What would the constitutional argument be?
You have to renounce your US citizenship to stop being taxed on income you earn abroad.
However, per the Constitution itself, as a non-state DC is not entitled to a Congressperson or Senator unless the Constitution is amended. (It took a federal amendment for DC residents to get the right to vote in presidential elections, which in the US actually means the right to vote for representatives of the electoral college that actually elect the president. The amendment just gave DC electors.)
> so there's taxation without representation
What does that have to do with the constitution?
> Citizenship is of tangible worth, but the possessor thereof may voluntarily renounce it even though Congress may not be able to arbitrarily impose such renunciation.
On a tangent, it used to be very easy to give up citizenship. That same link says:
> Marriage of an American woman with a foreigner is tantamount to voluntary expatriation, and Congress may, without exceeding its powers, make it so, as it has in fact done, by the Act of March 2, 1907.
For example, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/491/ :
> Held: she expatriated herself under the laws of the United States by her naturalization as an Italian citizen followed by her residence abroad
or from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Brownell , "the Supreme Court upheld an act of Congress which provided for revocation of citizenship as a consequence of voting in a foreign election. The precedent was repudiated nine years later in Afroyim v. Rusk". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk .
Or relinquish. There is a difference and people would be wise to know it.
Also, I'm sure that US would argue that those living outside of its official/continental borders are still well "represented" by its military and consular forces, and as such should pay up. In a sense, the taxes as fees are "insurance premiums." Personally, I wish the issue had been addressed better than it was during the recent tax "reform" debate, but I knew better. There is no interest in giving up revenues and access to data.
For this conversation the difference is therefore mostly moot, even if a few minor differences still remain in the consequences.
Perhaps you're correct, but I don't consider loss of entry a "minor" difference, my friend. That's why I suggest that people do the research and try to be a bit more precise. But yes, I was aware of the fee change.
Also worth noting, since people like to quibble about numbers, that I've consistently heard that the list doesn't actually include everyone who has parted w/their citizenship or green card. So, the true numbers could be anyone's guess.
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.
You show residency when you live in a location and register to vote. If you move overseas, you remain registered in the county/precinct where you were last a resident.
You then vote in elections. I've got my ballot for the November elections, ready whenever I am.
And as for taxes, If you live in a higher tax location, you're not going to pay anything to the US. If you earn under 100k, you aren't going to pay anything in the US. You do have to file a return tho, which is a pain.
Expats can vote in federal elections in the last state they were resident in (or born in). I'm not sure what jurisdiction they get to vote in if they've never lived in the US (i.e., foreign-born US citizens). Expats that lived in the US and intend to return to their former residence may also vote in state and local elections.
Nothing jumps out at me, but IANAL so I'm not sure.
I guess holding citizens for ransom seems so damn un-American[0] to me that I hope/wish there's a good Constitutional barrier to it.
edit: [0] By "American", I mean the qualities of freedom and liberty that I was taught, in the 1970's public school system, distinguished the U.S. from most other countries.