It is odd that we are STILL hearing arguments that refuse to accept a person born outside the United States, having a statuatory (NOT a CONSTITUTIONAL) claim to U.S. citizenship may decide not to accept it. As USCitizenAbroad so clearly states below:
Seriously, do you really believe that the U.S. can deem anybody in the world to be a U.S. citizen?
What if the U.S. decided to pass laws that said:
- All cars in Japan with a US-made part are the property of the United States …..or
- Any family with a naturalized US citizen are now citizens of the United States …..or
- Anyone with a family member who speaks English now is a citizen of the United States …..or
- If there are 300 sunny days in Canada, Canada now belongs to the United States
The reason “the US can force a person to be a citizen” sounds less silly (perhaps) than the 4 statements above is only because your mind is used to the idea that that is possible. And only because other people claim it is so.
The apologists would have you believe that in any argument, if you want to “play in the US’ playgrounds (“markets”) you have to do what the U.S. requires of you.
WEll, they might be able to force SOME of the people a lot of the time but they cannot force ALL of the people all of the time.
So they have managed to stuff FATCA down the throats of every nation on earth via the IGAs. This occurs because of U.S. law plus the U.S.tendency to bully because no nation wants to commit financial suicide.
They cannot force every person born outside of the United States to be a U.S. person, nor to be taxed as one. A person born outside the U.S. does not have a constitutional right to U.S. citizenship. U.S. law is limited to jurisdication. Don’t forget:
- The United States was completely unable to make FATCA work (jurisdictional/statutory fact)
- without the IGAs (US bullying of other nations)
U.S. Law applies to the U.S.
Do not believe that U.S. law transcends the laws of your own country.
In the end, that person can CHOOSE – to comply or not to comply. Since that is the practical end result of what this argument is about, what is so hard to accept about it?
And if the “but then they won’t be able to go to the US” argument is raised, then that depends upon what that individual chooses. What’s so great about going to the US? “Warm climate and beaches”? Other countries have warm weather and beaches. “Cheaper prices than other places”? – well, compare what you will have to pay in order to get those “CHEAP” prices……….
****cross-posted from Brock ****
March 15, 2017 at 7:03 am
Q. Do those children born outside the United States to parents who have the statutory right (as has been redefined over the years) automatically have U.S. citizenship imposed on them regardless of the wishes of the parents (and later, the children) or do those children have the right but NOT the obligation to accept U.S. citizenship?
A. They have the right but NOT the obligation to accept/register themselves as U.S. citizens if they so choose.
This discussion has been going on since the inception of Brock and has been the subject of numerous threads.
Furthermore, the answer seems to depend on who you ask (U.S. based immigration lawyers who believe that everybody in the world wants to be a U.S. citizen) or people outside the U.S. (who recognize that the forcible imposition of U.S. citizenship on those born outside the U.S. would be an unjustifiable extension of U.S. law beyond the U.S. borders). Seriously, do you really believe that the U.S. can deem anybody in the world to be a U.S. citizen?
Some explanation follows …
1. The grant of citizenship to people born outside the U.S. is determined ONLY by statute (hence the shifting laws) and NOT by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This means that granting citizenship to those born outside the U.S. is in the discretion of Congress.
2. As everybody knows, under the INA there are only two ways to obtain U.S. citizenship: (A) birth or (B naturalization. Birth means that you ARE a citizen from birth and naturalization means that you BECOME a citizen after birth.
3. The INA is a statute that presumes that every life form on the planet wants to live in the USA and/or wants to be a citizen of the USA and essentially prescribes conditions under which residence or citizenship can be granted or recognized.
4. Therefore the correct way to read the statute “this person IS a citizen” is that:
these are the conditions under which we will recognize somebody is a citizen if that person wants to be recognized as a citizen.
5. The conditions acknowledged in “4” need to be proven by objective, extrinsic and reliable evidence. Even if somebody wants to be a citizen, it won’t be recognized unless those conditions are proven (which is what this post is about).
6. Therefore, unless the parent or later the child makes the claim of citizenship then the person could not be recognized as a U.S. citizen – period. Without being recognized as a U.S. citizen you are NOT a U.S. citizen. Don’t believe me? Just try to enter the U.S. based on nothing more than “I claim I am a U.S. citizen”.
7. There are numerous examples of information from consulates and the State Department (some of which is discussed in the comment thread) making this point clear. (Much of this has been discussed in other posts.)
8. There is not a single known instance of the U.S. Government forcibly imposing U.S. citizenship on somebody born outside the USA. (They are not going door to door and forcing identification of where the parents of children were born). In fact, if you are born outside the USA there is a presumption of alienage – that is a presumption that one is NOT a U.S. citizen (how many would kill for that?)
9. If the parents register the kid as a U.S. citizen, it is probably “game over” and the child IS a U.S. citizen. But even on that point, I believe that it may be possible to argue that a kid whose parent committed “citizenship crime” against his child, by registering him as a U.S. citizen might be able to defend against U.S. citizenship.
Hey, if one can’t renounce U.S citizenship until 18, then maybe one can’t accept U.S citizenship until 18.
10. I attempted to raise this discussion in an extensive post in 2015 which is here:
There are additional comments at that post.
A suggestion moving forward …
The Isaac Brock Society (whether you love it or hate it) is the most read and most influential source of information on all things U.S. (probably in the world). I believe that the Issac Brock Society should assume a leadership role by suggesting that the answer is:
Nobody born outside the U.S. is a citizen UNLESS he/she BOTH:
1. Meets the statutory conditions making he/she eligible to receive the statutory recognition of U.S. citizenship; and
2. Voluntarily (directly as an individual or vicariously via a parent) registering that U.S. citizenship.
The problem is that this is the first time in history that U.S. citizenship has been perceived to be such a horrible thing to have. Neither the State Department nor U.S. based immigration lawyers have adjusted to the idea that U.S. citizenship is now a form of cancer (unless you want to live in the United States). Even the border guards believe they are helping you by telling you that you are American. These people have not caught up with the reality that true Obama legacy has been to make U.S. citizenship the most toxic citizenship in the history of the world.
Yup, “Change you can believe in!”
it’s time to articulate the law that is consistent with the Obama legacy …
Brockers have always said that in the area of U.S. tax that lawyers make the law ….
It’s time for the Isaac Brock Society to “lay down the law” on this topic! The law is that nobody born outside the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen. If you meet certain conditions, they you can claim it if you want!