[jsoc815]

> You have to renounce

Or relinquish. There is a difference and people would be wise to know it.

Also, I'm sure that US would argue that those living outside of its official/continental borders are still well "represented" by its military and consular forces, and as such should pay up. In a sense, the taxes as fees are "insurance premiums." Personally, I wish the issue had been addressed better than it was during the recent tax "reform" debate, but I knew better. There is no interest in giving up revenues and access to data.

[jkaplowitz]

They've raised the relinquishment fee - i.e. the fee to get the State department to evaluate the relinquishment and issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality - to match the renunciation fee.

For this conversation the difference is therefore mostly moot, even if a few minor differences still remain in the consequences.

[jsoc815]

> For this conversation the difference is therefore mostly moot

Perhaps you're correct, but I don't consider loss of entry a "minor" difference, my friend. That's why I suggest that people do the research and try to be a bit more precise. But yes, I was aware of the fee change.

Also worth noting, since people like to quibble about numbers, that I've consistently heard that the list doesn't actually include everyone who has parted w/their citizenship or green card. So, the true numbers could be anyone's guess.

[jkaplowitz]

The minor differences I was referring to were between loss of citizenship by formal renunciation and loss of citizenship by performing one of the other potentially expatriating acts voluntarily and with intent to relinquish citizenship (making the potential expatriation into actual expatriation).

Both of these paths cause a loss of right to enter the US. Neither one automatically bans re-entry if one otherwise qualifies to enter as an alien. I agree differences in these areas would be major.

The minor differences I know of: formal renunciation specifically for the purpose of avoiding taxes makes one inadmissible, but this purpose is so hard to prove and enforce that only a very small number of people (I forget precisely but around 2-5) have ever been ensnared by it. Also, renunciants are ineligible to possess firearms in the US, even if they'd otherwise be in one of the nonresident alien categories which would be allowed to.

Taking the wording of both of these provisions at face value, they don't apply to former citizens who relinquish but don't renounce.

Courts probably haven't yet been asked to rule either way on this, but at the very least, I don't know a court ruling finding that all former citizens are covered by either provision.

[jsoc815]

> Taking the wording of both of these provisions at face value

I hope we can both easily agree that law should (almost) never be taken at face value. In my professional experience, the words mean what they mean until they mean something different.