DOCSLIB.ORG

Taxing Away Citizenship: Do American-Canadian Dual Citizens Consider Their Status to Be an Inconvenience?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Taxing Away Citizenship: Do American-Canadian Dual Citizens Consider Their Status to Be an Inconvenience? Taxing Away Citizenship: Do American-Canadian dual citizens consider their status to be an inconvenience? by James Eastman-Timmons A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Sociology Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario ©2015 James Eastman-Timmons ABSTRACT Despite growing tolerance of dual citizenship in an era of globalization, this status continues to be problematized by the governments of both the United States and Canada. This is evident in recent changes to Canadian Bill C-24, in which new grounds have been established to revoke the Canadian citizenship of ‘dual citizens,’ and by recent political discourse, which depicts dual citizens as Canadians of ‘convenience’ with ‘thin’ attachments to the nation. This thesis explores how dual citizenship may instead be ‘inconvenient’ for particular citizen subjects, namely ‘American-Canadians.’ To demonstrate this, twenty-three narratives of current and former ‘American-Canadian’ dual citizens were analyzed. It would seem paradoxical to suggest that an individual with a robust citizenship on each end of the hyphen could experience inconveniences. Nonetheless, I will demonstrate how the citizenship-based tax laws of the United States create insecurities for this population and lead to impulses to renounce this ‘robust’ citizenship. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Throughout my time at Carleton, both as an undergraduate and graduate student, the support of Dr. Daiva Stasiulis has greatly assisted my growth as an academic. I would like to offer my sincerest thanks to Daiva for her care and guidance as a supervisor. As well, I am grateful to have received her helpful ideas and comments on earlier drafts, all of which made this work possible. I also thank Dr. Amrita Hari for her assistance with this thesis project. Particularly for her insights, thoughtful comments, and encouragement throughout the writing process. She helped make writing this thesis a positive experience. I am incredibly grateful to Paula Whissell for her advice and kindness in moments of stress. Whenever I had a question, she had the answer. Thanks to Kim Mitchell for her encouragement during my time as an undergraduate and graduate student. I would also like to thank the excellent faculty in the Sociology Department, at Carleton University; particularly, Dr. Xiaobei Chen, Dr. Neil Gerlach, and Dr. Augustine Park. I would not be a graduate student without their assistance, time, and energies. I would like to acknowledge Carleton University for providing me with an opportunity to learn, to work in a professional setting as a teaching assistant, and for financial assistance. I would also like to gratefully acknowledge all the participants of this study, who willingly offered their time and shared their experiences, as well as, Max Reed and Steve Katz, at SKL Tax, for volunteering their time and for offering their expertise. My thanks to Anne Bartlett for helping me stay on the pathway to life as a University student, and to Bill and Lynn Morrison for all their help; particularly, when I first arrived in Ottawa to begin my University studies. I am grateful to my colleagues, Victoria Spofford and Steven Ang, for the great conversations—both academic and personal—for the laughs, and friendship. I am also grateful to Nico Church, Josh Lanthier, and Chris Zettel for the fellowship. Thanks as well, to André Morrill for being a great roommate and friend over the years. I cannot thank enough Arianna Di Giacomo-Maika for calling me out on my overuse of parentheses, for the coffee breaks, but most of all for being a continual source of positivity and support. I am thankful to all my extended family dispersed across Canada. Lastly, I owe my deepest thanks to my family: Kate, Alex, Lauren, and to my mother, Deborah. Their continual support, encouragement, and love—whether in person or from a distance—has led me to where I am today. I cherish everything they have done for me. I am humbled by all the support from those mentioned and those who remain unmentioned, but of course, I take full responsibility for any shortcomings of this work. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Situating the Study .................................................................................................................................... 2 Taxing Away Citizenship: Thesis Outline ................................................................................................ 5 Self-reflexivity: ‘Locating Myself’ ........................................................................................................... 7 I A HISTORY OF AMERICANS IN CANADA .................................................................................... 11 1.1 U.S./Canada Comparisons ................................................................................................................ 12 1.2 A History of American Migration to Canada .................................................................................... 15 1.3 What is Dual Citizenship? ................................................................................................................. 18 1.4 Canadian Nationality Laws: Implications for Dual Citizens ............................................................ 20 1.5 American Nationality Laws: Implications for Dual Citizens ............................................................ 22 II CONSENTING TO CITIZENSHIP: REVOCATION V. RENUNCATION/RELINQUISHMENT .................................................................................................................................................................... 30 2.1 Citizenship Loss: Revocation, Renunciation, and Relinquishment .................................................. 32 2.2 Citizenship Obtainment: Birthright, and Naturalization ................................................................... 40 2.3 Being Designed out of Citizenship: Theoretical Framework ............................................................ 42 2.4 Who are ‘Accidental Americans?’ .................................................................................................... 50 III THE FOREIGN ACCOUNTS TAX COMPLIANCE ACT (FATCA) AND TAX OBLIGATIONS FOR NON-RESIDENT U.S. CITIZENS ................................................................... 55 3.1 Citizenship-based Taxation v. Residence-based Taxation ................................................................ 57 3.2 Penalties for Inadequately Filing the FBAR ..................................................................................... 62 3.3 ‘Amnesty Programs’ ......................................................................................................................... 63 3.4 The Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act and the Intergovernmental Agreement ....................... 64 3.5 Inconveniences for Americans Living Abroad ................................................................................. 67 IV ‘I’M A MINNOW’: NARRATIVES OF INCONVENIENCE ........................................................ 73 4.1 ‘Affective’ State(s)/Citizen Relations ............................................................................................... 74 4.2 Narrative Analysis: What is it, and Why Analyze Narratives? ......................................................... 76 4.2.1 Narrative analysis: further theoretical musings..................................................................... 79 4.3 Data Collection: Participants ............................................................................................................ 81 4.3.1 Data collection: procedure .................................................................................................... 88 4.3.2 Data collection: ethics ........................................................................................................... 91 4.4 The Listening Guide: Analytical Framework ................................................................................... 92 4.5 Michael—Current ‘American-Canadian’ Dual Citizen .................................................................... 96 iii 4.6 Richard—Former ‘American-Canadian’ Dual Citizen .................................................................... 98 4.7 John—Former ‘American-Canadian’ Dual Citizen ........................................................................ 101 4.8 Sandra—Currently Holds Multiple Citizenships (i.e., American, British, and Canadian) ............. 102 4.9 Distancing Narratives ...................................................................................................................... 104 4.9.1 Narratives of the state ‘chasing whales’ and ‘catching minnows’ ...................................... 107 4.9.2 Narratives of parents and their U.S. citizen children .......................................................... 110 4.9.3 Narratives of inconvenience: the ‘affects’ of U.S. citizenship-based tax policy ................ 113 V ACTIVE CITIZENS, REMAKING CITIZENSHIP ....................................................................... 121 5.1 Activist and Dissident Citizenship .................................................................................................. 123 5.2 Remaking Citizenship ....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Making Modern American Citizenship: Citizens, Aliens, and Rights, 1865-1965
    Making Modern American Citizenship: Citizens, Aliens, and Rights, 1865-1965 By Brendan A. Shanahan A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Robin Einhorn, Chair Professor Mark Brilliant Professor Irene Bloemraad Summer 2018 Abstract Making Modern American Citizenship: Citizens, Aliens, and Rights, 1865-1965 by Brendan A. Shanahan Doctor of Philosophy in History University of California, Berkeley Professor Robin Einhorn, Chair American citizenship and the rights of U.S. citizenship became modern from the time of the Civil War until the Civil Rights era. Voting became the quintessential right of American citizenship as marginalized citizens won suffrage rights and noncitizen men lost the franchise in nearly two dozen states and territories. Conversely, nativist-inspired policies that counted only citizens as part of the population for redistricting purposes were gradually rescinded in states where they had long operated. At the same time, many forms of publicly funded blue-collar work and access to professional licenses were increasingly restricted to U.S. citizens. And the liminal legal status of hundreds of thousands of marital expatriates (U.S.-born women who had lost citizenship upon marrying noncitizen men) forced judges and immigration officers to interpret and administer the boundaries and meaning of increasingly exclusive citizenship rights. This dissertation explores how U.S. citizenship and restrictive “rights of citizenship” were claimed, debated, learned, and experienced by citizens and noncitizens alike from 1865 to 1965. Part I, “Consolidating the Political Rights of Citizenship,” examines state constitutional and legislative debates over alien suffrage and the inclusion of noncitizens in apportionment policies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Citizenship Clause: a ―Legislative History‖
    American University Law Review Volume 60 | Issue 2 Article 2 2010 The itC izenship Clause: A "Legislative History" Garrett ppE s [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Immigration Law Commons Recommended Citation Epps, Garrett (2010) "The itC izenship Clause: A "Legislative History"," American University Law Review: Vol. 60: Iss. 2, Article 2. Available at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol60/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The itC izenship Clause: A "Legislative History" This article is available in American University Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol60/iss2/2 GARRETT EPPS 60.2 THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE: A ―LEGISLATIVE HISTORY‖ GARRETT EPPS* TABLE OF CONTENTS * Professor of Law, University of Baltimore; formerly Hollis Professor of Law, University of Oregon. Correspondent: theatlantic.com. Email: [email protected]. I am grateful to the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the University of San Diego and to its director, Professor Michael Rappaport, as well as to Center member Professor Michael Ramsey for their work organizing a conference on works in progress in February 2010. I am also honored to have been a participant along with Larry Alexander, Jack Balkin, Randy Barnett, Robert Bennett, Laurence Claus, Michael Kent Curtis, Jim Fleming, John Harrison, Kurt Lash, Yale Kamisar, Kurt Lash, Thomas H.
    [Show full text]
  • Jus Sanguinis Citizenship and the Legal Construction of Family, Race, and Nation Abstract
    Kristin A. Collins Illegitimate Borders: Jus Sanguinis Citizenship and the Legal Construction of Family, Race, and Nation abstract. The citizenship status of children born to American parents outside the United States is governed by a complex set of statutes. When the parents of such children are not married, these statutes encumber the transmission of citizenship between father and child while readily recognizing the child of an American mother as a citizen. Much of the debate concerning the propriety and constitutionality of those laws has centered on the extent to which they reflect gender-traditional understandings of fathers’ and mothers’ respective parental roles, or instead reflect “real difference.” Based on extensive archival research, this Article demonstrates that an important yet overlooked reason for the development of gender- and marriage-based derivative citizenship law—jus sanguinis citizenship—was officials’ felt need to enforce the racially nativist policies that were a core component of American nationality law for over 150 years. The complex interaction of gender, race, family law, and nationality law charted here demonstrates that gender-based jus sanguinis citizenship is not a biologically inevitable feature of American nationality law, as has been argued, but is in important respects the product of choices made by officials engaged in a racially nativist nation-building project. This history also suggests that what is at stake in modern challenges to gender-based citizenship laws is not only the constitutionality of those statutes, but a mode of reasoning about citizenship, family, gender, and race that continues to shape the practice and politics of citizenship in ways that are often obscured in modern citizenship debates.
    [Show full text]
  • The Riddle of Ruth Bryan Owen
    The Riddle of Ruth Bryan Owen Daniel B. Rice* INTRODUCTION Her ancestors helped win America's independence.' As a child, she watched House debates with rapt attention, vowing eventually to return to her beloved Capitol building. She gazed out on millions of cheering faces during her father's three presidential campaigns. Her uncle was a governor and vice-presidential nominee, her father the American Secretary of State. She ran the American Women's War Relief Fund alongside future First Lady Lou Hoover and nursed dying Allied soldiers. After establishing herself as Florida's leading female activist, she campaigned for the House of Representatives in 1928, promising to send her district's most exemplary young citizens to Washington on an unparalleled civic pilgrimage. She won resoundingly-making her the first woman the South ever sent to Congress-even though her home state hadn't yet ratified the Nineteenth Amendment.2 She later served as our nation's first female ambassador. Who was more American than Ruth Bryan Owen? But just as this dazzling stateswoman-to-be prepared to take her seat in Congress, her defeated opponent challenged her eligibility to participate in the federal lawmaking process. For only the second time since 1789,3 a losing House candidate impugned his opponent's qualifications on citizenship grounds, arguing that Owen hadn't "been seven Years a Citizen of the United States" as the Constitution requires.4 How could Owen have possibly been vulnerable on this score? Under the Expatriation Act of 1907, American women (but not men) who married foreigners were automatically stripped of their American * Law clerk, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Law - Involuntary Expatriation - Specific Intent Ot Relinquish Citizenship Required - Baker V
    DePaul Law Review Volume 19 Issue 1 Fall 1969 Article 11 Constitutional Law - Involuntary Expatriation - Specific Intent ot Relinquish Citizenship Required - Baker v. Rusk, 296 F. Supp. 1244 (1969) Robert Ward Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Robert Ward, Constitutional Law - Involuntary Expatriation - Specific Intent ot Relinquish Citizenship Required - Baker v. Rusk, 296 F. Supp. 1244 (1969), 19 DePaul L. Rev. 193 (1969) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol19/iss1/11 This Case Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1969] CASE NOTES the new marijuana statutory scheme.68 Moreover, the Court explicitly stated that the Leary decision is no bar to the enactment of future mari- 6 juana laws by Congress. 11 As a result of the Leary case, other criminal statutory presumptions will no doubt come under the scrutiny of the courts. The presumption, for example, of federal narcotics statute 21 U.S.C. § 174, identical almost word for word with the Leary presumption, will probably be reexamined in the light of the new "rational connection" test. Merely because it could not be established that the majority of marijuana smokers know the origin of their marijuana, it does not necessarily follow that the majority of "hard" narcotics users do not know the origin of their drug. In surveying data relevant to narcotic drugs, the courts may well conclude that drug users are "more likely than not" to have knowledge of its importation, and uphold the validity of that presumption.
    [Show full text]
  • Jus Sanguinis Citizenship and the Legal Construction of Family, Race, and Nation Kristin Collins Boston University School of Law
    Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law Faculty Scholarship 5-2014 Illegitimate Borders: Jus Sanguinis Citizenship and the Legal Construction of Family, Race, and Nation Kristin Collins Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Immigration Law Commons Recommended Citation Kristin Collins, Illegitimate Borders: Jus Sanguinis Citizenship and the Legal Construction of Family, Race, and Nation, 123 Yale Law Journal 2134 (2014). Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/72 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ILLEGITIMATE BORDERS: JUS SANGUINIS CITIZENSHIP AND THE LEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF FAMILY, RACE, AND NATION 123 Yale L.J. 2134 (2014) Boston University School of Law Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper No. 14-36 (July 1, 2014) Kristin A. Collins Boston University School of Laww This paper can be downloaded without charge at: http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/scholarship/workingpapers/2014.html Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2461228 Kristin A. Collins Illegitimate Borders: Jus Sanguinis Citizenship and the Legal Construction of Family, Race, and Nation abstract. The citizenship status of children born to American parents outside the United States is governed by a complex set of statutes. When the parents of such children are not married, these statutes encumber the transmission of citizenship between father and child while readily recognizing the child of an American mother as a citizen.
    [Show full text]
  • Illegitimate Borders: Jus Sanguinis Citizenship and the Legal Construction of Family, Race, and Nation
    THE YALE LAW JOURNAL KRISTIN A. COLLINS Illegitimate Borders: Jus Sanguinis Citizenship and the Legal Construction of Family, Race, and Nation ABSTRACT. The citizenship status of children born to American parents outside the United States is governed by a complex set of statutes. When the parents of such children are not married, these statutes encumber the transmission of citizenship between father and child while readily recognizing the child of an American mother as a citizen. Much of the debate concerning the propriety and constitutionality of those laws has centered on the extent to which they reflect gender-traditional understandings of fathers' and mothers' respective parental roles, or instead reflect "real difference." Based on extensive archival research, this Article demonstrates that an important yet overlooked reason for the development of gender- and marriage-based derivative citizenship law-jus sanguinis citizenship-was officials' felt need to enforce the racially nativist policies that were a core component of American nationality law for over 150 years. The complex interaction of gender, race, family law, and nationality law charted here demonstrates that gender-based jus sanguinis citizenship is not a biologically inevitable feature of American nationality law, as has been argued, but is in important respects the product of choices made by officials engaged in a racially nativist nation-building project. This history also suggests that what is at stake in modern challenges to gender-based citizenship laws is not only the constitutionality of those statutes, but a mode of reasoning about citizenship, family, gender, and race that continues to shape the practice and politics of citizenship in ways that are often obscured in modern citizenship debates.
    [Show full text]
  • We Have Counted the Cost of This Contest and Find Nothing So Dreadful As Voluntary Slavery
    CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS We have counted the cost of this contest and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. With an humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the Universe, we most devoutly implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the empire from the calamities of civil war. John Dickenson and Thomas Jefferson, Continental Congress, July 6, 1775. Declaration of Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms INTRODUCTION The Civilization which we now know and enjoy has come down to us from four main sources. The Greeks, the Romans, and the Christians laid the foundations, and in the order named, and the study of the early history of our Western Civilization is a study of the work and the blending of these three main forces. It is upon these three foundation stones, superimposed upon one another, that our modern European and American civilization has been developed. The Germanic tribes, overrunning the boundaries of the Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries, added another new force of largest future significance, and one which profoundly modified all subsequent progress and development. To these four main sources we have made many additions in modern times, building an entirely new superstructure on the old foundations, but the groundwork of our civilization is composed of these four foundation elements.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxing Away Citizenship: Do American-Canadian Dual Citizens Consider Their Status to Be an Inconvenience? by James Eastman-Timmo
    Taxing Away Citizenship: Do American-Canadian dual citizens consider their status to be an inconvenience? by James Eastman-Timmons A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Sociology Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario ©2015 James Eastman-Timmons ABSTRACT Despite growing tolerance of dual citizenship in an era of globalization, this status continues to be problematized by the governments of both the United States and Canada. This is evident in recent changes to Canadian Bill C-24, in which new grounds have been established to revoke the Canadian citizenship of ‘dual citizens,’ and by recent political discourse, which depicts dual citizens as Canadians of ‘convenience’ with ‘thin’ attachments to the nation. This thesis explores how dual citizenship may instead be ‘inconvenient’ for particular citizen subjects, namely ‘American-Canadians.’ To demonstrate this, twenty-three narratives of current and former ‘American-Canadian’ dual citizens were analyzed. It would seem paradoxical to suggest that an individual with a robust citizenship on each end of the hyphen could experience inconveniences. Nonetheless, I will demonstrate how the citizenship-based tax laws of the United States create insecurities for this population and lead to impulses to renounce this ‘robust’ citizenship. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Throughout my time at Carleton, both as an undergraduate and graduate student, the support of Dr. Daiva Stasiulis has greatly assisted my growth as an academic. I would like to offer my sincerest thanks to Daiva for her care and guidance as a supervisor. As well, I am grateful to have received her helpful ideas and comments on earlier drafts, all of which made this work possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Eligibility Tutorial
    http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm Presidential Eligibility Tutorial Copyright (©) 2009-2014 Stephen Tonchen Revision date: February 28, 2014 This document is subject to ongoing updating as relevant new information becomes available. The most current version is found at http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm Presidential Eligibility Tutorial originally appeared in June 2009 under the title Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer. It explains, in plain English, why some historical and legal researchers believe Barack Hussein Obama II does not meet the presidential "natural born citizen" eligibility requirement specified in the U.S. Constitution. This Tutorial should not be confused with the WorldNetDaily Obama Eligibility Primer, an entirely separate and unrelated document published in 2010. Abstract Throughout U.S. history, popular opinion has generally supported the viewpoint that mere birth on U.S. soil is, in most cases, sufficient to confer U.S. citizenship at birth (see, for example, Quotations from the 39th Congress). However, prior to 1898, the actual rulings by federal courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court), and the original meaning and intent of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, paint a somewhat different picture. According to the preponderance of pre-1898 federal case law, the citizenship of a child, at the time of its birth, is that of its father, not its birthplace. If children born on U.S. soil, of foreign-citizen fathers, were not federal (United States) citizens at birth, such children could not have been natural born citizens. The President's autobiography and long-form Certificate of Live Birth [01] provide the following information: · Barack Obama Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction in Nineteenth Century International Law and Its Meaning in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
    Saint Louis University Public Law Review Volume 32 Number 2 General Issue (Volume XXXII, No. 2) Article 6 2012 Jurisdiction in Nineteenth Century International Law and Its Meaning in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Robert E. Mensel St. Thomas University School of Law, Miami, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/plr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mensel, Robert E. (2012) "Jurisdiction in Nineteenth Century International Law and Its Meaning in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," Saint Louis University Public Law Review: Vol. 32 : No. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/plr/vol32/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Saint Louis University Public Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Commons. For more information, please contact Susie Lee. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW JURISDICTION IN NINETEENTH CENTURY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ITS MEANING IN THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ROBERT E. MENSEL* All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. .1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... 330 I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 331 II. THE PRESENT DEBATE ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Past & Future of Expatriation- a New Counterterrorism Tool? .Pdf
    The Past & Future of Expatriation: A New Counterterrorism Tool? COLIN WOLFF† Abstract Which of the following may unilaterally revoke your citizenship: yourself, the government, or both? The answer may be less intuitive than you think. This article seeks to provide an answer by tracing the historical development of expatriation—the loss or relinquishment of citizenship— from before the Declaration of Independence to the modern Twitterverse. From the historical analysis emerges a cycle oscillating between state expatriation and individual expatriation, competing doctrines which continue to vie for jurisprudential dominance. Hardly confined to the past, the battle over expatriation is once again poised to take center-stage. And it should. Citizenship, with its attendant rights and obligations, is a pillar of the American experience. As Americans increasingly venture out of (and into) the United States, questions over expatriation will touch a growing number of topics, including criminal procedure, international law, due process rights, civil liberties and even counterterrorism. † Managing Editor—Business, Volume 55, Texas International Law Journal, J.D. Candidate, Class of 2020, The University of Texas School of Law. Many thanks to Professor Samy Ayoub for his assistance in developing this note. I would also like to extend my sincerest gratitude to Beatriz Machado and Professor Angela Littwin for their support. Additional thanks to the editors of the Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal for their diligent efforts with this piece; any errors you may find in it are mine alone. 352 CONNECTICUT PUBLIC INTEREST LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 19.2 In October 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald passed through cold metal gates at the American embassy in Moscow where he declared to the Consular Officer his desire to renounce his American citizenship.
    [Show full text]