'I had to pay £8,200 to escape draconian US tax system'

Born in the US, she left as an infant, and had no idea she was American citizen until 2015 when her bank asked her for confirmation of citizenship.
Despite never having had a US passport, it was revealed she was a citizen.
Renouncing citizenship was particularly onerous as she had no social security number, which is a requirement for any US tax filing. To obtain one, she had to provide documentary evidence for every year she had not been in the US – almost 50 years.
She had to present a record of her life’s movements in person to US tax representatives, via microphone through a glass panel, in a room with other people waiting.
Going through a “streamlined” process, she then had to provide five years of US tax returns, and six years of a “foreign bank and financial account” reports, providing specific details of all financial assets. 
Any mistakes can elicit potential fines of $10,000 (£8,200) per error. 

“We may be American on paper, but we regard the US as a foreign government,” one reader said.

---

The unavoidable burden of FATCA!
The US is one of only two countries to tax its citizens resident abroad.
Financial institutions (banks and asset managers, etc.) around the world have to be because of the US law FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) supply data on US individuals and companies from capital and capital assets for US federal tax authority, the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) ..

To answer the topic, yes, that is the 'law'.

It is from the US Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment...

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The United States of America uses, therefore, unrestricted 'Jus Soli' as a basis for citizenship.

Born in the United States, you ARE a US Citizen... like it or not... to change this, you have to renounce US Citizenship, which as the people in your article found out can be quite expensive indeed.

This said, those over here that object to jus soli, and would rather the USA use jus sanguinis instead tend to be branded as racists.

Like it or not, the Tax Man Cometh.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

This said, those over here that object to jus soli, and would rather the USA use jus sanguinis instead tend to be branded as racists.

Actually the USA uses both. If either applies you are a citizen.

---

Is the US 14th Amendment international?
Of course not.
But the US demand all other countries to apply to the FATCA "law".
Swedish adoption of the law FATCA demanded by the US.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.skatteverket.se%2Fforetagochorganisationer%2Fskatter%2Finternationellt%2Ffatcaavtalmedusa.4.3f4496fd14864cc5ac910d26.html&edit-text=

Renouncing citizenship was particularly onerous as she had no social security number, which is a requirement for any US tax filing. To obtain one, she had to provide documentary evidence for every year she had not been in the US – almost 50 years.

This cost a lot of to us taxpayers not living in the US!

This said, those over here that object to jus soli, and would rather the USA use jus sanguinis instead tend to be branded as racists.

Actually the USA uses both. If either applies you are a citizen.

I know... I made a mistake while typing. Should have typed 'exclusively' in place of 'instead'. Sorry.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Is the US 14th Amendment international?
Of course not.
But the US demand all other countries to apply to the FATCA "law".
Swedish adoption of the law FATCA demanded by the US.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.skatteverket.se%2Fforetagochorganisationer%2Fskatter%2Finternationellt%2Ffatcaavtalmedusa.4.3f4496fd14864cc5ac910d26.html&edit-text=

Renouncing citizenship was particularly onerous as she had no social security number, which is a requirement for any US tax filing. To obtain one, she had to provide documentary evidence for every year she had not been in the US – almost 50 years.

This cost a lot of to us taxpayers not living in the US!

Sorry, but US law applies globally to both US Citizens and to money earned *IN* the US.

If you are making the point that US Tax Law has gotten quite a bit too... imperialistic, I would agree. Just imagine how bad it is for those of us that are US Citizens AND live here in the USA. Down right brutal.

Me, I think that money earned in the USA should be taxed by the USA... only. And money earned in some other country should be taxed by that other country... only.

But, my opinion does not matter a tinker's damn when it comes to that terrorist organization known as the IRS.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Sorry, but US law applies globally to both US Citizens and to money earned *IN* the US.

But this woman, and others, have never earned money or have assets in the USA.

Both myself and my youngest were born outside the UK, and have birth certificates from those countries. We could have applied to be citizens of those countries but there was an age limit, it is not automatic, nor did we have to renounce citizenship.

My sons was complicated because just at that time the government, trying to limit immigration from all those old Empire countries, ruled that only people born in the UK were UK citizens. Mr Major the then Prime Minister was soon informed of his error, and issued secondary documents to say all children born to citizens serving outside the country were UK citizens, and later modified the law.

---

@WK under the rest of the world system you can have people who are not citizens of any country. I wonder about their taxes.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/chinese-maternity-tourists-and-the-business-of-being-born-american

Fiona He gave birth to her second child, a boy, on Jan. 24, 2015, at Pomona Valley Hospital in Southern California. The staff was friendly, the delivery uncomplicated, and the baby healthy. He, a citizen of China, left the hospital confident she had made the right decision to come to America to have her baby.

She’d arrived in November as a customer of USA Happy Baby, one of an increasing number of agencies that bring pregnant Chinese women to the States. Like most of them, Happy Baby is a deluxe service that ushers the women through the visa process and cares for them before and after delivery.

There are many reasons to have a baby in the U.S. The air is cleaner, the doctors generally are better, and pain medication is dispensed more readily. Couples can evade China’s one-child policy, because they don’t have to register the birth with local authorities. The main appeal of being a “birth tourist,” though, is that the newborn goes home with a U.S. passport. The 14th Amendment decrees that almost any child born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen; the only exception is a child born to diplomats. He and her husband paid USA Happy Baby $50,000 to have an American son. If they had to, she says, they’d have paid more.

After the birth, He observed yuezi, the traditional month of recovery for new mothers. She, her mother, and her 2-year-old daughter stayed in Rancho Cucamonga, a city about 40 miles east of Los Angeles. Her apartment, in a complex with a pool, fitness center, and mountain views, was rented by USA Happy Baby. Her nanny was supplied by USA Happy Baby. She ate kidney soup and pork chops with green papaya prepared by a USA Happy Baby cook. She secured her son’s U.S. birth certificate, passport, and Social Security card with USA Happy Baby’s assistance.

He’s daughter was born in America as well. He and her husband, educated in Britain and from prosperous families, hoped to send their children to an international school in Shanghai that admits only foreign students. When the kids turn 21 they can petition for green cards for their parents, too.

---

Most people Born in The US (Natural Born Citizen) use this to stay, vote, legally work, etc. Mostly a positive.

But as with every Positive Law, Regulation, Human Conduct:

There will be occasional Negatives.

But, there doesn't have to be.

Just make it that someone born in the US can be a US citizen, and use an opt in or opt out option which must be exercised with a certain age range. My thoughts would be between 18 and 21 years old, so that parental influence could be minimised.

---

Most people Born in The US (Natural Born Citizen) use this to stay, vote, legally work, etc. Mostly a positive.

But as with every Positive Law, Regulation, Human Conduct:

There will be occasional Negatives.

But, there doesn't have to be.

Just make it that someone born in the US can be a US citizen, and use an opt in or opt out option which must be exercised with a certain age range. My thoughts would be between 18 and 21 years old, so that parental influence could be minimised.

That would require a Constitutional amendment, since Jus Soli is from the Constitution (the 14th amendment). That part of the 14th is there to guarantee that blacks, post civil-war, born in the US would be citizens with full voting rights.

Weaken this provision, and quite a number of civil rights laws might be in jeopardy... Or, so that line of reasoning goes...


And good luck getting that Constitutional amendment. The Democrat party is heavily in favor of Jus soli, and could quite likely block attempts to modify it.

Just accept it. Clyde is correct. While this provision is on the whole positive, there WILL be some occasional Negatives... Such as the IRS going after a non-resident US Citizen for Taxes owed to the IRS.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Don't forget that jus soli and jus sanguinis both originate from Common Law. If we can do it so can the US.

When I worked in the US, all the UK Tax office required were tax returns for the US, once they had those they didn't go further. Separately they asked if I was going to pay National Insurance, (pension and health contributions). In both cases they even included UK pre-paid envelopes.

In that period outside the UK, you must not be in the UK more than 30 days.

---

I would assume that the law was initially intended to build up the US population.

But now, don't many, even indirectly as an unintended consequence of the views on immigration, wish it to be halted.

---

I would assume that the law was initially intended to build up the US population.

But now, don't many, even indirectly as an unintended consequence of the views on immigration, wish it to be halted.

Negative.

As I stated in Message 1826504

since Jus Soli is from the Constitution (the 14th amendment). That part of the 14th is there to guarantee that blacks, post civil-war, born in the US would be citizens with full voting rights.

The population it was AIMED at was ALREADY HERE. The newly freed black slaves post-Civil War. To prevent them from being turned into modern-day Helots -- not quite a slave, but not a citizen either (therefore restricted rights, including voting).

The unintended consequence of this is it has lead to so-called birth-tourism, where an expecting mother comes to the USA (either legally or illegally) at such a time where she will give birth while here, bypassing the normal legal immigration system and being unfair to all those who are patiently waiting their turn with the LEGAL immigration system. The child is then a US Citizen, with the right to remain here... and that kind of requires its Mother remain here... and eventually the child's entire family gets to go to the head of the list to come here...

This is the PRIMARY reason for doing away with Jus soli...

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

But isn't that also true of the unauthorised immigrants. PEW Research says about 9% of all US births have one or more parents who are illegal immigrants.

---

The unintended consequence of this is it has lead to so-called birth-tourism, where an expecting mother comes to the USA (either legally or illegally) at such a time where she will give birth while here, bypassing the normal legal immigration system and being unfair to all those who are patiently waiting their turn with the LEGAL immigration system. The child is then a US Citizen, with the right to remain here... and that kind of requires its Mother remain here...

Not so in the case of Chinese birth tourism. A considerable amount of that has been to escape the one child policy. Mom goes back to China with the baby but doesn't have to register the child with the local authorities, but does with national. When the child gets older, with the offshore birth the child is afforded more prestigious education. Mom may hope when the child is ready for college the child will move to the USA and file a petition for Mom and Dad to come, but that is 18 years in the future.

What you are confusing it with is straight illegal immigration where the mother may or may not have been pregnant when she crosses. Those cases the child frequently has been schooled in the USA for several years and would not even be allowed to go with Mom when she is deported as the child was never registered with Mom's government and thus does not have dual citizenship.

The other seriously harmful case is where the child is brought in diapers across the border and grows up fully American, but isn't.

We need immigrants. We need sane policy. It has to be sane enough that it no longer has any advantage to cross illegally. Then everyone can present themselves to an official and be checked in, given a number and put into the system. Like it was when your great grand parents came.

---

...
We need immigrants. We need sane policy. It has to be sane enough that it no longer has any advantage to cross illegally. ...

Anex Mexico, if they'll have us. Add another 15 or so stars to the flag and be done with it.

Anais Mitchell - Why We Build The Wall - Hadestown (2010)
P.H.C. Oct.2016 - The Wall

Why do build the wall, my children?
Why do we build the wall?

Because we have and they have not!
Because they want what we have got!
The enemy is poverty
And the wall keeps out the enemy
And we build the wall to keep us free
That's why we build the wall
We build the wall to keep us free

...
We need immigrants. We need sane policy. It has to be sane enough that it no longer has any advantage to cross illegally. ...

Anex Mexico, if they'll have us. Add another 15 or so stars to the flag and be done with it.

15??

There are 31 States in the Estados Unidos Mexicanos (United Mexican States).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_Mexico

There would be a total of 81 States, maybe 80 if the USA State of Texas and the UMS State of Coahuila were recombined into the original State of Coahuila y Tejas. Maybe a couple fewer if other States, such as California, got recombined as well.

Of course, the Constitutions of both the USA and the UMS would have to be merged, but that would not be too difficult seeing as how the UMS's basic form of Government is modeled on the USA's... Perhaps moving the Capitals to somewhere more Centrally located would also be in order. Possibilities would include somewhere in Texas, or perhaps Colorado.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

I would assume that the law was initially intended to build up the US population.

But now, don't many, even indirectly as an unintended consequence of the views on immigration, wish it to be halted.

Negative.

As I stated in Message 1826504

since Jus Soli is from the Constitution (the 14th amendment). That part of the 14th is there to guarantee that blacks, post civil-war, born in the US would be citizens with full voting rights.

The population it was AIMED at was ALREADY HERE. The newly freed black slaves post-Civil War. To prevent them from being turned into modern-day Helots -- not quite a slave, but not a citizen either (therefore restricted rights, including voting).

The unintended consequence of this is it has lead to so-called birth-tourism, where an expecting mother comes to the USA (either legally or illegally) at such a time where she will give birth while here, bypassing the normal legal immigration system and being unfair to all those who are patiently waiting their turn with the LEGAL immigration system. The child is then a US Citizen, with the right to remain here... and that kind of requires its Mother remain here... and eventually the child's entire family gets to go to the head of the list to come here...

This is the PRIMARY reason for doing away with Jus soli...

Maybe, if it were a thing.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I would assume that the law was initially intended to build up the US population.

But now, don't many, even indirectly as an unintended consequence of the views on immigration, wish it to be halted.

Negative.

As I stated in Message 1826504

since Jus Soli is from the Constitution (the 14th amendment). That part of the 14th is there to guarantee that blacks, post civil-war, born in the US would be citizens with full voting rights.

The population it was AIMED at was ALREADY HERE. The newly freed black slaves post-Civil War. To prevent them from being turned into modern-day Helots -- not quite a slave, but not a citizen either (therefore restricted rights, including voting).

The unintended consequence was it gave the First People's citizenship, otherwise they are "not counted."

---