Era of Obama: Number of Americans Renouncing Citizenship Soars

During the age of Obama, Americans have renounced their citizenship at record numbers. In fact in four out of Obama’s five years in the White House, expatriation numbers set record highs.

Just as an example, during all eight years of George W. Bush’s terms in office, 3,865 Americans renounced their citizenship and moved overseas. But during Obama’s first five years fully 7,988 Americans quit being Americans and in 2013 expatriation soared to 2,999, a record that smashed the previous high of 1,781 set in Obama’s third year in office.

Graphic courtesy of the International Tax Blog:

Much of this is due to the outrageous tax situation that the US forces on Americans that live abroad. Ridiculously, the US is the only nation in the world that forces citizens that live permanently abroad to pay taxes on their income to the US even if derived from overseas sources.

This situation has gotten worse recently with the IRS attempting to force forcing countries to report US citizens living abroad to US authorities.

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 8, 2014.
Filed under Barack Obama, Big government, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, IRS.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • 914

    What a racist graph that is. How dare they leave during this historic first black hope and change presidency.

    • Linda Mitchell

      What do you expect from a group of people who think Benghazi and Fast & Furious are real. We all know they are a bunch of phony scandals. I bet they’ll blame Obama and Clinton when it’s all Bush’s fault. I don’t have time for these silly comments when I have welfare checks to cash, lobster to buy with my food stamps, and creation of deadly gasses to be used in mass against those horrible conservatives. And they have the nerve to compare us to Hitler!

      • jim_m

        I think you needed the /sarcasm tag on that one.

        • Linda Mitchell

          I thought it was pretty obvious…. but I suppose not. LOL… thanks for the heads up. I can edit it.

          • 914

            I thought it was obvious too.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Not to be confused with too and two…

          • 914

            Duly acknowledged good Sir.

          • fustian24

            Had me going until the third sentence.

          • Linda Mitchell

            LOL… It just went with the sarcastic theme, and we could all use a laugh or two. I seriously didn’t realize it sounded realistic. I guess the libs really are in that mind set. Glad jim_m told me is wasn’t being viewed as sarcasm. You know fustian24… it felt a little good to get that out.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          Not really.

          • jim_m

            I will cite as evidence that when I posted she had 1 up vote and 3 down votes and shortly thereafter she had 4 up votes and 2 down votes.

            I agree, it shouldn’t be necessary.

  • Retired military

    Welcome to Obamerica.
    The illegal immigrants that will collect welfare will more than balance the folks leaving the US with their millions.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

  • jim_m

    I see all those leftists who claimed that they would leave the country if Bush were re-elected were all liars.

    • Sky__Captain

      Of course they were liars. They’re liberals.
      Duh.

  • Brucehenry

    Only on a right wing blog would we see a celebration of the greediest, most disloyal, most venal Americans who would renounce America rather than pay their fair share as determined by their representatives in Congress.

    “Ask what your country can do for you, not what you can do for your country.” I guess that’s the motto of these ungrateful slobs who would abandon the country whose infrastructure, legal system, and workforce made them (or their ancestors) richer than Croesus.

    And only on a right wing blog would we see Obama being blamed for their cowardice and selfishness, rather than these scumsucking bottomfeeders themselves.

    Good riddance to ‘em. Maybe they’ll be eaten by the poorest poor people in the Cayman Islands or Belize rather than by the poor people here in the USA. Over there it’ll probably happen sooner, so there’s that.

    In our parents’ and grandparents’ day rich people were still loyal to America. They happily paid taxes twice and thrice as high as they pay today in order to be called Americans and to participate in the life of the greatest country on earth. Nowadays any old country will do as long as it has a supine, servile government who will let them keep more of their (often ill-gotten) gains. Fuck them.

    And those who celebrate this phenomenon, or use it as a club to bash their political opponents, should be ashamed of themselves. Ayn Rand’s mutant spawn.

    • Vagabond661

      How about the 47% paying their “fair share”.

      • Brucehenry

        Maybe when they start getting their fair share we can ask them to pay a little more. As it is they do most of the producing, working, spending, and consuming around here. Arguably the 47% do a lot more for the economy than the hedge fund managers and “financial services” hucksters.

        • Vagabond661

          start getting their fair share? are you serious? true colors brucie. socialist talk right there.

          everyone has the same chance to succeed. the sponges, the non-producers, the people who will gladly sit back and collect unemployment are the people who i am talking about here. the 53% have been paying MORE than their fair share for a long time. so STFU with that moronic “pay their fair share” bullshit.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure they do. Of course they do. What a rube.

          • jim_m

            BY definition if 53% are paying 100% of the taxes they are already paying more than their fair share. The fact that the top 10% pay 71% of taxes emphasizes that fact.

            What you are claiming that that anyone earning less than $51,000 (US median income in 2012) should pay zero taxes.

            You are further saying that if only 15% are in poverty that the 32% that are not in poverty yet pay no taxes should not be required to pay anything. How do you justify that people are not in poverty yet should have no requirement to contribute even $1 to the nation?

          • Brucehenry

            People who pay no federal income taxes pay plenty of taxes to their localities and their states. They also pay federal gasoline taxes and the like.They also pay into the payroll tax fund and allow the government to use their contributions interest-free all year long while waiting to get it back in April. They also pay into the SS fund which is constantly being IOUed by the general fund. They also spend 100% of their income as consumers, and many of the businesses they trade with pay federal taxes as a result of doing business with them.

            So I’m NOT saying they shouldn’t contribute. I’m saying they DO contribute, while reaping far less benefit than the top, say, 10% of income-earners for their contribution.

          • jim_m

            Everyone who has income pays into SS so that argument is a non starter as it is not intended to fund the government. The fact that it does is an issue of governmental malfeasance that the left is unwilling to address or, more often, even admit that it is taking place.

            Yes people pay sales tax etc. Everyone pays that even the poor. So you are still saying that people earning $51,000 should pay the same amount of taxes as someone living below the poverty line.

            Essentially, what you are arguing for is a marginal tax rate that makes it impossible, or nearly so, to escape poverty. You want to make it as hard as possible for people to get up the ladder of prosperity. You want people to be stuck in poverty or near poverty because if you did not you would not be advocating for massive increases in taxation as soon as they tried to escape that.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh well thanks I didn’t know I wanted those things or that I was advocating for massive tax increases. Where do I do that, again?

          • jim_m

            You do that when you advocate for no one to pay anything. Q progressive tax system by its very nature creates marginal effective rates that make advancing in real income very difficult. At the margins, where the rates change, you end up paying a lot of taxes and can actually end up with less real income than if you earned less. This has the effect of keeping people from improving their standard of living.

            The left has always advocated this even though they don’t like to advertise that it is what they are doing.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes and all the time we’ve had a progressive tax system, the 1910s through the present day, there’s been no upward mobility, is that what you’re claiming?

          • jim_m

            I’m claiming that the left wants to make it worse. The biggest complaints were when Reagan did his income tax reform and the main point of the left was that he made the system flatter (ie easier to get ahead).

          • Brucehenry

            Except it DIDN’T “make it easier to get ahead,” at least for the working and middle classes. As evidenced by the fact that for the last 30+ years, most of the wealth has flowed upwards to the top earners and the income of the working and middle classes have stagnated.

          • jim_m

            Income inequality decreased after Reagan. It decrease under Bush 43 as well. It has increased under obama.

            A good economy decreases income inequality and a good tax policy encourages upward mobility.

          • Retired military

            Bruce
            What about obamacare where it has been reported that the difference of one dollar between person A and person B means about additiona $20k in health care expenses?
            Isnt that a disencitive to upward mobility?
            As for the wealth flowing upward to the top earners. That statement has never been more true than the past 5.5 years under Obama where the rich have done better than ever and the poor worse than ever. This fact has been reported quite a bit.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            So tell me bruce, how much of my gross pay do you think I take home?

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            So tell me bruce, how much of my gross pay do you think I take home?

          • Brucehenry

            I thought you were independently wealthy since you seem to have nothing to do but take potshots — lame ones — at me.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Like most of what you think it just ain’t so..

          • Brucehenry

            Well I’m half right, anyway.

        • Retired military

          Good speech from “it’s a wonderful life”. That is one of my favorite movies.

    • Retired military

      Bruce
      I don’t celebrate it. In fact I am disgusted by it.
      I do have a question for you though.
      What is YOUR opinion of all those who threatened to leave if Bush got elected/reelected?

      • Brucehenry

        I think the propensity for big talk/blowhard bullshit isn’t confined to the right. The left has its Baldwins and Mooreses. The right has its Nugents and Becks.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      0bama holds the top four years…

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Spoken like someone who has never actually worked overseas…

  • Brucehenry

    So here’s a mea culpa: I posted my first comment without reading the link. When I did read it I discovered the fact, ignored in Warner’s piece and admitted to but downplayed in the link itself, that the rules for expatriation were loosened in 2008, right before the “era of Obama,” LOL.

    If you look at it, what it appears to suggest is that some who may have achieved modest wealth can now more easily retire to, say for instance, Costa Rica, where the cost of living is relatively low.

    So maybe I was a little harsh on the new expatriates. And maybe also, ideologues like Warner should STILL be ashamed of themselves for twisting facts to bash their political opponents.

    • jim_m

      I have no problem with someone renouncing their citizenship. They lose the benefits (such as still might exist) of being a US citizen. They are making a choice.

      It is the 47% of freeloading left wing parasites that I object to and which you see that there is no problem in people doing nothing to support themselves or their families and expecting the rest of the nation to take care of them.

      I at least believe that people should be free to choose. You obviously object to that freedom and believe that people should be life long slaves to a corrupt government.

      • Brucehenry

        I think people should be loyal to the country that afforded them the opportunities that they took advantage of to make themselves rich, yes. Or, more accurately in some cases, that their fathers or grandfathers did.

        BTW, I think you may have the 47% who don’t pay federal income taxes mixed up with the much smaller percentage of people who receive federal welfare benefits — you know, those hardworking people you call “freeloaders.”

        ABTW you might want to proofread and edit that second paragraph/sentence for clarity.

        Jim: “Grammar….how does it work?”

        • jim_m

          You need to work on your sentence construction. You just claimed that people on welfare are also hardworking. Almost by definition they are not working at all.

          • Brucehenry

            You’re right. I meant that the difference between the 47% and the smaller, welfare-receiving percentage were hardworking.

            But also, many people who are working hard also recieve some benefits. For instance, most Walmart employees qualify for food stamps, as do many McDonald’s folks. If you think working at Walmart or McDonald’s isn’t “hard work” I suggest you try it.

          • jim_m

            I did that. I also grew up. I got myself some skills and I got a better job.

            It is idiots like you who believe that people should be able to make 6 figure salaries as a fry cook that are the problem. These jobs you complain about are not meant to be careers, they are meant to be a point of entry into the job market. No one believes that a person will spend 40-50 years in a career as a McDonald’s cashier or cook.

            No one, not even the dishonest leftists like you.

          • Brucehenry

            But apparently some still believe that everybody from whatever circumstance can reasonably expect to someday make a six-figure income if they only work hard and apply themselves.

            You forget, again, that one of the ways you “got yourself” some skills is by having your parents pay for your private university education.

            And you forget that, for those of the working poor who DON’T have parents who can do that for them, a “better job” means shift supervisor, then assistant manager, then store manager — a position that works your ass off 65 hours a week for $40-50K a year. And that there’s a kind of a little shortage of those opportunities.

          • jim_m

            No. Not everyone has the skills or the drive to do so. But to claim that people do not have the ability to do more than these entry level jobs is extremely dishonest and you know it.

            And there are many, many other places to get jobs other than retail. Retail sucks. You do work very hard for relatively low wages. But there are other things to do and some people actually do have a facility for those jobs where it is not so hard for them.

            Once again you postulate a world where there is zero job mobility and zero ability to improve yourself. It’s almost like this is an ideological assumption that it is how the world ought to be. It’s like you think that people should come out of school, get one job and work in that job until they die.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh no I agree that there are other things to do. Or more accurately, there used to be, and now there isn’t so much.

            There is simply not as much upward mobility available in the US as there used to be. Look it up. The trend toward stagnation started with Trickle Down and now is getting to the point where people are finally realizing they’ve been screwed, structurally.

            So they, and I, have little sympathy for those who have accumulated a fortune thanks in part to their good luck in being born American, and who now want to renounce America because our tax policy may make them marginally less rich.

          • jim_m

            So your argument seems to hinge on the assumption that this terrible economy is the new normal and that we should prepare to have long term mass unemployment and zero job mobility.

            You believe this because obamacare and other government programs will make it impossible for people to pursue better economic opportunities.

            You also believe that the government will and ought to make it impossible for people to create new companies and new jobs.

            [edit] Fine. I edited this so the 3rd graders amongst us can read it.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I can’t decipher that run on sentence, but my guess is, “No, that’s not what I’m saying.”

            Commas — how do they work?

          • jim_m

            Ass. You claim that it is wrong for people to take assets out of the country. You claim that people should not have freedom to make money here and take it out of the country as has been done for as long as people have immigrated to these shores.

            What you demand is as contrary to America and the idea of freedom as is possible.

          • Brucehenry

            In case you missed it, most people didn’t come to this country WITH money. The classic story is of an immigrant coming here penniless, and due to his own hard work and the fortuitous conditions unique to America, finding success.

          • jim_m

            In case you missed it many people came to the US with no money not because they were poor to begin with but because the country they came from confiscated their assets or otherwise made it illegal to leave so they were forced to leave everything behind.

            The classic story is the extreme. In the last century anyone coming from eastern Europe came here with nothing because communist countries would not let you take anything. I suppose you think that people running across the border in East Germany were bring all their assets with them? Maybe they had them shipped?

            Your ignorance of these things is awfully convenient.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, Mr Clown, the US of the 21st century is exactly like the East Germany of the 1950s-1980s.

          • jim_m

            It would be if we followed your desires

          • Brucehenry

            And it would be as Dickens’ England if we followed yours.

          • jim_m

            If you mean in a free society then yes, but we would at least be enlightened by paying attention to history, In your dystopia no such enlightenment takes place. You repeat all the errors and crimes of the old soviet bloc.

          • Retired military

            And Marxist Russia if we followed Obama’s

          • deltamary

            Good Grief– Is that what is called a “Compound Sentence”??

          • Retired military

            Btruce
            I have said repeatedly that my parents never made more than 10k a year. They paid nothing for my schooling which I did while I was in the military and after I retired.
            I now make right at 6 figures. My parents paid for nothing. I worked 4 part time jobs my senior year in high school and carried a full class load. I worked a part time job quite a bit during my military career including a part time job clearning toilets when I was a SFC and retiring in a year.
            I can think of at least a half dozen other guys who did the. same thing I did or close to it I can also point to dozens who didn’t apply themselves in grade school and high school, and are doing the fast food jobs today. How many prom queens and football players do you see in working in fast food, home depot, and car salesman jobs after high school. Not that there is anything wrong with those but they are already behind the 8 ball since they can barely spell or write coherently.
            People can get ahead and make it . Sometimes luck helps but the vast majority of it is hard work, lots of hours, applying yourself and being willing to do what others wont to get ahead .

          • jim_m

            Bruce hates Walmart because to him work is just a four letter word. Walmart thinks that people having jobs is a good thing. Too bad Bruce and his friends think the opposite. Hey, Bruce! Work You!

  • ackwired

    While the IRS policy is certainly “outrageous”, I don’t see how it contributed to the increase in people renouncing their citizenship. I also can’t think of a single Bush policy that has been reversed or significantly changed by Obama. There is certainly a jump in 2009 and 2013, the years after Obama’s election and the decline in Bush’s second term is interesting. There is also a correlation with the great recession. Interesting data, but hard to find a cause and effect. Maybe some enterprising reporter will interview a few hundred of these folks and report their reasons.

    • jim_m

      So what you are telling us is that you failed to read the last two paragraphs.

      As even Bruce notes: an American can relocate to another nation where the cost of living is much lower and live comfortably on rather modest means, but the US will still force them to pay taxes potentially negating this advantage.

      Since the obama IRS is apparently being more aggressive about identifying ex pats and collecting taxes from them, these people have little choice but to renounce their citizenship. Unless of course you are demanding that people live in poverty for your benefit, which frankly would not surprise me in the least coming from a lefty.

      • Brucehenry

        Which of course is exactly what the Walton family demands.

        EDIT: But aside from that of course is the fact that Warner fails to note that the rules were changed in 2008 in order to attack Obama for this statistical rise in expatriation. Another example of Warner’s practice of deceptively spinning facts to make a partisan argument. Correlation/causality yada yada.

        • jim_m

          Right Bruce. The Walton family is enslaving their workers so they cannot find any jobs anywhere else and forcing them all to live in poverty.

          What leftist crap.

          • Brucehenry

            But demanding that people follow the tax laws and pay the taxes as set by their representatives in Congress is “demanding that people live in poverty for your benefit.” What rightwing crap.

          • jim_m

            If you are demanding that I pay taxes so as to negate the ability to live in a foreign country to maximize my retirement dollars then yes that is ultimately what you are demanding.

            You are demanding that everyone be forced to lower their standard of living in order to finance your fascist agenda. That is the ultimate truth of your political ideology. People should be poorer off in order for you to get your way. Period. End of discussion.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh, well, if it’s “Period, end of discussion” I guess you win. LOL.

          • jim_m

            Truth hurts. See above where I explain to you how you just took a stand against everything the United States stands for and in favor of what millions of people came to the US to escape.

          • Brucehenry

            I must have missed that just as I missed that everything the US stands for is taking your football and leaving when you don’t feel like playing by the rules.

          • jim_m

            So you admit that once people come to the US they should not be allowed to leave.

            I suppose you wept when the Berlin wall came down. That is what you support. You would fence people in and imprison them for trying to leave.

      • ackwired

        I see no evidence that this policy started before the jump in the numbers.

  • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

    We would leave, if possible. Just trapped here, but no more America for me thanks. This country is no fun anymore, We are sick of just the name Obama.
    GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

  • Brucehenry

    If all the good loyal patriots like ljcarolyne here would leave I’d be fine with it. Tell you what, you can have Texas and Mississippi and leave us real Americans the rest.

  • Brucehenry

    If all the good loyal patriots like ljcarolyne here would leave I’d be fine with it. Tell you what, you can have Texas and Mississippi and leave us real Americans the rest.

    • jim_m

      You betcha. Leave the left with a bunch of corrupt and bankrupt blue states. You can have California and Illinois Those two anchors will guarantee that you have a nation mired in poverty for at least 2 generations.

      I suspect that you end up with a nation composed of debtor states that have no prospects of turning around their moribund economies because idiot leftists have made it impossible to create jobs. Such a nation would soon be looking at creating a war with those red states simply to distract the slaves they have created from the reality of their problems..

      I can just see the blue state utopia now: A nation where you cannot have any income unless you belong to a union. A nation where everyone is paid the same except for the politically connected who live in fabulous wealth. A nation which looks much like 1940′s USSR in its productivity and standard of living (and that is being generous) and especially in its lack of freedom or individual rights.

      • Brucehenry

        You are the ones applauding people who renounce their American citizenship. So they can avoid paying taxes to the country that made them rich.

        • jim_m

          I applaud the fact that they have a choice and that they can act in their own self interest. You believe that people should be enslaved to a government.

          WTF Bruce? This nation was built upon people being free to come here and improve their lot in life. Now you are saying that people should not have the ability to leave here to do the same. People came here fleeing oppression and what you are now demanding is that we institute that very same oppression here for YOUR own ideological benefit.

          I don’t ever want to hear you complain when I call you a fascist.

          • jim_m

            Rarely has anyone come to this blog and made as clear an argument against freedom and individual liberty as you have Bruce.

          • Brucehenry

            Typical Jim. Strawman argument. “Is there another kind?” asks ol’ Jim.

          • Brucehenry

            Where do I say that they shouldn’t have that choice?

            No, I say they SHOULDN’T BE APPLAUDED for their disloyalty. You think they should.

            I’m happy they can leave if they don’t like it here. America, love it or leave it, you greedy fuck, is what I always say, LOL.

          • jim_m

            You’re arguing that they should not be allowed to leave the US and take their money with them. That’s kind of how the Nazi’s treated the Jews in the 1930′s. You have nice ideological bedfellows.

          • Brucehenry

            I have expressed no opinion as to the merit of these tax policies, Mr Strawman Slayer. My objection here is to Warner blaming Obama for the uptick in renunciation of American citizenship, when arguably the uptick has occurred at least in part because of a relaxation of the rules that took place before his presidency.

          • jim_m

            Is there evidence that these rules were relaxed ? Please post links that show us that these rules were relaxed under the previous administration.

            But you also say that it is wrong for people to make money here and then leave with it. Don’t think you can walk back that statement. You claim that leaving the US with assets is “disloyal”. The suggestion being that such people should be punished and that people should not have the freedom to do this sort of thing.

            I stand by my claim that you are against people leaving the country with assets and that you stand with the Communists and Nazis in your belief that people should not be allowed to leave the country without having those assets confiscated.

          • Brucehenry

            The link is Warner’s. It’s the blue type that explains where he got the graph from. Click on it, you might learn something.

            I don’t claim that people shouldn’t leave with assets if they want to leave. They should leave with as much “assets” as they are entitled to leave with under tax law as set by Congress. You know, like it says in the Constitution.

          • jim_m

            But you claim that making money here and then leaving because you might be better off elsewhere is “disloyal” and you suggest that such people at minimum should be punished or that potentially we should prevent it from occurring at all.

          • Brucehenry

            Quotes, please. Not the “disloyal” part, I mean that. Quotes where I suggest punishment or confiscation.

            EDIT: It’s hilarious that you think it’s laudable for rich people to renounce their citizenship because they may be better off as citizens of the UAE or the Caymans. What would you think of a poor guy who renounced his citizenship because he thought he might be better off in Venezuela or Cuba?

          • jim_m

            It is throughout your argument. You call people disloyal, ungrateful, greedy. You make claims that people who take money out of our country have become rich through “ill-gotten gains”.

            Why not just cut to the chase and state that this country is in economic straights because of “wreckers and hoarders”?

          • Brucehenry

            What would you call a poor man who renounced his citizenship to become a Venezuelan?

            I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be complimentary.

          • jim_m

            I would denigrate his choice as I do not feel that Venezuela is a very good place to live right now. But if they had family back there I would understand. And if they were some Hollywood idiot like Sean Penn or Danny Glover I would say that they are communist stooges, but then I already say that.

          • Brucehenry

            But you don’t feel I should express my opinion as to the loyalty, or the lack of loyalty, of these new expatriates who wish to renounce their citizenship rather than pay the taxes enacted by a democratically elected Congress.

          • Brucehenry

            But you don’t feel I should express my opinion as to the loyalty, or the lack of loyalty, of these new expatriates who wish to renounce their citizenship rather than pay the taxes enacted by a democratically elected Congress.

          • jim_m

            I never said that you should not be allowed to express your opinion. I said that you are wrong.

            There you go again. Yet another leftist who claims that when someone opposes their opinion that they are having their freedom of speech abridged. What an ass.

          • Brucehenry

            I thought that was you, lol. You seemed to get all upset when I characterized these people as disloyal, which is what I think they are. I never recommended they not be allowed to leave, or even that the rules be changed to “confiscate” more of their money. I just think they’re ungrateful WATBs who should be booed, not cheered.

            I also think Warner should be criticized for spinning the facts so as to blame Obama for something he had nothing to do with.

          • jim_m

            I said that you were wrong and I never claimed that you were against my speaking out. I claimed that you were for prohibiting people from leaving the country with assets that they had earned and I compared that to historical examples of other countries who have had such a policy.

          • Brucehenry

            In other words you were arguing with something I never said. As usual.

            And you have nothing to say about Warner’s omission of a fact that would put the lie to his headline.

          • 914

            Obama had nothing to do with the last 5 years? I only wish that were true. You would criticize Warner for buttering his toast wrong.

            By the way. I’m sure you boohawed when Babs, Baldwin, Alda, whoever and those other frauds hung around after Bush won his 2nd term right? lol

          • jim_m

            You asked the Venezuela question elsewhere and I answered it there. There are many reasons people may want to renounce their citizenship and what I think of a given person’s reasons is really unimportant.

            I think it shameful that the US essentially forces people to renounce their citizenship on account of punitive tax policies. Or to put that another way, it is shameful that we have people renouncing their citizenship because the left is so desperate to live off of other people’s money.

          • Brucehenry

            Fine, so answer me this: What did you think of the upstanding Americans who were “forced” to renounce their citizenship and move to Canada during the Vietnam War? I mean, they had two choices: either obey the draft laws as written by Congress, or flee the country.

            I thought it was shameful that people were forced to renounce their citizenship because Lyndon Johnson and then Richard Nixon wanted to prove that their dicks were bigger than Ike’s or JFK’s. Didn’t you?

            Or did you think they were disloyal scofflaws who deserved opprobrium? Let me guess…

          • jim_m

            I disagree with them on the politics. I think that at the outset we were right to be defending Vietnam against the communists and the slaughter that followed our withdrawal from the region justifies that opinion.

            At least they had the nerve to stand up for their convictions. They are far better than the whiny leftists who all threatened to leave the country in 2004 if Bush were reelected and then somehow forgot their threats/promises.

            I think that if you are going to stand up for them that you need to also stand up for anyone who sought a deferment or joined the national guard with an eye toward avoiding combat. But that isn’t the lefty way. The lefty way is to have one set of standards for yourself and another for your enemies. That being said it is obvious that that is how obama enforces the laws.

          • Brucehenry

            So I guess you think it shameful that these principled individuals were called “draft-dodgers,” “cowards,” “traitors,” and “commies” because they were “forced” to renounce their citizenship rather than obey the law. After all, they were risking more than their money by obeying the law, they were risking their lives.

            I have no problem with those who sought deferments or less dangerous duty during Vietnam. The only problem I have with those folks is with the ones who turn around and demand military action at every opportunity and as a first resort. Tough guys like Dick “Five Deferments For Me. Five Deployments For Thee” Cheney and his ilk.

          • jim_m

            Not really. They weren’t really pacifists for the most part, and in many cases calling them communists was very accurate, especially at the beginning of the war.

            Also, they were leaving as a result of opposition to our government policy of opposing communism (ie oppressive governments) and supporting democracy, so they were taking a stand against the founding beliefs of the nation.

            On the other hand people emigrating to a country where they can have a more comfortable retirement or back to their home countries (in cases where people have dual citizenship) are making a personal financial decision that is not necessarily a criticism of the US and its values. That is unless you believe that the US was founded on the belief that people owe the government for everything they accomplish and earn (which apparently you do).

            The motivations are very different. One was a protest directly against US policy and the other is a purely economic decision. If economics were different these people would have possibly stayed here. What the Vietnam protesters wanted was a fundamental change in US culture, one that said that totalitarian government control over people’s lives was OK and that we were wrong to oppose such oppression and stand up for freedom.

            What you are saying is that people are wrong to try to be free and that is why you oppose people leaving this country with their assets.

          • Brucehenry

            You have mischaracterized what the Vietnam protesters were trying to say, but that is an argument for another day. My point is that both groups fled the country rather than obey a law they disagreed with. I think the Vietnam protesters arguably had more unselfish motives but I concede that’s a matter of opinion.

          • jim_m

            Wrong. Ex pats aren’t fleeing a country because they disagree with laws. They are leaving because their money goes further when they are elsewhere.

            So what you are saying is that people should not have the freedom to make rational economic decisions because in the country you want such decisions will mean that the country cannot work.

            That is why the communist world collapsed in the 80′s. People will be rational actors and your ideology is bent on preventing them from being so.

          • Brucehenry

            I get very tired of your pet phrase “So what you are saying is…” I am saying what I am saying, not your weird self serving strawman version.

            And it IS the same thing. I didn’t say anything about agreement or disagreement. It’s compliance or noncompliance that is the issue.

            Speaking of “rational actors,” the Vietnam asylum seekers left because their LIVES would last longer if they weren’t being killed in Vietnam. The new ex pats apparently think their MONEY will last longer if Uncle Sam doesn’t get so much of it. They’re both right.

          • jim_m

            Often what we say has implications hidden in those words. If one does not point those implications out then one allows dishonest leftists (BIRM) like you to go on propounding an ideology which would enslave people to the government and create a nation of beggars. But then those are things you support.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL never change you scamp

          • jim_m

            But let’s be clear here. You are now claiming that ex pats are all traitors, otherwise your argument falls apart.

            And where were you Mr hypocrite when Bill Clinton was putting troops into Bosnia? Yeah, You ere nowhere to be found. Just more hypocritical BS from Bruce.

          • Brucehenry

            No I’m saying that they shouldn’t be applauded for their greed. Let them obey the law just as you and your ilk expected the potential draftees to obey the law.

            Or let them leave under the new, more lenient rules post 2008. Just don’ blame Obama for it.

          • jim_m

            No one is applauding them. What we are saying is that the increases are evidence of an economy that is failing and a government that is desperate to prey upon its people for revenue.

            Both of those are characteristics of obama and the left.

          • Brucehenry

            If you say so. Your comments read as if these new ex pats are the equivalent of the Minutemen or the Green Mountain Boys.

          • jim_m

            Only by comparison to the rapacious government that you support.

          • jim_m

            The real reason you view these people as traitors is that you realize that obama’s entire platform is predicated on people freeloading on those of us that actually work.

            You cannot stand the idea that someone would be (to use our own words) greedy, and want to keep money that they had earned.

            You realize that obama’s policies create a disincentive to work and you, like obama, believe that this is a good thing

            You want an enormous welfare state of dependent voters who will continue to install corrupt leftist governments that will steal money from people who work and try to get ahead and give that money to the parasites that elect them. You want a kletpocracy. That is why you elected obama.

          • jim_m

            I think that the fact that they have freedom should be applauded. I think that the fact that we give them incentive to leave the country because our tax rates are confiscatory should be deplored. What you want is to praise the confiscatory taxes and pass laws to prevent people from taking wealth out of the country, History is full of examples of nations like what you desire. Most no longer exist.

        • fustian24

          No, we see it as just another indication of just how abysmal this President is.

          And it’s a referendum on what people believe the future is with so many “citizens” that couldn’t ID their rectum from a depression in the terra firma.

          And we wonder whether we need to be making our own plans.

          Quite the President! Has he mentioned yet what he was doing the night our embassy burned?

  • Alpha_Male

    Texas as it’s own country sounds pretty good. The world’s 13th largest economy, 3 of the 10 biggest cities in the U.S., control of the energy industry, a growing tech sector, solid education both pre and post secondary, low taxes and cost of living compared to both coast’s, seems a win for the Lone Star state.

    Probably wouldn’t be long before the old South and most of fly-over country would be clamoring for inclusion in the new republic. Sounds like the premise of one of those SHTF (Shit Hits the fan) novel’s but still fun to contemplate, any thoughts?

    • yetanotherjohn

      4 of the 11 largest US cities in Texas.

      • Alpha_Male

        Forgot Austin, it’s right there with San Jose, CA

  • willie

    There! It didn’t take nearly as long as HG Wells imagined. The Morlocks have the ball and are running hard with it. What’s the score you say? Eight thousand for the hairy ones and fuck all for the noble Eloi? Still, when pondered with progressive conceits, personal effort, caution, thrift and clearly defined targets are bound to demoralize the shiftless, so actually one places oneself on the menu. And, as Todd Huston says, Only In America!

  • Paul Hooson

    Well, if my family would go back to Canada, it’s not entirely bad. They have full-contact strip clubs up in Montreal with $10 lap dances, if you can stomach Mayor Rob Ford.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    I wish our government enforced immigration laws with the same vigor as it enforces emigration laws.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    Laws have consequences and taxes are a four-lettered word.