Meghan Markle: Citizenship and Religious Conversion

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

Perhaps, I (and others) misunderstood your original post then--I read it as you stating you were told you were legally required to register your child with the embassy or consulate or your child could not (ever) claim citizenship. That seems to not be what you meant.

If others also misunderstood, it could be why some of this discussion is muddled?

Thanks for your endless attempts to keep this discussion on track. It seems that the above indeed happened.

[JuliannaVictoria]

Originally Posted by Somebody

To me this is proof that the US government only considered you a citizen from the moment your citizenship was established. Had you been (according to the law) a citizen your whole life who only showed up after 12 years of adulthood, they would have taxed you for the missing years (as you would have neglected your obligations as citizen).

Really...

I think I'm over this conversation because it's only going around in circles. I was a citizen at birth which means I can run for the presidency. The government only had to VERIFY my information that I was a citizen.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

IRS is a government agency that's responsible for revenue. A standard of practice in that department does not equal citizenship or not. Citizenship's under USCIS purview. The law is very clear, citizenship is acquired through birth.

You can't claim something unless you have it in the first place.

Not true. Think about naturalization. You (in general) claim citizenship based on meeting certain criteria. You aren't a citizen on the moment you met those criteria (if so, I would have been Peruvian by now as I met the criteria but didn't apply) but only after you applied. Something similar applies to those applying for citizenship based on birth right. They become recognized US citizens from the moment their claim is deemed valid.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Nobody contested that there are different ways to establish citizenship. The issue on which we differ is whether someone IS a citizen when no claim has been filed or that that person only has the right to acquire citizenship.

Based on the confirmation that taxes only need to be paid after establishment and not from the moment the 'right to claim' started, it can be deduced that according to the US government you are only considered a citizen (with rights and obligations) from the moment your citizenship is formally established through an official process, not from the moment you acquired the right (in Meghan's child's case: just by birth to a US parent).

Except, the law is clear that you acquire citizenship at the time of birth as published by government agencies that oversees this matter and have been quoted above. Not the right to citizenship.

Originally Posted by Somebody

Not true. Think about naturalization. You (in general) claim citizenship based on meeting certain criteria. You aren't a citizen on the moment you met those criteria (if so, I would have been Peruvian by now as I met the criteria but didn't apply) but only after you applied. Something similar applies to those applying for citizenship based on birth right. They become recognized US citizens from the moment their claim is deemed valid.

I am thinking about naturalization. And I'm telling you that's an entirely different process than just claiming your citizenship. Naturalization is a much more tedious and have far more requirements than just filing some papers. Naturalization also means I can't run for President while those that obtain their citizenship through birth to a US parent can. One can only become a US citizen through two ways, birth or naturalization. If you aren't naturalized citizen, you were born a citizen.

[alvinking]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

Perhaps, I (and others) misunderstood your original post then--I read it as you stating you were told you were legally required to register your child with the embassy or consulate or your child could not (ever) claim citizenship. That seems to not be what you meant.

If others also misunderstood, it could be why some of this discussion is muddled?

Not what I said at all

I said there is a difference between the Right to claim/ and claiming. Actually I don't want to rehearse the subject now, I am only going to say that Somebody exactly understood my point, and her analyses, and understandings are in line with what i experienced and what i usnderstood of this issue

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I am thinking about naturalization. And I'm telling you that's an entirely different process than just claiming your citizenship. Naturalization is a much more tedious and have far more requirements than just filing some papers. Naturalization also means I can't run for President while those that obtain their citizenship through birth to a US parent can.

Naturalization for obtaining U.S. citizenship has nothing to do with Meghan or Baby Sussex and is not relevant to this thread.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by JuliannaVictoria

Really...

I think I'm over this conversation because it's only going around in circles. I was a citizen at birth which means I can run for the presidency. The government only had to VERIFY my information that I was a citizen.

Happy to agree to disagree. It's complicated stuff and all the technicalities aren't that relevant in personal life (please don't take it as me trying to diminish your citizenship - that's not my intention at all but as it applies to you personally I can imagine that it may come across as such) but could have implications for the child that is to be born. Is he/she a US citizen or does he/she have the right (from birth) to establish US citizenship? In the latter case the parents and/or child could choose not to act upon this right to acquire citizenship.

[jacqui24]

I don't know how much clearer the government can be about citizenship being acquired at birth by saying it is. They've given breaks to those that haven't filed the paperwork in terms of certain obligations by practice due to practical reasons. But I think nothing is clearer than spelling it out.

[Tatiana Maria]

Regarding the term "claim", I believe it can designate either type of situation (claiming a right already in existence or submitting a claim to acquire a new right), which is why it has been used on both sides of this discussion.

Originally Posted by Somebody

Based on the confirmation that taxes only need to be paid after establishment and not from the moment the 'right to claim' started, it can be deduced that according to the US government you are only considered a citizen (with rights and obligations) from the moment your citizenship is formally established through an official process, not from the moment you acquired the right (in Meghan's child's case: just by birth to a US parent).

I am not sure how commonly it occurs, but the American tax agency has been known to pursue taxes from persons it considers to be American citizens but who were unaware that they were citizens (one would assume they never registered their citizenship in an official process if they had no knowledge of the fact). This post from a tax attorney is an example:

If you are born abroad and one or both of your parents is a US citizen, you are also bestowed US citizenship. While for many, this is a coveted right, it gives rise to the situation where someone grows up without ever setting foot in the US, yet once they start earning income as an adult, they become subject to the same US tax reporting requirements (including foreign income and asset reporting) as all US citizens. Furthermore, since most developed nations do not tax their citizens based on citizenship (but rather, residency), it may never occur to the individual to even consider this despite knowing that they hold dual citizenship in the US and their home country.

Many of these so-called “Accidental Americans” became aware of their situation after the implementation of FATCA in 2014. At this time, or in the years following, they may have received a FATCA Letter from their non-US bank stating that their account information would now be reported to the IRS. After a little bit of research, they become aware of not only their potential outstanding tax liability, but also the astronomical civil penalties or criminal liability they are potentially subject to as a result of years or decades of being unknowingly non-compliant.

https://www.taxattorneyclick.com/accidental-americans/

Edit: After a second reading, I believe the above article is discussing citizens who did not know about their tax obligations rather than their citizenship, but here is another article mentioning people unaware of their citizenship. https://www.greenbacktaxservices.com...tal-americans/

[JuliannaVictoria]

I'm going to post this, then I'm out:

The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution (the law of the land)
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[hel]

Originally Posted by JuliannaVictoria

In my case no. I was almost 30 when I had to prove citizenship and I only paid taxes from the time I was established, which means when I received my social security #.

That was also the experience of my first husband, who also claimed his citizenship as an adult (his parents had left the US to avoid the draft, so weren't about to go waltzing up to the consulate to register his birth abroad). While he'd worked for a few years, including while visiting the US, there was no concern about tax liabilities until after he got his citizenship established.

Interestingly, and to the point about flying under the radar made by the poster whose mother has never established her citizenship in the other country, a good friend of mine born in Canada to American parents ended up naturalizing as an American once he moved down there for school and married an American. There weren't any flags raised about him already being a US citizen by birth.

[Fijiro]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Happy to agree to disagree. It's complicated stuff and all the technicalities aren't that relevant in personal life (please don't take it as me trying to diminish your citizenship - that's not my intention at all but as it applies to you personally I can imagine that it may come across as such) but could have implications for the child that is to be born. Is he/she a US citizen or does he/she have the right (from birth) to establish US citizenship? In the latter case the parents and/or child could choose not to act upon this right to acquire citizenship.

Even if the parents do nothing, when the child(ren) turns 18, he/she has the right to claim his/her US citizenship.
A parent does not have the right to rescind their child(ren)'s citizenship. So even if Meghan becomes a UK citizen and decides to rescind her US citizenship, she cannot rescind that of her child(ren).
I hope she doesn't rescind hers either.

[ladongas]

... one of the (unsuccessful ) Republican candidates, Ted Cruz, was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. They failed to register his birth with the US embassy/consulate, and there was a bit of to and fro about his citizenship. He eventually produced his mother’s Delaware birth certificate, and the issue was settled; he also renounced his dual Canadian citizenship.

So it can get a bit messy if things aren’t handled early on, but it’s by no means a bar to his (or Baby Sussex’s) birthright citizenship.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

This conversation reminds me strongly of the Wessex HRH issue: it will only be talked round in circles until someone gets an official answer in writing.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

If the BRF or the British government don’t see this as a problem for an extended period of time. And 5 years is extenddd period of time. I don’t see why Meghan should.

Not quite. The 5 year period is a transitional period, as that is how long it takes to acquire UK citizenship. That is the law of the land, and cannot be fast tracked. The BRF and the government do not have much of a choice in the matter.

Once she is a British subject, deliberately choosing to not solely commit to the UK would send out a very different message. That is certainly not "as it wasn’t deemed necessary by those she works to represent."

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Especially considering the BRF and government thought it’s ok for her child, who is actually in line to the throne, to be a dual citizen for at least 18 years of his or her life. I’d say that ship sailed long ago.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Originally Posted by jacqui24

If people feel like it’s inappropriate to be represented by someone with dual nationality, that’s too bad.

If she really were to approach her role with this sort of attitude (which I am not suggesting she is), a lot of the current criticism she is facing on social media and the Press could seem particularly mild, IMHO.

[sndral]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

This conversation reminds me strongly of the Wessex HRH issue: it will only be talked round in circles until someone gets an official answer in writing.

I expect we’ll get our official answer in 18 years when Prince/ss ABC of Sussex officially renounces their right to U.S. citizenship so they don’t have to deal w/ the IRS [please note - this as meant as a joke, anyone who has had to deal w/ the IRS knows what a beaurocratic nightmare that can be!]

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

This conversation reminds me strongly of the Wessex HRH issue: it will only be talked round in circles until someone gets an official answer in writing.

Unlike the Wessex HRH issue, the issue of when a child acquires US citizenship is pertinent to hundreds of millions of people. For example, as was pointed out by several posters, the United States Constitution mandates that the American president be a "natural-born Citizen". The interpretation of citizenship not being acquired until it is established (proved) with documentation would cause tremendous problems – as even persons born on American territory would be born as non-citizens and not become citizens until their birth certificates were issued to establish that they met the criterion of birthplace. As a result, there would be no "born" citizens eligible to run for election as president.

For that reason, a wealth of official writings and judicial precedents are already available. The answers quoted earlier were taken from the website of the U.S. Department of State, which is a government agency. Is there another government authority whose written answer you would consider more "official"?


From an earlier post, this is the State Department quote regarding "acquir[ing] U.S. citizenship at birth":

Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad

Birth Abroad in Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen and an Alien

A person born abroad in wedlock to a U.S. citizen and an alien acquires U.S. citizenship at birth if the U.S. citizen parent has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the person’s birth for the period required by the statute in effect when the person was born (INA 301(g), formerly INA 301(a)(7).) For birth on or after November 14, 1986, the U.S. citizen parent must have been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for five years prior to the person’s birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen. [...]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Speaking as a CPA, what the IRS can and do is different at times. It's hard for them to come after someone if they can't prove they knew and purposely avoided such. And certainly, they simply don't have the resources to chase down everyone. And honestly, this is just not worth it as most have paid their taxes in the country they resided in, and thus would be credited towards tax liability in US. This is something that's an established practice of IRS, but not related to citizenship. If you didn't have citizenship since birth, you can't claim birthright.

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I don't know how much clearer the government can be about citizenship being acquired at birth by saying it is. They've given breaks to those that haven't filed the paperwork in terms of certain obligations by practice due to practical reasons. But I think nothing is clearer than spelling it out.

I concur with this comment. There is sometimes a difference between the text of a law and the enforcement of the law, and non-enforcement is not necessarily proof that the law is inapplicable, and in this case, the words "at birth" in the text of the law and the official summary of it are very clear.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by muriel

Not quite. The 5 year period is a transitional period, as that is how long it takes to acquire UK citizenship. That is the law of the land, and cannot be fast tracked. The BRF and the government do not have much of a choice in the matter.

Once she is a British subject, deliberately choosing to not solely commit to the UK would send out a very different message. That is certainly not "as it wasn’t deemed necessary by those she works to represent."



How did you arrive at that conclusion?

It was discussed back when the announcement was made and before that the Home Secretary would have the discretion to move things along quicker. Exceptions certainly have been made in other countries as well.

And what other conclusion should I draw based on what is happening? Fact of matter is, at this point, this child will be born with dual citizenship. And it was about as clear as you can get that, when they announced the engagement, they weren't going to wait 5 years to try for children. This scenario isn't exactly a shocker to anyone.

Originally Posted by sndral

I expect we’ll get our official answer in 18 years when Prince/ss ABC of Sussex officially renounces their right to U.S. citizenship so they don’t have to deal w/ the IRS [please note - this as meant as a joke, anyone who has had to deal w/ the IRS knows what a beaurocratic nightmare that can be!]

I would not be so certain of that. What if the child would rather live in US? It actually gives him/her a lot more options as an adult.

[Purrs]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I would not be so certain of that. What if the child would rather live in US? It actually gives him/her a lot more options as an adult.

As a dual citizen with an American parent, I was not born in the USA, never made in any money there and have never lived there, I'd renounce my American citizenship in a minute if I could. I have no desire to ever move there as I live in country with a much better health care system. My loyalty is to the country where I was born and have lived all my life. Not all of us want to be American.

Unfortunately the American IRS (Internal Revenue Service) has put people like me in a double jeopardy position.

I'm supposed to file American taxes as well in my own country - supposed to pay double taxes - taxes to both countries!!! I don't file American taxes because my income is below a certain threshold. (I get tax refunds from my home country). At this point in time, the IRS doesn't bother with lower income dual citizens. I have been advised that however, currently if I had an annual income of $1 million or over, I would have to file with the IRS or be in legal trouble. (Our financial institutions must report holdings to the IRS for dual American citizens due to a treaty my country signed with the USA.) When my American parent dies, the IRS will tax their estate along with this country also taxing it. (They also hold dual citizenship and have spent 3/4 of their life outside the US in this country.)

American taxes will be a concern for both Meghan and Prince(ss) Sussex. Unlike other countries, the USA taxes nonresident citizens, my home country and most countries do not. I really doubt the British Royal Family wants to have to pay American taxes.

If I attempt to renounce my American citizenship, I have to agree to a 5 year audit by the IRS, a very expensive process that I cannot afford as well as paying a very large fee for renunciation which I also cannot afford.

Frankly, the American citizenship is a millstone that I wish my parent had never gotten for me. (The USA changed its tax policies to taxing nonresidents years after I became a dual citizen.)

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

For that reason, a wealth of official writings and judicial precedents are already available. The answers quoted earlier were taken from the website of the U.S. Department of State, which is a government agency. Is there another government authority whose written answer you would consider more "official"?

Tatiana, we are in agreement... that was the point of my flippant comment. There was also no room for disagreement on the Wessex issue, but people persisted in "interpreting" the plain language of the law until someone wrote to an official about the specific case of Louise and James. Only then did people accept what was plainly written-- and in fact, some people still do not accept it!

I was making the point (jokingly) that, regardless of how much people point to what is written in the law, or from official sources, until someone writes to an official and says about this case "Excuse me, but is Baby an American citizen?" after she is born, people will persist in believing what they will!