Source: https://renounceuscitizenship.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/cook-v-tait-44-sovereignty-citizenship-and-use-of-citizenship-to-further-the-interests-of-the-sovereign-the-evolution-from-cookvtait-to-fatca/?shared=email&msg=fail
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 11:51:58+00:00

Document:
Citizenship is the "right to have rights" http://t.co/wQLA8lduSr but what does this really mean?
In Cook v. Tait 23, I noted that Cook v. Tait was decided approximately 100 years ago and that the concept of citizenship was different from what it is today. “Cook v. Tait 23” referenced a post at “CitizenshipSolutions.ca” that discussed the evolution of citizenship. The purpose of this post is to explore how, the concept of citizenship has evolved since 1924. What were the fundamental assumptions of citizenship in 1924? How have those assumptions changed over the years? When Justice McKenna was writing his decision in Cook v. Tait, what exactly did he believe “citizenship” to be? For that matter, what does the judgment in Cook v. Tait even mean? Was Justice McKenna’s decision in Cook v. Tait based on “reason”? If it was based on “reason”, was it based on “legal reasoning”? Was it based on “rhetoric”? The decision of any judge necessarily reflects his or her personal background, outlook on the world and built in biases.
an American politician who served in all three branches of the U.S. federal government, as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, as U.S. Attorney General and as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. He is one of seventeen members of the House of Representatives who subsequently served on the Supreme Court (including two Chief Justices).
Conscious of his limited credentials, McKenna took courses at Columbia Law School for several months to improve his legal education before taking his seat on the Court.
McKenna resigned from the Court in January 1925 at the suggestion of Chief Justice William Howard Taft. McKenna’s ability to perform his duties had been diminished significantly by a stroke suffered 10 years earlier, and by the end of his tenure McKenna could not be counted on to write coherent opinions.
… don’t hold your breath waiting for a civil war to break out and end taxation of US citizens and residents. Cook v Tait is based on traditional notions of sovereignty, not on an assessment of the value conferred by citizenship. The Court specifically rejected the argument that expats received no benefits from the US and so shouldn’t have to pay taxes. Sovereignty remains a core principle, if not the core principle, of international law.
I’m late to the discussion, but here is my opinion.
The decision in Cook v. Tait was purely based on principles of international law, it had nothing to do with the US constitution. International law is mostly unwritten, based on the general customs of relations between countries, and also on written treaties. So to decide this case, one would have to see whether jurisdiction based on nationality in the area of taxation is something generally accepted among countries, in their declarations, actions and treaties. As much as I don’t like it, I have to admit that it is, and this has not changed since 1924. It’s certainly rare, but the numerous examples lead me to conclude that it is indeed an accepted practice: others countries used it in the past (Mexico, Philippines, Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Vietnam, Myanmar), some still use it today in rare circumstances (France, Spain, Italy, Finland, Hungary, Turkey), and it is the last tie-breaker to determine residence in hundreds of tax treaties. The condemnation of Eritrea is due to the alleged illegal or oppressive enforcement of its diaspora tax, not the tax itself. The Philippines had a very similar tax for decades (1-3%) and was never condemned for it, as far as I know. The EU prohibits tax discrimination based on nationality, but France recently considered the possibility of taxing its citizens living in Andorra, as it already does in Monaco (both outside the EU). Finally, dozens of countries accepted the saving clause in US tax treaties, and more recently the FATCA IGAs.
I don’t think that Justice McKenna was saying that taxation is justified because the country provides tangible benefits to the citizen. I think that he was simply using the word “benefits” to refer to the abstract connection between a country and a person, called citizenship, and that this connection by itself carries obligations such as taxes. In other words, jurisdiction by nationality, which is accepted in international law.
On the other hand, I emphasize that Cook v. Tait did not refer to the US constitution at all. I also agree that in 1924 the general understanding of the US constitution did not pose a problem for CBT. However, this did change since then. For example, the US Supreme Court gave new meanings to “due process” and “equal protection” to prohibit discrimination on various grounds (1954), and the 24th amendment prohibits the dependence of voting rights on taxation (1964). I believe that CBT is unconstitutional with these understandings, because it is discrimination based on citizenship on an area that has nothing to do with citizenship. In this case, Cook v. Tait is not a precedence.
1. It’s debatable whether the constitution allows CBT, but it’s certainly not required by the constitution. Again, Cook v. Tait was not based on the constitution at all.
2. Cook had property in Mexico, I suppose real estate, and he rented it out. The US taxes rental income.
3. Mexico created its first income tax in 1921, so there could have been double taxation. Coincidentally, Mexico also had CBT until 1980.
4. “Do you know of ANY country which gave up a source of income voluntarily?” Mexico, the Philippines, the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Vietnam and Myanmar abolished CBT. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Panama, Israel, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Russia, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and Norway abolished their inheritance tax. Sweden also abolished its wealth tax. Australia, Argentina and Brazil abolished a bank transaction tax. Most US states abolished their estate tax, and the federal government abolished it for a year. The US also abolished the limitation on the foreign tax credit for the alternative minimum tax.
The key point is that the concept of citizenship was largely “rooted in” the “sovereignty of nations”. Note that this is a concept of citizenship that is defined in terms of how the state relates to it’s citizens. There is agreement that “citizenship” involves both rights and responsibilities. It appears that in 1924, citizenship was defined more in terms of “responsibilities” and less in terms of “rights”.
To the extent that the law of citizenship, is a function of international law, it’s clear that international law has evolved.
Canada was a founding member of the League of Nations — an organization of countries established in 1919 at the end of the First World War. The League failed in its main purpose of keeping peace through the arbitration of international disputes. It was replaced by the United Nations at the end of the Second World War.
The 1919 Paris Peace Conference, at the end of the First World War, produced the Treaty of Versailles. The main authors of the Treaty — Britain (and its Dominions, including Canada), France and the United States — wanted to establish an international organization of member states founded on the principles of collective security, and the preservation of peace. The Treaty included a provision, or “Covenant,” for the creation of a League of Nations.
American President Woodrow Wilson had played an important part in founding the League, but the United States Senate refused to ratify the Covenant of the League — partly because of American partisan politics. As a result, the U.S. never joined the League, which deprived it of significant power and authority.
However, 63 other states were members. The League established headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. It included a council, assembly and secretariat. The council met quarterly and comprised the major powers as permanent members, plus non-permanent members elected by the assembly. The assembly consisted of representatives of all member states, and met annually. Under a secretary-general, the secretariat provided the permanent staff.
Given that the League of Nations evolved from the Treaty of Versailles, it’s clear that the League of Nations was NOT concerned as much with the rights of individuals as with the interaction among countries.
In the late 1920s, the League of Nations began a project which resulted in a informal treaty governing “nationality law”. The primary focus and purpose of the treaty was to clarify the rights that nations had over citizens and in what way(s) one country would recognize/respect the rights of nations over their citizens.
The 1930 Hague Treaty was an instrument that did NOT clarify the rights of citizenship, but rather clarified the rights of nations in relation to its citizens. Clearly, in 1930, the “citizens of the nation” were considered to be the “property of the nation” – a view that has been diminished today. Cook v. Tait was decided in an era where, the issues were less about the “rights of the citizen” and more the “rights of the country in relation to its citizens”.
The following discussion paper, which originated at Harvard University, and was submitted to the League of Nations is fascinating. It canvasses most of what was known about “citizenship law” at the time. It’s a must read for those interested in the evolution of the law of citizenship.
The key point to remember is that the “Hague Convention” was concerned with the rights of nations over their citizens and NOT with the rights of citizen in relation to nations.
Citizenship: Who decides? – What is the League of Nations nationality law?
To what extent can a country simply claim us to be citizens?
This is a question of current concern. The U.S. government, by unleashing “FATCA Hunt” on an unsuspecting world, has caused individuals to fear that they may be considered to be U.S. citizens.
Does the individual have the right of refusal when it comes to citizenship?
It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be recognised by other States in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality.
Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular State shall be determined in accordance with the law of the State.
Subject to the provisions of the present Convention, person having two or more nationalities may be regarded as its national by each of the States whose nationality he possesses.
So the short answer to the question, “Does the individual have the right of refusal when it comes to citizenship?” is a clear “no.” If the French decide you are French under the French citizenship laws then that’s the way it is. A person can, of course, renounce but citizenship/nationality is clearly a status that the individual has no control over (unless of course he or she obtains it through naturalization).
Now this is where it gets interesting. As a practical matter it is clear that there are limits. The United States of America cannot simply decide to turn the entire French nation into American citizens with the stroke of a pen. I’m not sure what principle this would defy but it seems that it might fall under one of the exceptions in Article 1 above that calls for consistency with international conventions and customs.
One very interesting article I found on-line talks about (and criticizes) something called the “genuine link” doctrine that was used (and perhaps still is) to limit the right of a state to ascribe nationality/citizenship to an individual. It says that there must be some sort of legitimate attachment in existence before a state can claim someone as “theirs.” And this link is? “A legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties.” In my mind this raised more questions than it answered. Going back to the Frenchwoman I talked about above, the legal bond exists but there is no real attachment behind it. Or is there? Is the mere fact that she was born on U.S. soil sufficient in the eyes of the United States to create a permanent and abiding attachment? Given that she was aware of her rights, is it unreasonable to say that she should also be aware of her duties even if the connection is inactive? To put it another way, should she be held to the obligations of that yet to be actualized citizenship and pay, for example, U.S. taxes? Or, for another example, could she called upon to defend the U.S. and her Constitution if these things were under attack? Could she be considered a traitor if she didn’t?
What I gathered as I read is that international law around citizenship is practically non-existent. Nothing is explicit. The only thing that states seem to be able to agree upon is that jus soli and jus sanguinis are the two customary methods by which citizenship is transmitted and that’s about it. If you have information to the contrary I would be most interested in knowing it.
Can states enforce their sovereignty over its nationals wherever they may be?
Final question and the answer is ‘yes” and they do it all the time if they are sufficiently motivated and an opportunity presents itself. States may not be able to immediately force compliance in some cases if the individual is living in another country but they can and do (if they are so motivated) go after that person or detain him at the border if he or she tries to enter the other country to visit family or just to visit.
The excellent Dual Nationality FAQ has these cautions to offer naturalized and “Accidental” citizens who enter another country of nationality. The example here uses the example of U.S. birthright or naturalized citizens but what he says is equally true of other countries as well.
So there you have it. Rather chilling isn’t it? I will stop there and get ready to take my train into Paris.As always your comments would be most welcome.
At the end of Word War II, the League of Nations came to an end and the United Nations was born. Along with the birth of the United Nations, came new human rights instruments that focused on the rights of individuals.
In August of 2012, an interesting post appeared at the Isaac Brock Society which both identified the sections of the Declaration and measured U.S. conduct against those standards.
– the U.S. government could not “strip” such of a person of U.S. citizenship without the consent of that individual.
The United States constitution includes a “constitutional guarantee” of citizenship. The government cannot “strip” a “14th amendment citizen” of citizenship without his consent. Renunciations of U.S. citizenship are rising. Today, the evidence strongly suggests that many Americans abroad feel that they are being forced to renounce their citizenship. This may constitute the “constructive stripping” a person of his citizenship.
In Burma, Rohingya Muslims are not considered citizens. The country’s 1982 Citizenship Act does not recognize them as one of the country’s national races.
To acquire citizenship, Rohingya can attempt to prove their ancestors settled in Burma before 1823, but only a handful have been successful thanks to “the onerous burden of proof” required, according to Human Rights Watch.
As an essentially stateless people, this minority community is prohibited from attending public high schools. They can’t work for the government or be voted into public office. The government restricts their movement within Rakhine state and beyond its borders.
Rohingya Muslims are often forced into unpaid labour to help government-run projects, like breaking stones to build roads. Human Rights Watch reports some children have been forced into free labour as early as seven.
It has also been alleged that some Burmese military officials coerce Rohingya Muslims to hand over goods or animals, sometimes as a bribe to secure a travel permit.
The Dominican Republic: The example of the Dominican Republic underscores the reason for the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution.
At issue is a ruling by the Constitutional Court in the Dominican Republic to strip away the citizenship of several generations of Dominicans.
What we are witnessing is one of the largest humanitarian crisis in the western hemisphere, except this one is completely by choice.
LONDON — Britain has passed legislation that allows the government to strip terrorism suspects of their citizenship even if it renders them stateless, taking the country’s already sweeping powers to revoke nationality a step further.
After four months of wrangling, the House of Lords, the Parliament’s upper chamber, approved on Monday a clause in a new immigration bill that removes a previous restriction on leaving individuals without citizenship. The bill became law on Wednesday, after receiving royal assent.
Britain has been one of the few Western countries that can revoke citizenship and its associated rights from dual citizens, even native-born Britons, if they are suspected or convicted of acts of terrorism or disloyalty. The government has stepped up its use of this tactic in recent years. In two cases, suspects have subsequently been killed in American drone strikes.
Does citizenship matter in targeted drone strikes? Does U.S. “citizenship” provide protection from being the object of a “targeted assassination” attempt? To its credit, the Obama administration has given much consideration to whether it can legally assassinate U.S. citizens abroad.
Britain and Canada have opted to begin the process of “stripping” people of their citizenship. This is legally permissible because neither Britain nor Canada has a “constitutionally entrenched” right of citizenship.
The United States cannot “strip” people of their citizenship (as per Afroyim and the 14th amendment) because for those born or naturalized in the United States are U.S. citizens. This creates a problem for the United States that Britain and Canada do NOT have.
We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the constitutions citizenship clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.
We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside.” This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does “subject to the jurisdiction” mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone–and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term “limits” rather than “jurisdiction” since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.
Interestingly, Donald Trump has made the question of “birthright U.S. citizenship” an issue in the nomination process for a 2016 Republican candidate.
For a nation that self-defines by its freedoms there seems to be a lot of “forcing” going on. People are being forced to renounce citizenship to financially survive and others are being forced to retain US citizenship as they cannot financially afford to shed it.
I do not understand why a nation would want to impose citizenship on those that do not want it. Obviously this latter group will contribute little into the tax coffers, why not just let them go? For this group USC is a noose around their necks, not a blessing. Some wish to retain US citizenship and have CBT/FATCA repealed, others just want out. There are millions in the world seeking US citizenship why on earth are they forcing others to keep it? (Might this stem from the complete inability to grasp that a human being could actually exist that does not covet US citizenship)?
For the group that just wants out, might an appeal for an amnesty program be a worthwhile avenue to pursue? A Dear John letter with say a $200-$500 processing fee (more than this group would ever be paying in taxes in the first place so it is a win for the IRS) and just set them free? A relationship built on unrequited love is toxic. The US would be well served to rid themselves of this group.
How the world has changed. President Barack Obama promised “change we can believe in”. The result of the Obama presidency is that people all over the world are now afraid of U.S. citizenship in a FATCA world. The numbers of those renouncing U.S. citizenship is increasing.
Can the United States of America forcibly impose U.S. citizenship on those who were born outside the United States? There is NO other country (not even Eritrea) that is believed to forcibly impose citizenship on those born outside it’s borders.
Many lawyers inside the United States, simply read the relevant U.S. statute and say with confidence: Yes, the United States has imposed citizenship on certain people born outside the United States. The consent of those individuals is irrelevant. Okay, but U.S. law ends at the U.S. border. Must those born outside the United States, accept the forcible imposition of U.S. citizenship, if they are not in the United States?
Which will continue the use of “citizenship” as a mechanism to transfer the “Wealth of (other) Nations” to the United States.
I recommend the following two recent publications by Professor Peter Spiro.
The United States “twinning” citizenship and taxation has brought citizenship in the public domain. Some of the best posts on “citizenship” have come from the blogger “Eric” who posts at the Isaac Brock Society. His posts are well researched and include interesting commentary which discusses “U.S. citizenship” in the context of the citizenships of other (usually Asian) nations.
This text was adopted by the International Law Commission at the 51st Session.
← RT: Why #Americansabroad are now the problem in the #taxreform17 debate – U.S. citizens live in fear!

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.