Muhammad Ali, Draft Resistors, And Loss of U.S. Citizenship

Like many, I was saddened to learn of the death of Muhammad Ali. 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 United States 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 passport (if you can’t box in America, we will prevent you from boxing outside America). Hmmm. Does Ali’s passport revocation remind you of any recent or past events?

Ali made the reasonable point that he was being asked to go to Viet Nam in order 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) delivered one of the eulogies at Ali’s funeral.

The Use of “Citizenship” as a Mechanism to Control the People

 

During the last few years I have met many former Americans who came to Canada to escape service in the Viet Nam war. Their circumstances vary greatly. This was clearly a tumultuous and difficult time. Many of them have commented that it has similarities to today’s circumstances. In both the Seventies and present day, certain Americans abroad and former Americans abroad feel uneasy and unsure about their U.S. citizenship. It’s also interesting how in both cases, the United States is using “citizenship” as a mechanism to exercise control over individuals who do not live in the United States. In the Seventies, the United States was punishing people by stripping them of their citizenship. In 2016, the United States is punishing people by imposing citizenship on them. Either way, it’s clear that “citizenship” (and a U.S. place of birth) is a powerful weapon to be used against people to achieve governmental objectives.

The War Resistor Information Program

 

From 1974 – 1976, Winnipeg native Don Marks ran a War Resistor Information Program (WRIP) for Americans in Canada. Information from Wikipedia includes:

Marks was once a street youth before being adopted by a First Nations family. From 1974 to 1976, he was co-ordinator of the War Resister Information Program in Winnipeg, providing assistance for Americans who moved to Canada to avoid service in the Vietnam War. Marks gained notoriety during a North American wide media tour to publicize WRIP’s activities and by leading a class action lawsuit against President Gerald Ford. Don worked with such notables as Hunter S. Thompson, Jane Fonda, Richard Dreyfuss, Bella Abzug and others to organize an amnesty for war resistors, He was a candidate for the Manitoba Liberal Party in the 1977 provincial election, and received 769 votes (15.63%) for a third-place finish in Point Douglas. He was a weekend news and sports anchor at CKND-TV during the mid-1980s. He died in Winnipeg at the age of 62 on January 30, 2016 from liver disease.

Mr. Mark’s WRIP may have been an early day equivalent to the Isaac Brock Society. In any event, Mr. Mark published what appears to be a very high quality publication providing information and advice to American draft resistors. Here is one of the publications which Mr. Marks described as:

…one of the most important efforts that we have undertaken in our seven years of service to war resistors in exile. Besides an update on our program and a description of the latest legal and political developments that affect you, we shall include our position on amnesty, and positive actions to bring about our goal.

I encourage you to read the publication.

Mr. Mark’s also printed the following flyer, that reads:

WAR RESISTORS

The following services are provided:
1. From a list we call tell draft resistors whether or not they have charges outstanding in the U.S. (most do not).
2. We have draft lawyers and counsellors with a high success rate in getting draft charges dismissed.
3. We have military lawyers and counsellors who can help military resistors get discharges.
4. We have information on U.S. exclusion orders that do result if you take out Canadian citizenship.

Notice the fourth point: “We do have information on U.S. exclusion orders that do result if you take out Canadian citizenship.”

The “War Resistor’s” bulletin contains a fascinating section beginning on page 11 which is titled:

“CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP AND EXCLUSION ORDERS”

Canadian Citizenship EO 1

Canadian Citizenship EO 2

Canadian Citizenship EO 3

Canadian Citizenship EO 4

Canadian Citizenship EO 5

Then and Now: The “Dusting Off of Old Laws”

 

We see that in 1975 and in 2016, the United States:

– was using the threat of denial of entry into the United States as a form of punishment. Is this an earlier version of the Reed amendment?

– was using the principle of “dusting off old laws”. Modern day examples of “dusting off old laws” would the the FBAR Fundraiser and the PFIC rules.

Then and Now: The Use of “Citizenship” as a Weapon

 

Mr. Mark’s bulletin is of particular interest because it reflects the understanding of what was happening in 1975.

The bulletin confirms the following two points:

  1. Americans in Canada who became Canadian citizens absolutely understood that the consequences of becoming a Canadian citizen would result in the loss of U.S. citizenship. If one understands the consequences of an action prior to voluntarily undertaking that action, it’s reasonable to say that the person intended the consequence. In other words: those Americans who naturalized as Canadian citizens in the 70s clearly intended to relinquish their U.S. citizenship; and
  2. The U.S. Government took the clear and unequivocal position that those who naturalized as Canadian citizens had relinquished their U.S. citizenship (that was the basis for the exclusion order described in Mr. Mark’s bulletin).

Note that the loss of U.S. citizenship was happening WITHOUT the issuance of a CLN (“Certificate of Loss of Nationality”).

Yet, in 2016 there are some who argue that: those who clearly ceased to be U.S. citizens in the Seventies, and don’t have a CLN somehow are now U.S. citizens for the purposes.

This idea seems ridiculous to me! The war resistors didn’t need a CLN then and they don’t need a CLN now.

The Reality of U.S. Citizenship Abroad

My name is John Richardson. I am a Toronto based lawyer – member of the Bar of Ontario. This means that, any counselling session you have with me will be governed by the rules of “lawyer client” privilege. This means that:

“What’s said in my office, stays in my office.”

The U.S. imposes complex rules and life restrictions on its citizens wherever they live. These restrictions are becoming more and more difficult for those U.S. citizens who choose to live outside the United States.

FATCA is the mechanism to enforce those “complex rules and life restrictions” on Americans abroad. As a result, many U.S. citizens abroad are renouncing their U.S. citizenship. Although this is very sad. It is also the reality.

Twitter 

Subscribe to TaxConnections Blog

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.