Hacker News Reader

I was born in the US to Canadian parents who promptly moved back to Canada where I have lived for the subsequent 55 years. Other than a US birth certificate I had no interaction with the US gov - we politely ignored eachother like a huge number of Canadians in the same situation. The informal status quo was that we both acted as if the "US citizenship by birth in the US" thing had not happened.

Until a few years ago when the US gov declared that I would be a criminal unless I became a full fledged US citizen. They also made this as difficult, expensive, confusing and time consuming as possible. For example having to find some paper documentation that is was living in Canada in 1967 etc. Huge costs - all of it going to specialist accountants - none to the IRS. And a huge complicated ongoing burden.

I am not even allowed to renounce until I have gone through this charade for a few years.

What has the US got out of this? They have processed lots of paperwork on my behalf and they have sent me some (unsolicited) stimulus checks which paid a tiny portion for the (Canadian) accountant fees they have saddled me with.

Serious question: How did they even find you? Did they seriously do a dragnet of all birth certificates and send you a letter in Canada or something?

They tell all the Canadian banks and financial institutions that they have to ask all customers whether they are US citizens (and you lose account access if you won't answer).

The Canadian banks then have to report all the accounts of US citizens to the US gov. The banks comply with all this because otherwise they get super nasty fines against their us operations.

Also: they tell you that if you come in under the amnesty program (like I did) that their will be no big penalties - but if you wait until the amnesty program expires - and they then find you - they will treat you like a criminal.

Wow. My initial thought was just to lie. But given what you said I’m not sure what the right approach would be. What a terrible situation.

What interest does it serve to make their life hard? She just wants to pay taxes where she works and lives. And what’s wrong with being a “rootless cosmopolitan”?

I don’t think anyone would mind losing their US citizenship as soon as they leave the country, if you could also regain it as soon as you enter

Because the alternatives are pretty bad (although a middle ground should be possible, like some countries cancel your citizenship automatically when you acquire another): - Being stateless makes it virtually impossible to travel - Most countries are hesistant to grant citizenship to visitors

I see very little reason as to why rootlessness has been made really hard in our current global system. I am not sure in whose interest it is that this cosmopolitanism has been made so bureaucratic.

If the renunciation fee weren’t $2k, you might have a point. But it is extremely expensive to renounce, and that by itself completely invalidates your implied point that there is some underlying reason for the cruelty.

By your logic citizenship should then be granted to anyone deciding to go live in another country. Either that or country should prevent immigrants from moving there.

There are people who, during their lifetime, live on different countries. So according to you someone who lives in four countries should change nationality three times?

> I think it's even perfectly valid for nations to ban dual citizenship itself.

Some do, some don't. In doubt I always vote for the option giving the individual more freedom: so even though I don't hold dual citizenship, I'm glad for those who do (except when it's US + another one and the US one proves to be a pain when living outside the US, as is the case in TFA).

> What interest of a nation does it serve to cater to these people that have left for greener pastures?

All I see is a free individual telling her tale.

BTW you used the term "rootless cosmopolitan" to describe her: apparently that's some soviet-era antisemitic insult.

The evil free individual, how dared she abandon the nation state?

>By your logic citizenship should then be granted to anyone deciding to go live in another country. Either that or country should prevent immigrants from moving there.

Of course it makes sense for countries to restrict who they want to come in, and no I don't think my logic dictates that citizenship should be granted to anyone just because they want to come in.

I'm describing people who have "rejected" being a citizen of a country by virtue of leaving, living in another place and working for the economy and community outside of the nation who they were a citizen of before.

I'm saying that being a citizen has value and so it should come with a cost, or it should be given up (or taken away). And that this shouldn't be very controversial. Certainly if you left an organization and worked for someone else you wouldn't be considered part of the old company? Or if you were on a sports team and left to another, same thing. It is up to each organization to determine the standards by which they assess granting membership.... leaving the org is certainly an legitimate criteria for revoking it.

>The evil free individual, how dared she abandon the nation state?

In and of itself I don't think it's that big of a deal, what I'm saying is, from the perspective of the home nation and its people... the citizens who didn't leave, why would it make any sense for them to cater to the people that left? To worry about their every whim and desire? They left. A nation and its people are those who are there and working to contribute to it and make it stronger. This is such common sense I don't understand the mindset who would think otherwise.

The crux of the argument here comes down to this: OF COURSE from the perspective of individuals moving all over the world, they want absolute freedom, to do whatever they want, to go wherever they want, to have all the rights and priviliges of all the places they can possibly get with no costs. But this has nothing to do with what is best and desirable for a nation itself. What is best for the nation as a whole, including the people that actually live there, doesn't always match up with what people roaming all over the world want. And so the interests of people actually living in a place are no less valid nor do they matter less (I think they matter more, actually) than the interests of people that don't live in a place.