"Sane" will continue until we have a critical mass of people like Senator Schumer in the Senate.
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer. And I do lots and lots of expatriation cases.
Under the current laws, intent is irrelevant. If you meet certain criteria (net worth above $2 million, for most people) you pay tax. Our friends in Congress want to define people as meeting these criteria as having evil tax-avoidance motives. It ain't so, at the moment.
And of course NO ONE ever tells the Embassy official that the primary motive for renouncing citizenship is tax-driven. :-)
Seriously, though. I would say that at least half of the people I work with end up living in high income tax countries (Canada, various countries in Europe, Australia, New Zealand). They aren't leaving to cut their income tax bills. The tax-drive motivations are primarily (1) the craptastic paperwork and horrific penalties that Americans abroad face, and (2) the estate tax.
The relevant portion is: "A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Such a person may be considered a lawful permanent resident at birth."
[1] I know that the US does not have conscription at the present time
At best, this helps the child's future opportunities, which may help the family. It in no way gives the parents a pass. A cursory review of sponsorship laws would reveal this. Yet for some reason, people parrot this silly saying as if it was somehow true.
Interesting to learn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_U...