> In September 2018 the European Union foreign policy head, Federica Mogherini, proposed the development of a new "special purpose financial vehicle" intended to bypass the U.S. controlled Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication payments system - commonly known as SWIFT. The seven founding members of this new system are to be Iran, the European Commission, Germany, France, the U.K., Russia and China - but not the United States.
The minor differences I was referring to were between loss of citizenship by formal renunciation and loss of citizenship by performing one of the other potentially expatriating acts voluntarily and with intent to relinquish citizenship (making the potential expatriation into actual expatriation).
Both of these paths cause a loss of right to enter the US. Neither one automatically bans re-entry if one otherwise qualifies to enter as an alien. I agree differences in these areas would be major.
The minor differences I know of: formal renunciation specifically for the purpose of avoiding taxes makes one inadmissible, but this purpose is so hard to prove and enforce that only a very small number of people (I forget precisely but around 2-5) have ever been ensnared by it. Also, renunciants are ineligible to possess firearms in the US, even if they'd otherwise be in one of the nonresident alien categories which would be allowed to.
Taking the wording of both of these provisions at face value, they don't apply to former citizens who relinquish but don't renounce.
Courts probably haven't yet been asked to rule either way on this, but at the very least, I don't know a court ruling finding that all former citizens are covered by either provision.
> Taking the wording of both of these provisions at face value
I hope we can both easily agree that law should (almost) never be taken at face value. In my professional experience, the words mean what they mean until they mean something different.
4 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 25.4 ms ] thread> In September 2018 the European Union foreign policy head, Federica Mogherini, proposed the development of a new "special purpose financial vehicle" intended to bypass the U.S. controlled Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication payments system - commonly known as SWIFT. The seven founding members of this new system are to be Iran, the European Commission, Germany, France, the U.K., Russia and China - but not the United States.
Web sites like http://non-fatca-banks.com/pk.html list which banks are members of SWIFT, because that means they are exposed to penalties should they fail to follow FACTA reporting laws. For example, the National Bank of Pakistan followed FACTA, see https://www.nbp.com.pk/fatca/index.aspx .
Both of these paths cause a loss of right to enter the US. Neither one automatically bans re-entry if one otherwise qualifies to enter as an alien. I agree differences in these areas would be major.
The minor differences I know of: formal renunciation specifically for the purpose of avoiding taxes makes one inadmissible, but this purpose is so hard to prove and enforce that only a very small number of people (I forget precisely but around 2-5) have ever been ensnared by it. Also, renunciants are ineligible to possess firearms in the US, even if they'd otherwise be in one of the nonresident alien categories which would be allowed to.
Taking the wording of both of these provisions at face value, they don't apply to former citizens who relinquish but don't renounce.
Courts probably haven't yet been asked to rule either way on this, but at the very least, I don't know a court ruling finding that all former citizens are covered by either provision.
I hope we can both easily agree that law should (almost) never be taken at face value. In my professional experience, the words mean what they mean until they mean something different.
Ever heard of Singapore? Hong Kong? Switzerland?