Maple Sandbox Historical Archive – 2012 to 2016

Dual Citizenship: "Paramount Allegiance-Predominant Claim"

Published by

maplesandboxarchive

January 31, 2014

Over at Brock, George posted some information from U.S. Department of State on dual citizenship which is very useful to us. It says:

From the US Dept of State, 7 Fam 080, the formal and OFFICIAL US Position.

“b. It is a generally recognized rule, often regarded as a rule of international law, that when a person who is a dual national is residing in either of the countries
of nationality, the person owes paramount allegiance to that country, and that country has the right to assert its claim without interference from the other country.”
AND
“e. U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

So, there we have it. Even the United States says we owe our “paramount allegiance” to our country of residence. That is exactly how most of us are living our lives.
Our countries of residence have “the right to assert its claim without interference from the other country.”
So, why aren’t Canada, France, Switzerland, New Zealand, China, Russia, Brazil and India telling the U.S. to just FATCA off? Our “paramount allegiance” is to those countries and those countries have a “predominant claim” to us.

9 responses to “Dual Citizenship: "Paramount Allegiance-Predominant Claim"”

SwissPinoy

January 31, 2014

That’s what I’ve understood my entire life. Unfortunately, the current US government has been hijacked by criminals.

LikeLike

Reply
Blaze

January 31, 2014

@SwissPinoy: I didn’t have any formal understanding, but I still always believed that what is official US State Department policy posted on their website was what applied.
What I don’t understand is how US Treasury can so blatantly ignore that, with the blessing of US Department of State.
More importantly, why aren’t other governments screming. “They are OUR citizens and residents. They–and our banks–are expected to follow OUR laws-not yours,
Instead, Flaherty negotiates. Trudeau says we “fall under the authority” of the U.S.
New Zealand says its citizens born in US are “US taxpayers habitually resident in New Zealand.” What!?
Other countries capitulate.

LikeLike

Reply
maz57

January 31, 2014

@ Blaze. Because the US government is so gigantic, it’s no surprise that one branch of it doesn’t have a clue what another branch is up to. They regularly ignore their own laws when it suits them.
Other governments ARE screaming, but they are also scared to death of the extortionate threats to rain financial ruin on their financial institutions. (And maybe they have a secret hope that somehow in all this they’ll be able to track down some of their own tax evaders.)
Forget Trudeau, he obviously doesn’t get it. Flaherty, on the other hand, is well aware that CBT and FATCA are an attack on Canadian sovereignty. Let’s hope he has decided to use these FATCA negotiations as an opportunity to fix a lot of the problems that CBT and FATCA are causing in Canada.
Remember that Obama has stalled the current government’s pet project, namely Keystone. I doubt very much that US intransigence has put them in a very conciliatory mood re: FATCA.
If New Zealand’s politicians want to turn their country into a “protectorate” of the US, there is little we can do about it. They obviously don’t understand what’s at stake anymore than Trudeau does.

LikeLike

Reply
calgary411

January 31, 2014

Thanks for making a post of this, Blaze. I’m off to Brock to cross-post!

LikeLike

Reply
ArcticGrayling

January 31, 2014

Just another example of how Americans think their laws should supersede the laws of others, including International Law.
Judging by the US balance of trade deficit, they must be desperately seeking new exports, and so now are trying to export their laws.
Maybe it’s a make-work scheme for their own huge surplus of lawyers??
Obama resigned from the Illinois Bar before being disciplined for lying on his original bar application (on whether he had ever been know by another name). Maybe the Illinois Bar will reinstate him if he finds extraterritorial work for all their extra lawyers.

LikeLike

Reply
George

January 31, 2014

Hello Brockers, another little ditty to download before they take it away;
This is part of a joint congressional committee published report. Others can probably dice this up better, but it might be nice to have in the file. Better yet, send it to your MP as a report to Congress pointing out that having a CLN is not written into US Law. My guess is that would be the final breaking of the Expatriation Act 1868.
“There is no obligation for an individual to obtain a CLN or otherwise notify the Department of State of relinquishing ones citizenship.”

Click to access GPO-CPRT-JCS-2-03-7-2.pdf

Guess what friends, it has been well known for a very long time in Congress that CLN’s were and are not required.
Repeat after me, My “paramount allegiance” is to Canada and Canada has a “predominant claim” to me. Then quote the US Dept of State. 😉

LikeLike

Reply
Blaze

January 31, 2014

Thanks again George for a great find. I gave this its own thread and linked to Calgary411’s thread on this at Brock.
We are a diverse bunch, but together we are formidable.

LikeLike

Reply
calgary411

February 1, 2014

Another email: Canadian citizen and taxpayer 70-year old retiree, to my Canadian government representatives: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/01/31/from-the-us-dept-of-state-7-fam-080-the-formal-and-official-u-s-position-on-dual-citizenship-paramount-allegience-predominant-claim/comment-page-1/#comment-1055925, a simple request that I want confirmation of, along with ALL Canadians, no matter where they are from or where their parents are from, have the same rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Quote
…
Per the U.S. State Department Official Guidance to State Department Employees, my and other U.S. Persons’ in Canada*, “paramount allegiance” is to the nation we live in and I want my elected officials to assert their claim on me and other ‘U.S. Persons in Canada’* without any U.S. “interference.”
* This includes my adult son (and others like him), born in Canada, raised in Canada, never registered with the U.S., never lived in the U.S., never had any benefit from the U.S. (only Canada). Persons with a developmental disability or other ‘mental incapacity’ cannot renounce a supposed U.S. citizenship as they do not understand the concept of “citizenship”. Neither does a parent, a guardian or a trustee have the right to renounce on such a person’s behalf, even with a court order.
…
I want Canada and other countries to stand up for its people.
My “paramount allegiance” is to my country, Canada, and Canada must have a “predominant claim” on me – and on my adult son who is otherwise seemingly entrapped into a U.S. citizenship said to have been automatically received by birth to a U.S. citizen, but never in any way claimed. My son was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada and is Canadian. Canada has the right and I want Canada to assert its predominant claim for my son without interference from the other country, the United States.
…
Unquote

LikeLike

Reply
Blaze

February 1, 2014

@ArcticGreyling: Another Sandboxer contacted me via e-mail concerning your comments about Obamas law degree. She was concerned your post has misinformation. According to both Urban Legends and Snopes, Obama did not resign from the Illinois bar to avoid being disciplined. http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/Obama-Law-License.htm http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp We have valid reasons for being furious with Obama, but its important we don`t use misinformation to support our very valid concerns.

LikeLike

Reply