They've changed the rules of citizenship.

[sweetheart]

I recently had to renew my passport, having accidentally washed the
old one in my blue jeans pocket. The new one has changed the
definitions:

From the new US passport, page 4:
8. Loss of U.S. Citizenship: Under certain circumstances, you
may lose your U.S. Citizenship by performing voluntarily and with
the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship, any of the following
acts: (1) being naturalized to a foreign state; (2) taking an oath or
making a declaration to a foreign state; (3) serving in the armed
forces of a foreign state (4) accepting employment with a foreign
government; or (5) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S.
consular officer overseas.
<snip>
You may continue to have U.S. tax liability even if you lose U.S.
nationality.

From the old US passport issued 2001:
LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP, Under certain circumstances, you may lose
your U.S. citizenship by performing any of the following acts: (1)
being naturalized in a foreign state. (2) taking an oath or making a
declaration to a foreign state, (3) serving in the armed forces of a
foreign state, (4) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a
U.S. consular officer overseas.

So what's new? and why is "intent" now formally defined, as well as
taking employment with a foreign government. This secondary clause
lets them take citizenship away from many americans abroad, as much
employment is with government. As well, they want your tax, even if
they don't want your votes...

My new passport expires in 1 year, and must be approved by the
department of state, probably because i'm now an enemy of the state
by writing in opposition to the king.

I find this subtle change in the definition of citizenship, especially
using the word "intent", as a dangerous dangerous new gambit to
take citizenship away from people.

[mdhunter]

1. Hmm, to me it seems to offer more protection against losing citizenship

Since now performing those acts isn't sufficient to warrant revocation, they have to be performed with intent to renounce.

That's another hurdle for the state to prove, were it ever a question, which seems to me like retaining citizenship in suspect circumstances would be easier.

[sweetheart]

7. couldn't that be turned the other way

As "taking an oath or making a declaratoin to a foreign state" is not
provable, they could insinuate that such a declaration has been made
and say it's intent was to renounce. Legislating intent is a 2 edged
sword, as it can be used to presume guilt, and how does one prove one
did or did not have such intent.

There is a distinct vibe i get, that they are getting prepared to
strip people of citizenship, who oppose them... as how can one prove
that by vehemently opposing bush, that one is not an enemy, and must
have taken an oath to "al queda", and therefore had the intent to
renounce.

[JHB]

2. Does this mean the neocons who moonlight...

...writing position papers for the Likud Party have lost their US citizenship?

Ah, wait! I see the loophole: they work for the Party, not the Government...

[undergroundpanther]

4. What??!

They want taxes from non citizens??? What appalling greed and authoritarian bullshit.I say let the rich starve..
Someday someone has got to stand up to them.
The rich and sadistic control freaks cannot be allowed take it all from the world without accountability.The dominantand authoritarian sick people in america must be restrained lest we lose our democracy our freedom and what little sanity and happiness we got left..
Tax budgets should be publically scrutinized or not paid.

After all it's OUR money not thiers.We earn it not them.A corporation is helpless without workers.A Ceo is a parasite and Authoritarian dominator is a social parasite.All are sick. Fuck the rich bullies..Make them accountable for every dime they spend of ours. Then with open accounting we'll see how many greasy palms there are among Ceos and war weapon and torture equipment manufacturers ,well see business making money by the government dole,setting up dictators in forgien countries.
The rich big businessmen are the biggest welfare cheatsd there are.
Don't feed the rich.
Don't trust the powerful.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. You know what I think is odd about this?

You can't work for a foreign government, but the U.S. government can outsource your government job overseas?

WTF?

[Taxloss]

5. "You may continue to have U.S. tax liability even if you lose U.S.

nationality."

Taxation without representation is tyranny. I remember reading about that once. It was important in 1776 for some reason.

EDITED TO ADD:

"(2) taking an oath or making a declaration to a foreign state" - that is worryingly vague. Does singing "Oh, Canada" count?

[JHB]

11. What's wrong with that?

Foreign nationals working or running businesses here should be exempted from all taxes? They don't have to pay employer's share of FICA taxes for employees (which falls under "U.S. tax liability")?

Hell, I thought the real problem was people and corporations renouncing their citizenship (or US-based charter, for corporations) in order to DODGE taxes they rightfully should be paying.

[Taxloss]

12. I would imagine the rules are different for companies.

I was more thinking of US nationals (or, under these rules, ex-nationals) being harrassed by the IRS as a way of "getting to them" from afar.

[sweetheart]

13. There is a congressional assumption that...

the only reason a person would relinquish US citizenship is to dodge
taxes. The narrow minds in washington see NO other reason. As for
stripping citizenship, clearly that is part of their new adgenda as
well.

The congress published a list of persons who had renounced their
citizenship and said they were all doing it to get out of taxes. What
hubris... That america is one of the only nations, if not the only
one to tax its citizens on their incomes no matter where they are in
the world (and obviously, wherever you are, you pay taxes there as well),
is really quite over the top.

For all the republian talk about taxes being too high, it seems in
reality they're much more intent on saddling EVERY american who carries
the passport with the burden of their tyranny.

Taxation without representation? Geez, its been the story of my life.
Even in britain, i am taxed just like the next guy, but have no votes.
In america, i'm just taxed and fucked by a government that has no
comprehension of what representing "All" americans really means....
it seems they're going the other way towards stripping citizenship
from their oppostion as a way for a final solution.

[WritersBlock]

6. Why does your new passport have to be approved by the DOS?

Just curious - does it say that in the passport?

[sweetheart]

8. On the back page, no reason given

"-THIS PASSPORT EXPIRES ON JAN
03 2006 AND IS A REPLACEMENT
FOR A MUTILATED PASSPORT.
EXTENSION MUST BE APPROVED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE"

I don't know why. As the previous passport was not "lost" but merely
(and obviously) gotten wet, it strikes me as just a bit odd. The
previous one expired in 2011. Honestly, i believe because i write
this blog, that the DOS, has me on a watch list... call me paranoid,
and then again, i have a 1 year passport, downgraded from a 10 year.

[trogdor]

16. You have to get a new 10-year passport within a year.

What you have is a temp. Anyhoo, the DOS is the agency ultimately responsible for issuing passports.

[sweetheart]

19. clearly its a temp!

I "know" its the DOS, but i've never seen, on my own, or any of
my friend's passports, this qualifying statement. That they
charged me 85 bucks and went throught the full process to give me
a temp is no happy feeling. When i get it renewed next year, will
they give me another temp again? I find it suspicious, as i've
always had 10 years ones.. and renewed them only so that longer visas
stay in force with the passport. As it stands, a longer visa is
impossible for me to get with this passport, as they are usuually
governed by "the life of the passport".

I'd be willing to wager, that this new checking with the DOS is
not in any passport you can find around you... methinks its a new
provision to write this in the back cover.

Post 9/11, i can't blame them for fixing up procedures and documentary
standards, but harassing US citizens with terrorist laws really gets
my goat.

[WritersBlock]

18. Scary.

I vaguely remember reading something somewhere that replacement passports issued by an embassy are valid for a shorter time, but I went to the DOS website and couldn't find any info on it.

But then, if yours was sent off to the States rather than issued at the embassy in London, that wouldn't be applicable. Very strange.


On edit - typo

[democratic wing]

22. RFID in passports

RFID chips will be required in US passports beginning this year. I guess this means ALL US passports will be up for renewal by the end of 2005 instead of the usual 10-year time frame.

RFID IN PASSPORTS
Some fear it's a passport to identity theft
By Hiawatha Bray, Boston Globe
December 13, 2004

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2004/12/13/some_fear_its_a_passport_to_identity_theft

[tom_paine]

9. You've got to take away ReichCitiznship before Sending people to Gitmo

And yes, in the future, it will be used for expressly that purpose, IMHO.

[Tyler Durden]

10. COOL!

So now I don't even have to DO anything to be a TOTAL CANADIAN when they let me in.

Works for me.

[charlie]

14. State Dept page expands on that

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

Make sure you check out the Expatriating Statutes, they're more detailed than what's provided on a passport.

Fortunately, though the introduction of "intent" into the clauses can be worrying, presumption of innocence is still the base premise the dept uses:

ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE

As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to routine declarations of allegiance to a foreign state, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.

DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS APPLICABLE

In light of the administrative premise discussed above, a person who:

(1) is naturalized in a foreign country;

(2) takes a routine oath of allegiance or

(3) accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government

and in so doing wishes to retain U.S. citizenship need not submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating act a statement or evidence of his or her intent to retain U.S. citizenship since such an intent will be presumed.

When, as the result of an individual's inquiry or an individual's application for registration or a passport it comes to the attention of a U.S. consular officer that a U.S. citizen has performed an act made potentially expatriating by Sections 349(a)(1), 349(a)(2), 349(a)(3) or 349(a)(4), the consular officer will simply ask the applicant if there was intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship when performing the act. If the answer is no, the consular officer will certify that it was not the person's intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship and, consequently, find that the person has retained U.S. citizenship.

At first glance, I worried that more of Ashcroft's wet dreams had crept into law.

Section 501, "Expatriation of Terrorists": This provision, the drafters say, would establish that an American citizen could be expatriated "if, with the intent to relinquish his nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United Stated has designated as a 'terrorist organization'." But whereas a citizen formerly had to state his intent to relinquish his citizenship, the new law affirms that his intent can be "inferred from conduct." Thus, engaging in the lawful activities of a group designated as a "terrorist organization" by the Attorney General could be presumptive grounds for expatriation.

[neweurope]

15. I don't think you're being paranoid. This doesn't look good.

A passport that has to be renewed every year is a very good way to control people. And the rest doesn't look good, either. I regret the joke now that I made in that PM.

Please explain: If the passport expires and must be approved by the Department of State - does that mean you will have to go back for that next year? That could be very, very bad.

---------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

17. My 2 cents....

Generally, while the laws on losing U.S. citizenship are on the books, the only ones that have been consistently applied is the renunciation of citizenship in front of a Consular/Embassy officer and revokations in instances when it's discovered the person was a Nazi official or INTERPOL wanted person etc.

As to the oath to other nations, there are plenty of U.S.citizens (naturalized or U.S.-born) who have dual, triple or even quadruple citizenships in other countries. Therefore, this rule is not enforced, otherwise, dual (or more) citizenships would no longer be allowed...

Just my 2 cents as an immigration professional :D

[UdoKier]

20. Well, it's not like US citizenship is much of a treasure these days.

The Bushies have got the ship of state taking its last few swirls around the drain.

I've seriously thought of relinquishing my citizenship and becoming a Japanese citizen, although they are little more than a US puppet...

[American Tragedy]

21. Your NEW passport expires in one year? What the hell?

I just looked at mine, which I got last year, and it expires 2013. Incidentally, it says the same thing under page 4 that yours does.

I don't understand the part about accepting employment with a foreign government. Americans, especially students like me, are often offered opportunities to work in parliament or some other foreign service. Are they saying that if I do that, I will be renouncing US citizenship?