was) for how migration, immigration policy and citizenship rights have different outcomes and impacts for women, this is a good place to start.
The Birthright Lottery: Citizenship and Global Inequality by Ayelet Shacher (2009) An attack on both jus soli and jus sanguinis methods of transmitting citizenship. Fascinating argument.
Aliens in Medieval Law: the Origins of Modern Citizenship by Keechang Kim ((2000). I've been meaning to write a post about this book since it has a very original take on the historical roots of modern citizenship. I recommend it highly.
Human Rights or Citizenship? by Paulina Tambakaki (2010) Interesting ideas about how traditional models of citizenship and human rights legislation are in conflict.
Human Rights or Citizenship? by Paulina Tambakaki (2010) Interesting ideas about how traditional models of citizenship and human rights legislation are in conflict.
International Migration, Remittances and the Brain Drain edited by Caglar Ozden and Maurice Schiff for the World Bank (2006) This book contains a number of very interesting essays about the economic impact of remittances and brain drain/gain. The editors point out that the potential for economic benefit for all parties (individuals and sending and receiving countries) is substantial but policy decisions need to be made carefully (we are talking about people after all).
Let Them In: the Case for Open Borders by Jason L. Riley (2008) The author makes a very radical argument for simply opening the doors and letting people move where they wish.
For info I have created a Citizenship and Migration book list on Goodread's Listopia here. Good place to read reviews and find quotations from the above books.
For info I have created a Citizenship and Migration book list on Goodread's Listopia here. Good place to read reviews and find quotations from the above books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)