and yet you do not want to give up your citizenship, so clearly you feel you are benefiting from some of the social benefits that your income tax funds.
My sole benefit is that my parents have not died, and I don’t want some hopped-up border bureaucrat to be able to tell me that I can’t visit them (or my brother) for five years because his coffee was too hot.
Remember how much arbitrary and non-appealable power U.S. border guards have over visitors.
I get nothing else from my U.S. passport, because the only country I use that passport for is…the U.S.
I'm not an American citizen, so please go ahead and take my perceived American citizenship away - I'm happy to give it up.
I hold dual citizenship but would expect not to pay taxes in nation B when I live and work in nation A. If I were to start working in B and stop working in A, I'd expect to pay tax in B as per B's tax laws, and cease paying taxes in A. If I earn an income in both, I expect to pay taxes on the portion of income in each nation, as per the tax laws of each nation.
Similarly, because I live and work in A, I do not get the social services that B offers - for example, if I were to become unemployed, I'd expect to only utilise nation A's unemployment benefits. If I fall ill, I don't expect to be able to (and cannot) pin the cost on nation B's national healthcare services.
The reason I don't choose to give up my dual citizenship is that I enjoy the ease-of-access to both nations, if and when I choose to move between them. That access does not cost the nation anything to retain.
Maybe the reason to not give up citizenship is simply "The option to go back to being a US resident-citizen and enjoy all other benefits". I can't see why this benefit needs any funding.
Which "social benefits" are you talking about? The ability to go home and visit my family? The ability to return to my place of birth to live and work should I so desire? The net cost to the rest of the country for these things is zero. Nil. Nada. But, somehow, these are now "social benefits" that must be supported by a tithe and not, you know, human rights?
Why does the US effectively charge a membership fee for the kinds of basic privileges every other country simply offers for free? As I said in my original post, it's unbelievably arrogant.
Remember how much arbitrary and non-appealable power U.S. border guards have over visitors.
I get nothing else from my U.S. passport, because the only country I use that passport for is…the U.S.