Category Archives: Citizenship history

The history of U.S. citizenship

Taxation Makes U.S. Citizenship A Caste System With Or Without Birthright Citizenship

Leave a reply

John Richardson – July 4, 2026

On June 30, 2026 the Supreme Court Of The United States released it’s decision in Trump v. Barbara. The complete decision can be read here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf

A June 30, 2026 discussion (with initial impressions) is found in the Appendix to this post.

It starts with the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. constitution starts with the following language:

Section 1

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.

The decision should be interpreted in a very minimal way as follows:

– Five justices (Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson and Barrett) interpreted the 14th Amendment (the words “and subject to the jurisdiction” notwithstanding) to mean that birth on U.S. soil is a sufficient condition for U.S. citizenship (the number of dissenting decisions means that there is a good chance that this issue will be revisited)

– Four justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) ruled that the 14th Amendment should NOT be interpreted to mean that birth on U.S. soil was a sufficient condition for U.S. citizenship

– Justice Alito in particular was very skeptical of those who were born in the USA but were also born as citizens of another country. Justice Alito begins his dissent with:

JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting.

This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake. As interpreted by the Court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of “birth tourists,” women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home. Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.

It is the inclusion of the words “owe allegiance solely to this country” with particular emphasis on the word “solely” that indicates the hostility toward “dual citizenship” at birth.

Yet, it is the combination of “birth on U.S. soil” coupled with being born as a citizen of another country that creates the most valuable form of U.S. citizenship!

America is taxation and taxation is America!

Yes, it’s the Internal Revenue Code that makes dual citizenship from birth so valuable. Under 877A(g)(1)(B)(i) an exemption to the Exit Tax rules is created for certain individuals who were born dual citizens. The specific text of the Internal Revenue Code which creates preferential treatment for dual citizens at birth is:

(i)the individual—

(I) became at birth a citizen of the United States and a citizen of another country and, as of the expatriation date, continues to be a citizen of, and is taxed as a resident of, such other country, and
(II) has been a resident of the United States (as defined in section 7701(b)(1)(A)(ii)) for not more than 10 taxable years during the 15-taxable year period ending with the taxable year during which the expatriation date occurs,

Those interested in a “deeper dive” might find this earlier post from this Citizenship Solutions blog interesting.

The narrow purpose of this post is to demonstrate that those who were born on U.S. soil as dual citizens from birth have a much higher standard of U.S. citizenship than those who were NOT born as dual citizens from birth. This is a shocking realization for a country that claims to have equality of citizenship. Because of the tax code, nothing could be further from the truth! The Internal Revenue Code generally (through complexity and exemptions) divides and conquers U.S. citizens. The United States is the only major country in the world that requires its citizens, who do NOT live in the country, to pay tax on their worldwide income to their country of citizenship.

In practical terms this means that:

– taxation is what distinguishes U.S. citizenship from other citizenships (If July 4 is considered to be a celebration of citizenship, then it should be considered to be a celebration of U.S. citizenship taxation);

– the only practical meaning of U.S. citizenship taxation is that the United States imposes direct taxation according to U.S. tax laws on (1) individuals who are tax residents of other countries and (2) on the non-U.S source income received by those individuals; and

– the United States imposes a more punitive form of taxation on U.S. citizens who live outside the United States than on U.S. citizens who live in the United States (PFIC, GILTI, Subpart F, phantom capital gains tax, FBAR, Form 8938, etc.)

(Incidentally those individuals are also subject to taxation in the countries where they reside.)

In short for U.S. citizens living outside the United States:

U.S. Citizenship = double taxation

A picture or chart is worth a thousand words

The following table will show why those “Born In The USA” and are ALSO born as citizens of another country are born as “preferred citizens”. Significantly they have both the right to NOT be stripped of U.S. citizenship AND the right to renounce U.S. citizenship without being subject to the 877A Exit Tax AND are not impacted by the 2801 “Covered Gift Tax” (meaning they are still permitted to make gifts and/or bequests to U.S. citizens.

Conclusion: The highest form of U.S. citizenship are U.S. citizens who were born with dual citizenship. Specifically those who (1) Became U.S. citizens by being “Born In The USA” and (2) were born as citizens of another country have a much higher standard of U.S. citizenship than any other level of U.S. citizenship. They cannot be stripped of their U.S. citizenship and they have the necessary condition required to expatriate without triggering the U.S.Internal Revenue Code 877A Exit tax or the U.S. Internal Revenue Code 2801 covered gift tax. This is the highest level of U.S. citizenship and is based ONLY on circumstances of birth.

The next level of U.S. citizenship is U.S. citizens born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent who were also born as citizens of another country – dual citizens from birth.

Bottom line: Dual citizenship from birth is extremely valuable. There is NO question that the citizens who Justice Alito finds the most objectionable are the ones who hold the highest level of U.S. citizenship!

Q. Is U.S. citizenship a “caste” system of citizenship?

A. Based on the definition of “caste” found here, it may very well be.

Significantly, what Justice Alito finds problematic (being born a citizen of another country) is precisely the most valuable form of U.S. citizenship.

Bottom line: Not all U.S. citizenship is the same!

________________________________________________________________

Protection of 14h Amendment - cannot be stripped of citizenshipEligible to be PresidentAble to expatriate and not trigger 877A Exit TaxAble to expatriate and not trigger 2801 covered gift tax
USC - Born In USAYesYesYes if also citizen of another country at birthYes if also citizen of another country at birth
USC - Born Outside USA to USC abroadNoYesYes if also citizen of another country at birthYes if also citizen of another country at birth
Born as citizen of another countryYes if also born in the USAYes if also born as a USC (think Ted Cruz)Yes if also citizen of USA at birthYes if also citizen of USA at birth
Naturalized USCYesNoNo - but tax applies only to period of "US Personness"No
Born outside of USA to a USC parent and becomes US citizen at birth but NOT a citizen of another countryNoYes (think George Romney and John McCain)No because not born a dual citizen from birthNo

John Richardson – Follow me X at @Expatriationlaw

Appendix – Discussion of the Trump v. Barbara case on June 30, 2026

Becoming A Citizen: For Some It’s Letting Go, But For All It’s Moving On

Leave a reply

February 24, 2026

Today was a special day.

For me it was special because I was invited to be a guest at the official ceremony of a person taking the oath of citizenship and becoming a new Canadian citizen. It was humbling to be invited to share such a special day.

For the newly minted Canadian, it was a special day for two reasons.

First – what he had gained: He had achieved his goal of naturalizing as a Canadian citizen. He had come to Canada as a visitor, received a work permit, become a permanent resident of Canada and then naturalized as a Canadian citizen. He had gained the security of becoming a citizen in the country where he lives and works.

Second – what he had lost:, He lost his citizenship in India. This is because as a citizen of India, becoming a citizen of Canada meant that he would no longer be a citizen of India. India does NOT allow dual citizenship. India does allow citizens who naturalize as a citizen of another country to officially become an “OCI” (“Overseas Citizen Of India“). “OCI” status does not give one the full status of a citizen of India. Those with “OCI” may not vote, hold public office or purchase agricultural land. They (humanely) are permitted to return to India to visit and or live.

He could have lived in Canada indefinitely as a permanent resident and remained a citizen of India. But, significantly he made the choice to lose his citizenship of India and become a citizen of Canada. Citizenship is important to one’s identity and often the key to opportunities.

Citizenship is part of where we have been, who we are, how we define ourselves in the present and what we aspire to in the future.

The importance of and the “Human Rights” implications of citizenship

Why citizenship isimportant and what does citizenship mean?

The meaning, importance and value of citizenship is expressed by the former United States Chief Justice Warren in the 1958 case of Perez v. Brownell. Writing in dissent (starting on page 21), Justice Warren writes that:

Citizenship is man’s basic right for it is nothing less than the right to have rights. Remove this priceless possession and there remains a stateless person, disgraced and degraded in the eyes of his countrymen. He has no lawful claim to protection from any nation, and no nation may assert rights on his behalf.’ His very existence is at the sufferance of the state within whose borders lie happens -to be. In this country the expatriate would presumably enjoy, at most, only the limited rights and privileges of aliens, ‘ and like the alien he might even be subject to deportation and thereby deprived of the right to assert any rights This government was not established with power to decree this fate.

https://citizenshipsolutions.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/service-ll-usrep-usrep356-usrep356044-usrep356044.pdf

Human rights implications of citizenship

Citizenship is a big deal! It provides membership in a community. It gives one the “right to have rights”. Significantly, it’s importance in recognized in Article 15 of the International Declaration Of Human Rights which says:

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Germany has program to restore the citizenship of those who were stripped of their citizenship during the Nazi era. The existence of the program is an expression of the importance of citizenship in the world of human rights. See the following:

Put more simply: Citizenship is your past, present and future!

One hundred twenty-one people took the oath of Canadian citizenship on this particular day, in this particular ceremony, at this particular location. Some changed their nationality. Some were deprived of another nationality. It was a remarkable “cross section” of humanity. It included people of all ages and (so we were told) citizens of 32 other countries. All 121 people took the oath of citizenship at the same time. Interestingly and significantly it was a “non-renunciatory oath”. In other words, people were NOT required to (ceremonially) renounce whatever other citizenship(s) they had. Canada did not require its new citizens to give up anything to become a Canadian citizen. Yet Canada gave them everything in becoming Canadian citizens. The Canadian citizenship ceremony respected diversity in many respects – including multiple citizenships.

The Canadian citizenship ceremony was an extraordinary moment of patriotism, community and bonding. It was a recognition that:

What unites us as Canadians is far greater than what divides us.

Many of the invited guests joined in and reconfirmed their commitment to Canada by retaking the Canadian oath of citizenship.

I swear (or affirm)
That I will be faithful
And bear true allegiance
To His Majesty
King Charles the Third
King of Canada
His Heirs and Successors
And that I will faithfully observe
The laws of Canada
Including the Constitution
Which recognizes and affirms
The Aboriginal and treaty rights of
First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples
And fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

The ceremony and procedure consumed most of the day. This included the time to travel to the ceremony, waiting for the ceremony to begin, watching the ceremony and a late congratulatory lunch. It gave me the opportunity to think about citizenship all day.

Some thoughts on citizenship

Continue reading →

The Weaponization Of Citizenship: From “You Are NOT American” to “You ARE American”

Leave a reply

Recommended Reading For Americans Abroad

I recently came across the book “You Are NOT American” by Professor Amanda Frost. I read very few books from beginning to end. This particular book I read twice. The subtitle of the book is “Citizenship Stripping From Dred Scott To The Dreamers“. Ms. Frost documents the struggles of those unlikely people who were conscripted into the an internal struggle – invisible to all except those affected – in the United States. I think of this struggle as the “weaponization of citizenship”. Historically this struggle has resulted from the attempts of the United States to reconcile its ugly history of slavery with its beautiful aspirations of freedom. The book is well researched and Ms. Frost was able to tell the stories of the principal “warriors”, bringing them to life in a way that humanized them. Although each person/warrior was the public face of a legal issue (many of their cases were heard by the Supreme Court Of The United States) we learn and understand the facts and circumstances that brought them to the court. While reading the book, I could feel the pain, the frustration and the injustice. We learn how the laws of the day impacted the people of the day. This knowledge comes from Ms. Frost digging into the archives and finding many original sources. The footnotes constitute a “treasure trove” of information akin to reading old newspapers. The book tells the story of “citizenship stripping” as a commentary on American history, culture and values in a broader sense.
Continue reading →

Cook v. Tait: More About The Meaning Of Citizenship Than About The Scope Of Taxation

Leave a reply

Introduction And Purpose

The focus of this blog has always been on citizenship, taxation and citizenship taxation. Although taxation has always been perceived as a necessary burden, citizenship has sometimes been a benefit and sometimes been a burden. James Dale Davidson, writing in “The Sovereign Individual”, expressed the view that in the 20th Century US citizenship was generally a benefit. In the 21st (digital) century US citizenship based taxation has transformed US citizenship into a burden. The numbers of people renouncing US citizenship are a testament to this new reality.

The Weaponization Of US Citizenship – Two Methods

The history of US citizenship as documented in Amanda Frost’s “You Are NOT American”, is an epic story of the “weaponization of citizenship”. I highly recommend Professor Frost’s book – “You Are NOT American” to those interested in the evolution of US citizenship.

Method 1: Weaponization By Claiming The Individual Does NOT Meet The Requirements Of Citizenship

Regardless of the benefits or burdens of US citizenship, it is clear that the United States has a long history of “weaponizing US citizenship”. Professor Amanda Frost in her superb book “You Are NOT American” provides many examples of how the United States has used the concept and status of citizenship to either punish or reward individuals. Generally, Professor Frost describes a history where the use (or misuse) of America’s “nationality laws” has created hardships for people. Citizenship is a part of who people are. It’s part of their personal identity. Citizenship (presumptively) gives people a place or country they can call home. Citizenship (presumptively) gives people a place where they can live without fear of removal. Citizenship matters and the loss of citizenship can be a frightening and destabilizing event in the lives of an individual. It was not until 1967 that the United States Supreme Court in Afroyim ruled that US citizenship was conferred by the Constitution, belonged to the individual and could not (at least if born or naturalized in the US) be taken by the Government. (Of course that is of little comfort to those who can’t prove their US citizenship.)

Method 2: Weaponization By Claiming The Individual Does Meet The Requirements Of Citizenship

A minority of countries in the world confer citizenship based on and only on birth in the country.

Only two countries in the world impose worldwide taxation based on and only on the fact of citizenship.

The United States is the ONLY country that does both!

FATCA assisted the United States in exporting US taxation into other countries and on to the individuals who live in and are tax residents of those countries. In short: the accusation of being a US citizen living outside the United States subjected one to the “disabilities” and “criminalization” imposed by the US extra-territorial tax regime.

The US Supreme Court, Justice Joseph McKenna, And Citizenship In The Early Part Of 20th Century
Continue reading →

A simple regulatory fix for the problem of US citizenship taxation

1 Reply

Background

In 2016 I first made the suggestion that citizenship-based taxation could be changed through Treasury regulation. In October of 2020 John Richardson, Dr. Karen Alpert and Dr. Laura Snyder completed a paper titled “A Simple Regulatory Fix For Citizenship Taxation”. The idea advanced is that:

Although Congress and the Internal Revenue Code created the problem of “citizenship-based taxation”, Treasury has the authority and moral duty to fix the problems of citizenship-based taxation.

Discussion

In 1924 the Supreme Court of the United States considered U.S. citizenship-based taxation in the case of Cook v. Tait. Of course in 1924, the laws of both citizenship and taxation were very different. I have previously explored the evolution of citizenship, taxation and citizenship-based taxation.

The article has received fairly wide distribution (including in the academic community).

Abstract

This article explains the simple regulatory actions that United States Department of the Treasury can take that would, in the absence of legislative change, improve the lives of Americans living overseas and permit the IRS to better focus its limited resources to more effectively administer the U.S. tax system.

The article can be read at SSRN here.

The 2020 article can be at Tax Notes here.

I welcome your comments.

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

Are you a US citizen? The US has two kinds of citizenship: Citizenship for tax purposes and citizenship for nationality purposes

Leave a reply

The law of U.S. citizenship has evolved over time. It can sometimes be difficult to determine whether one is or is not a U.S. citizen. The difficulty has been exacerbated by the fact that in 2004, the United States created (what I will refer to as) the tax citizen.
It is possible to be a U.S. citizen for the purposes of taxation but NOT be a U.S. citizen for the purposes of immigration and nationality. This state of affairs could exist if one had (1) relinquished U.S. citizenship for nationality purposes, but (2) not taken the required notification steps to end U.S. tax citizenship. (It is also possible for one to have lost the Green Card for the purposes of immigration but still be subject to U.S. taxation.)
The difficulty is compounded by the fact that different rules have existed at different times.
For many people who do NOT live in the United States it would be prudent to undertake a careful evaluation of your U.S. citizenship status. This should be done before entering the U.S. tax system.
What follows are two videos of interviews with lawyers Andrew Grossman (2014) and Virginia La Torre Jeker (2018). By watching the interviews you will be introduced to some of the complexities of U.S. citizenship.


John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @ExpatriationLaw

Bye Bye Storify, Hello Wakelet – My "Stories" will live in this post and be moved to https://wakelet.com/@Expatriationlaw

Leave a reply

Today is May 15, 2018. Tomorrow Storify closes forever (unless it provides a last minute_ reprieve.
Therefore, I am creating this post to “store” copies of my 6 Storify Stories.
They are being saved here in pdf format. I have also moved them over to my Wakelet account where I will continue posts of this type.
‘Will you walk into my parlour?’ – #Americansabroad and IRS “amnesty” offers in the 2009 #OVDP
Australian Greens Senator @LarissaWaters resigns because of her CANADIAN place of birth. Too bad she was born in Canada
Can the common law “revenue rule” be used to stop the enforcement of U.S. “citizenship taxation” on non-U.S. residents?
My tax professional told me my “non-U.S. mutual fund is a #PFIC! What is a #PFIC and what do I do?
Tax, culture and how the USA uses #citizenshiptaxation to impose US culture (and penalties) on other countries
The “Pax Americana” to the “Tax Americana”: How the USA is imposing a separate, punitive tax regime on “nonresidents”

Citizenship showdown coming: Has Australia ceded control of its sovereignty to foreign countries?

3 Replies


Shades of Larissa Waters …
Oh My God! Think of it:
My sources in Australia tell me …

This time it’s the Deputy Prime Minister – http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/barnaby-joyce-is-a-new-zealand-citizen-nz-government-confirms/8804620 – and the first member of the lower house to be tainted by dual citizenship. This is significant. With the Senate they usually go to the next person on that party’s ticket from the last Senate election. With the House of Reps they have to have a by-election – and Turnbull’s government is hanging on by a single vote. So, if the High Court rules that Barnaby Joyce must vacate his seat, it could topple the government!

And I thought that Politics in Canada was dirty. And we all revel in the daily stench of the toxic partisanship in the USA. But, hey at least these two countries do NOT have constitutional provisions that (as they have been interpreted) allow other countries to interfere in who the elected representatives are! (We let them interfere in covert ways – think “From Russia With Love” ….)
But Australia. This really is unique. Think of it. Once a person is accused of being a dual citizen – AS DEFINED BY THE LAWS OF ANOTHER COUNTRY – then the person is disqualified from serving in the Senate or the Lower House. I had always thought of Australia as a sovereign country. Can it really be true that Australia allows eligibility for service in the Senate or the lower house to be determined by another country’s citizenship laws? Does it matter whether these “foreign laws” confer citizenship by force rather than citizenship by consent?
Think of the possibilities here. There have always been suggestions that “The USA via the CIA” had been (wonderful melody) instrumental in the dismissal of Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Why go to so much trouble? The way Australia is interpreting its own constitution, all a future U.S. Government would have to do is confer U.S. citizenship on the Prime Minister of Australia and he would be forced to resign. But this would be the intentional “weaponization of citizenship”. (But, the FATCA is that: the USA would NEVER use citizenship as a weapon now, would it?) Australia has already surrendered much of its sovereignty to the United States through a combination of the FATCA IGA and the “savings clause” in the Australia U.S. Tax Treaty.
It’s worse than you think. The problem extends to the ongoing changes in the citizenship laws of other nations
What about the change in one country’s citizenship laws conferring citizenship on an Australian citizen without his/her knowing about it? For example, Canada has made significant amendments to its citizenship laws in 2009 and 2016. In both cases Canadian citizenship was conferred on people who did NOT have Canadian citizenship. One example is that prior to 1977, a person born abroad to a married couple where the father was NOT Canadian (say Australian) and the mother was Canadian would NOT have become Canadian by descent. In 2009 people in these circumstances were given Canadian citizenship. What if a person affected by this was in the Australian Senate in 2009 when the Canadian law was changed. Would that person be forced to resign?
Can the citizenship of country A be forcibly imposed on a resident of country B who has NEITHER ACCEPTED NOR ACKNOWLEDGED THAT CITIZENSHIP?


Continue reading →

Wisdom of "Three Monkeys" explains why: Although there is little support for "citizenship-based taxation" repeal is difficult

Leave a reply


The uniquely American practice of “imposing direct taxation on the citizen/residents of other nations” (“citizenship-based taxation”) has NO identifiable group of supporters (with the exception of a few academics who have never experienced it and do not understand it).
The Uniquely American practice of imposing direct taxation on the citizen/residents of other nations has large numbers of opponents (every person and/or entity affected by it). In addition to the submissions of Jackie Bugnion, “American Citizens Abroad“, “Democrats Abroad“, Bernard Schneider there is significant opposition found in the submissions of a large number of individuals. It is highly probable that the submissions come from those who are attempting compliance with the U.S. tax system.
The “imposition of direct taxation” on the “citizen/residents of other nations” evolved from “citizenship-based taxation”. “Citizenship-based taxation” was originally conceived as a “punishment” for those who attempted to leave the United States and avoid the Civil War. I repeat, it’s origins are rooted in PUNISHMENT and PENALTY and not as sound tax policy.
Continue reading →

Muhammad Ali, draft resistors, loss of US citizenship, the "Rumble In The Jungle" and a trip down memory lane

Leave a reply


Introduction – RIP Muhammad Ali
Like many I was saddened to learn of the death of Muhammad Ali. (One of my profitable ventures was betting on Ali in his 1974 fight with Foreman.) Most of the media discussion of Ali’s death focused on his boxing career. There was far less attention paid to Ali’s refusal to accept induction into the U.S. military. This refusal led to his being stripped of his boxing license (why anyone would need a license to box is beyond me) and interestingly the revocation of his U.S. passport (if you can’t box in America we will prevent you from boxing outside America). Hmmm, does that passport revocation remind you of any recent events or any past events?
Ali made the reasonable point that he was being asked to go to Viet Nam to defend the rights of the South Vietnamese people who were being denied their rights, at the same time that Black Americans were denied their rights in America. Muhammad Ali provided inspiration to Dr. Martin Luther King. Fast forward to 2016: President Clinton (a man who also avoided military service in Viet Nam) will deliver one of the eulogies (I hope he mentions the “draft resistor” aspect of Ali’s life).
https://twitter.com/HistoricalPics/status/739021640806346752
Draft Resistors in Canada in the 60s and 70s – The use of “citizenship” as a mechanism to control the people
Continue reading →