Integrity Legal

In recent weeks there has been a great deal of discussion in the media regarding President Donald Trump’s statements regarding the use of executive orders to fundamentally alter the way in which citizenship is conferred to individuals born in the USA. To quote directly from a recent article in the New York Times:

President Trump said he was preparing an executive order that would nullify the long-accepted constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship in the United States…“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits,” Mr. Trump [said].

There are many people of various political persuasions who do not agree with the notion that Mr. Trump indeed has the legal authority to bring birthright citizenship to an end exclusively through executive order. However, there has been some debate on whether a Constitutional amendment or legislation from the United States Congress is sufficient to change the rules with respect to this issue. To quote directly from the Washington Post:

The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause did not even address, much less resolve, the question of citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants…Although the clause states, “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,” Congress and courts were left to work out the full meaning of the words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

In this blogger’s opinion it is also worth noting that the United States Supreme Court could also have a direct impact upon the way in which citizenship is defined in the United States through use of that branch of government’s interpretive powers to redefine the framework of citizenship conferment. However, the entire issue of citizenship in this context is of no particular concern for the reader of this blog as most readers of this blog reside in Thailand. For these individuals it is important to note that a change in the framework for conferring citizenship could have implications for children born to United States Citizen abroad.

Children born to United States Citizens in Thailand (or anywhere else outside of the United States) may be granted citizenship automatically through use of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (or CRBA). In order to automatically confer United States citizenship to a child born abroad one of the parents of the child must be an American citizen at the time of the child’s birth and the American citizen must have spent the statutorily required amount of time physically present in the USA at the time the child was born. There are instances where an American citizen parent will be unable to confer citizenship to their child due to a failure to meet the physical presence requirement for automatic transmission. In such cases, it is possible to utilize the provisions of the Child Citizenship Act of 2001 to allow a child born abroad to become a United States citizen by operation of law.

These issues are important to keep in mind for Americans living abroad as it is this blogger’s opinion that Mr. Trump’s attempt to change birthright citizenship rules through executive order is likely to kick off litigation which will ultimately culminate in the United States Supreme Court. The framework for conferring citizenship rendered in an opinion of the Court could change not only birthright citizenship rules, but rules regarding citizenship for individuals born abroad as well.

As this situation evolves we will update this blog accordingly.

Tags: American Citizenship, birthright citizenship, Citizenship Certificate, consular report of birth abroad, CRBA, CRBA Certificate, Donald Trump, President Trump, SCOTUS, Trump, United States Citizenship, United States Citizenship by Operation of Law, United States Supreme Court, US Citizenship
Posted in US Citizenship | No Comments »

In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal a new bill proposed by the United States Congress was discussed:

Under a new law expected to take effect in January, the State Department will block Americans with “seriously delinquent” tax debt from receiving new passports and will be allowed to rescind existing passports of people who fall into that category. The list of affected taxpayers will be compiled by the Internal Revenue Service using a threshold of $50,000 of unpaid federal taxes, including penalties and interest, which would be adjusted for inflation.

Clearly this proposed legislation could have significant ramifications for Americans living abroad. Presently, Americans abroad could only see their passports rescinded or applications for renewals denied where said applicants have outstanding criminal warrants in the United States of America or are delinquent on their child support. The proposed legislation comes after the relatively recent  implementation of FATCA (the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) which requires foreign banking institutions to report the financial activities of American citizens making financial transactions abroad. There have been some who disapprove of FATCA and there have been moves made in the US Federal Court to challenge the law’s constitutionality. However, at present the law remains part of the current American legal framework with respect to overseas bank accounts. As a possible consequence, in recent years there have been a growing number of individuals who have opted to renounce their United States Citizenship. It is clear that more and more people are opting to renounce their United States Citizenship. Each individual’s renunciation is likely based upon a different calculus, but it seems clear that recent changes to American tax policy have had a significant impact upon Americans living abroad.

The recent announcement that passports could be revoked as a consequence of tax delinquency seems likely to cause the number of Citizenship renunciations to increase. Although, it remains to be seen if this new policy will have a significant impact upon renunciations. Regardless of the fact that 50,000 USD seems like a substantial amount of money it will be interesting to see if the proposed legislation will allow for a form of COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) style system whereby the amount of money in tax delinquency which would trigger a passport renunciation would increase year by year in order to track inflation. It is unlikely that such a scheme would be implemented because Foreign Bank Account Reporting (FBAR) requirements have not changed since the late 70′s. Therefore it stands to reason that the passport issuance requirements will stay frozen. Therefore, this legislation, although unlikely to have a significant impact upon Americans abroad anytime soon could have serious ramifications for Americans in 15-20 years time when 50,000 USD is not the representation of wealth that it is today.

Tags: American Passport, American Passport Revoked, American Taxes, Citizenship renunciation, FATCA, FBAR, federal taxes, Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, Foreign Bank Account Reporting, Internal Revenue Service, Passport Cancelled, renounce United States Citizenship, us passport, US Passport Revoked, US Taxes
Posted in Extradition, Legal News, Upcoming Legislation, US Citizenship, US Taxes | No Comments »

Millions of people around the world wish to take up residence in the United States of America and often wish to become American Citizens. However, it would appear that some Americans are cutting ties with the USA and renouncing their United States Citizenship. Names of all those Americans who renounce their United States Citizenship are recorded and published in the United States Federal Register. These lists are generally not particularly newsworthy. However, in the most recent quarterly publication regarding US Citizenship renunciation it would appear that the number of Americans renouncing their United States Citizenship has jumped by over 60% when compared to previous quarters. In the last quarter 1,131 people renounced their United States Citizenship. This number is a large increase from the previous quarter which saw only 679 renunciation. Although, when compared against the same quarter of the previous year which saw only 188 renunciations the 1,811 figure is rather staggering. Is this simply a one-time anomaly or is this the sign of a growing trend?

While some are speculating as to what this trend means in a broad socio-economic context, I feel that some analysis is necessary to put some perspective on these numbers. A reader looking at the Federal Register’s official posting regarding these numbers will likely note the following information:

For purposes of this listing, long-term residents, as defined in section 877(e)(2), are treated as if they were citizens of the United States who lost citizenship.

The casual reader may wonder: what does this mean? Well to quote directly from the Cornell Law School’s website which lists sections 877 (e)(1) and 877(e)(2):

(1) In general

Any long-term resident of the United States who ceases to be a lawful permanent resident of the United States (within the meaning of section 7701 (b)(6)) shall be treated for purposes of this section and sections 2107, 2501, and 6039G in the same manner as if such resident were a citizen of the United States who lost United States citizenship on the date of such cessation or commencement.

Therefore, based upon the information provided by the Federal Register and the United States statutes noted above some of those listed in the Federal Register as those renouncing their Citizenship could be United States Lawful Permanent Residents (colloquially referred to as “Green Card” holders) who have chosen to give up their permanent resident status. This explanation probably does not account for all of the “Citizenship renunciations” listed in the recent Federal Register publication, but it may account for some of these numbers. In any event, the number of those expatriating from the United States remains high compared to previous points in American history. The question remains, why are higher numbers of Americans renouncing their citizenship?

There are some who contend that the recent spike in citizenship renunciation may stem from American policy regarding taxation of United States Citizens living abroad. American Citizens (as well as lawful permanent residents) are taxed on their worldwide income, regardless of where they physically reside. This situation is in stark contrast to the tax policies of virtually every other country in the world as most countries only tax those of their citizenry who reside in their country. There are exceptions to the previous statement as issues such as domicile play into many countries’ foreign taxation policies. Many feel that the recent increases in the number of renunciations is driven by Americans with high foreign derived incomes seeking to rid themselves of the need to pay American taxes. In a major story from last year it was noted that one of the founders of Facebook had renounced his United States Citizenship before the IPO of that company’s stock. It should be noted that some argue that his tax obligations at that time may not have actually decreased as a result of his decision to give up his citizenship (due to American tax laws such as the so-called “Expatriation Tax” or “Exit Tax”), although his future tax liabilities may be reduced as a result of that decision. Perhaps more Americans are taking the (somewhat drastic) step of renouncing their citizenship in order to save some money from the tax man. Without knowing each former-American’s motivations for renouncing United States Citizenship we are left to speculate.

There may be another impetus behind the recent increase in the number of Americans renouncing their Citizenship: the FATCA. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) compels financial institutions outside of the United States to report information about accounts maintained by American Citizens or lawful permanent residents to the Internal Revenue Service. Furthermore, foreign financial institutions are also required to report on accounts maintained by foreign corporations in which Americans or Lawful Permanent Residents own a significant interest. The FATCA’s implementation has been pushed back until July of 2014. Could the looming specter of the FATCA be the reason for the recent uptick in American’s renouncing their citizenship? One of the many upshots of the FATCA is the fact that the regulatory requirements imposed by the American government on foreign banking and financial institutions can be rather burdensome. One way that these foreign institutions can relieve themselves of these burdens is by refusing to accept American customers. If there are no Americans holding accounts at a given foreign bank, then the bank does not necessarily have to comply with the provisions of the FATCA. This has lead to a situation where more and more overseas banks are refusing to provide services to Americans living and working abroad. By renouncing United States Citizenship and naturalizing to the Citizenship of another country a former American could bank in much the same manner as other foreign nationals.

The decision to renounce one’s U.S. Citizenship is a significant one and should not me made lightly. There are many benefits to being an American Citizen so those thinking of renouncing their Citizenship should review not only their tax situation, but also the intangible and tangible benefits of their American citizenship (including the US Passport). Will this trend continue? It remains to be seen, but there are many who feel that as American oversight of global taxation matters becomes more ubiquitous there will be more American’s who question the value of their citizenship.

–Benjamin W. Hart is an American attorney who resides in Bangkok, Thailand.

For related information please see: Citizenship Renunciation.

Tags: American Citizenship, American Citizenship Renunciation, American Passport, American Tax, American Taxation, Exit Tax, Expatriation Tax, FATCA, FATCA 2014, Federal Register, Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, Green Card, Internal Revenue Service, Lawful Permanent Resident, long term resident, Renounce American Citizenship, Renounce US Citizenship, Renouncing American Citizenship, Renouncing US Citizenship, United States Citizenship, United States Federal Register, US Citizenship, US Citizenship Renunciation, us passport, US Tax, US Taxation
Posted in US Citizenship, US Taxes | No Comments »

In a previous posting on this blog regarding partnerships in Thailand, Thai Ordinary Partnerships and Thai Registered Ordinary Partnerships were discussed. There is another type of partnership structure in Thailand which may be more familiar to those from Western countries: the Thai Limited Partnership. Limited Partnerships have been a method of structuring an enterprise in jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth nations for quite some time. Meanwhile, jurisdictions in the Eurpoean Union allow for similar structures. Thailand was a relatively late jurisdiction when it came to allowing for use of such structures, but now it may be possible for promoters of a business to form this type of partnership.

A Thailand limited partnership generally consists of, at a minimum, at least one Managing Partner who manages the business and at least one Limited Partner. Depending upon the unique circumstances of a given business enterprise there could be one or more managing partners and one or more limited partners. Although managing partners are personally liable for partnership debts, limited partners are not persoally liable for partnership debts and are only personally liable for the their capital contributions, especially if said contributions have been removed, in whole or in part, or if said contributions were never submitted. It should be noted that limited partners may lose some degree of their limited liability if the limited partner engages in the managment of the partnership or allows his or her name to be used in the Limited Partnership’s legal name. Limited Partnerships in Thailand must register their partnership agreement with the Ministry of Commerce in the same manner as a Registered Ordinary Partnership. As a general rule, Limited Partnerships are taxed in much the same manner as Registered Ordinary Partnerships.

Limited Partnerships which include a foreign national may be subject to the provisions stipulated in the Foreign Business Act. Therefore, where a foreign national owns a majority interest in a Thai Limited Partnership the Partnership may need to apply for a Thai Foreign Business License. However, American Citizens wishing to structure a limited partnership in Thailand may be eligible to obtain an Amity Treaty Certificate for the partnership pursuant to the terms of the US-Thai Treaty of Amity. If a foreign national owns simply a minority interest in a Thai limited partnership as a limited partner, then the partnership may not be required to obtain a foreign business license. However, the foreign national would not be able to manage the limited partnership.

Limited partnerships are able to be converted into limited companies so long as such conversion complies with relevant Thai corporate law.

For information regarding Thai Limited Companies please see: Company Registration Thailand.

Tags: American Amity Treaty Thailand, Amity Treaty, Amity Treaty Certificate, Amity Treaty Company, Amity Treaty Limited Partnership, capital contribution, Foreign Business Act, Foreign Business License, Limited Partner, limited partnership in Thailand, limited partnerships in Thailand, Managing Partner, partnership agreement, partnership agreement Thailand, partnership in Thailand, Partnership Liability, Partnership Limited Liability, partnerships in Thailand, Thai Foreign Business Act, Thai Foreign Business License, Thai Limited Partnership, Thai Limited Partnerships, Thai Ministry of Commerce, Thai Ordinary Partnership, Thai Ordinary Partnerships, Thai partnership agreement, Thai Registered Ordinary Partnership, Thai Registered Ordinary Partnerships, Thailand Foreign Business Act, Thailand Foreign Business License, Thailand Limited Partnership, Thailand Limited Partnerships, Thailand Ministry of Commerce, Thailand partnership agreement, US-Thai Treaty of Amity, USA-Thailand Treaty of Amity
Posted in Amity Treaty, Thailand Business, Thailand company, US Citizenship | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision apparently found certain sections of the law enacting American health care reform to be unconstitutional. In order to provide further details this blogger is compelled  to quote directly from an article written by JENNIFER HABERKORN and posted to the website of Politico, Politico.com:

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that the health care reform law’s requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance is unconstitutional, a striking blow to the legislation that increases the odds the Supreme Court will choose to review the law…The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate…

The administration of this blog asks interested readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this interesting and insightful article in its entirety.

Where governmental officials impose restrictions upon individual rights there may be an argument that said activity violates the United States Constitution. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen whether this case will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court and, if it is appealed; whether the Supreme Court will grant Certiorari. Even if the Supreme Court opts to review the matter it is difficult to speculate as to their decision since Supreme Court decisions should never be considered foregone conclusions. Hopefully the ultimate decision in the matter benefits all concerned while remaining in compliance the the law and principles of the United States Constitution.

In news pertaining to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), it recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Deputy Secretary-General of ASEAN for ASEAN Economic Community was noted for comments regarding ASEAN’s perspective on economic issues in the United States and Europe. To provide further elucidation on these developments it is necessary to quote directly from the website MYSinchew.com:

MANADO, Indonesia, Aug 12 (Bernama) — The Association of Southeast Asia Nations (Asean) learns a lot from debt crisis in Europe and the United States, looking ways to avoid such disaster, a high-ranking official at the Asean Secretariat told Xinhua news agency in an exclusive interview on the side lines of Asean Ministers Meeting in North Sulawesi provincial capital city of Manado. Deputy Secretary-General of Asean for Asean Economic Community Sundram Pushpanathan said that in term of the current situation in Europe, Asean has agreed to stay vigilant. “After experiencing two crises in the region (in the past), ASEAN recognizes the importance of coordination of policies and keeping each other informed, so that the region stays stable in the situation. And of course, I think that from the EU, we have learned a lot of lesson,” he said…[sic]

This blogger asks readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to read this article in detail.

Many of the jurisdictions which comprise ASEAN (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam) have shown strong growth in economic terms. Meanwhile, further integration facilitated by trade is likely to lead to further economic advantages for the ASEAN region in the coming months and years. Discussion regarding a unified ASEAN visa could result in tangible benefits to business travelers and those wishing to streamline regional business operations.

For information about legal services in Southeast Asia please see: Legal.

Tags: 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, ASEAN, ASEAN Economic Community, Asean Ministers Meeting, ASEAN region, Asean Secretariat, ASEAN Visa, Association of Southeast Asia Nations, Brunei Darussalam, business travelers, Cambodia, Chief Judge Joel Dubina, Deputy Secretary-General of Asean for Asean Economic Community Sundram Pushpanathan, EU, European Union, George H.W. Bush, health care reform law, Indonesia, Judge Frank Hull, Laos, Malaysia, Manado, Myanmar, North Sulawesi, Philippines, President Bill Clinton, Singapore, streamline regional business operations, Thailand, unconstitutional, United States, United States Constitution, United States Supreme Court, US, Vietnam
Posted in ASEAN Business, ASEAN Visa, US Citizenship, US Constitution | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that a United States Federal Court may soon hear a case involving a plaintiff bringing suit against a former Secretary of Defense which alleges that the plaintiff was subjected to extra-legal abduction and torture. In order to provide further insight it is necessary to quote directly from the official website of the Associated Press, AP.org:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge has ruled that former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld can be sued personally for damages by a former U.S. military contractor who says he was tortured during a nine-month imprisonment in Iraq. The lawsuit lays out a dramatic tale of the disappearance of the then-civilian contractor, an Army veteran in his 50s whose identity is being withheld from court filings for fear of retaliation. Attorneys for the man, who speaks five languages and worked as a translator for Marines collecting intelligence in Iraq, say he was preparing to come home to the United States on annual leave when he was abducted by the U.S. military and held without justification while his family knew nothing about his whereabouts or even whether he was still alive. The government says he was suspected of helping pass classified information to the enemy and helping anti-coalition forces get into Iraq. But he was never charged with a crime, and he says he never broke the law and was risking his life to help his country…

The administration of this web log asks readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this article in detail.

The issues in the case noted above are likely to cause tension in a political context as matters pertaining to national defense can be the source of strong opinions. That stated, it would appear that the Court sees the case as being meritorious enough to warrant allowance of this personal lawsuit. That stated, until such time as a final ruling on the matter has been handed down all parties are viewed as innocent of any charge until culpability is proven. Hopefully justice will prevail.

Pursuant to the United States Constitution and the notions of due process of law emanating therefrom; individuals, particularly American Citizens, must be accorded certain procedural formalities prior to having their liberties abridged. For example, in order to bring a person under the criminal jurisdiction of an American Court of competent jurisdiction it is generally required, absent exigent circumstances, that a valid arrest warrant be issued. In some cases, US Courts opt to issue a bench warrant whereby a judge issues a warrant directly from the bench. Meanwhile, in situations where an individual has fled a particular jurisdiction there are instances where a fugitive warrant is issued. The procedure for bringing a fugitive from one jurisdiction to another is generally referred to as extradition.

Meanwhile, in matters pertaining to the region of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN); it recently came to this blogger’s attention that the former King of Cambodia is traveling to Beijing, China. In order to provide further insight into these developments it is necessary to quote directly from the website of The Straits Times, StraitsTimes.com:

PHNOM PENH – CAMBODIA’S ailing former king Norodom Sihanouk left his country for Beijing on Wednesday to undergo medical tests, officials said. The 88-year-old monarch, who remains a revered figure in Cambodia, was given a red-carpet sendoff by his son King Norodom Sihamoni, Prime Minister Hun Sen and other senior government officials at Phnom Penh airport…’He goes back this time to have his health checked to stay healthy and live longer among his people,’ Prince Sisowath Sirirath, second deputy president of the royalist Funcinpec party, told reporters. He said he didn’t know when Sihanouk would next return…

This blogger asks readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks above to read this poignant article in its entirety.

Former King Norodom Sihanouk remains a respected and highly venerated figure in the Kingdom of Cambodia notwithstanding the fact that his son King Norodom Sihamoni has taken up the responsibilities of Kingship. Hopefully, the former King’s upcoming health check up will result in benefits to his health as it is clear that the hopes and prayers of his people are with him.

For information pertaining to legal services in Southeast Asia please see: Legal.

Tags: Army veteran, arrest warrant, ASEAN, ASsociation of Southeast ASian Nations, Beijing, Cambodia, Cambodian King Norodom Sihamoni, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, China, Extradition, Former Cambodian King Norodom Sihanouk, former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Fugitive Warrant, Funcinpec party, Kingdom of Cambodia, Marines, never charged with a crime, U.S military, U.S. military contractor
Posted in arrest warrant, Cambodia Business, China Business, US Citizenship, US Constitution | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the often venerated alternative media outlet ZeroHedge.com has posted an analysis of issues pertaining to a proposed change to the forms used by those seeking a US Passport. To provide further insight it is necessary  to quote directly from the Zero Hedge website, ZeroHedge.com

In the US, the government now requires all citizens to have a passport in order to pass the border, even when driving into Mexico or Canada. Obtaining a passport, however, is neither free nor guaranteed.  You must apply, pay an ever-increasing fee, and wait for weeks to be approved and receive it. Recently, the State Department quietly proposed a new ‘biographical questionnaire’ in lieu of the traditional passport application. The new form requires you to provide things like:

- names, birth places, and birth dates of your extended family members
– your mother’s place of employment at the time of your birth
– whether or not your mother received pre-natal or post natal care
– the address of your mother’s physician and dates of appointments
– the address of every place you have ever lived in your entire life
– the name and address of every school you have ever attended

Most people would find it impossible to provide such information, yet the form requires that the responses ‘are true and correct’ under penalty of imprisonment. Naturally, the privacy statement on the application also acknowledges that the responses can be shared with other departments in the government, including Homeland Security. If this proposal passes, then US citizens will have a nearly insurmountable hurdle to obtain a passport and be able to leave the country at will…

The administration of this blog asks readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted prior to this excerpt. Also, it is advisable to click upon the hyperlinks contained within this quotation in order to understand this situation in context.

Each year, many Americans traveling abroad, or those Americans resident abroad, renew their passport at an American Citizen Services section of a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad. It has always been this blogger’s opinion that personnel of the Department of State who handle such matters do so in an efficient and courteous manner. Meanwhile, many United States Citizens opt to seek passport renewal in the USA. This blogger has undertaken both endeavors and in each case the officers involved processed the request quickly and with little difficulty. Although it remains to be seen how the proposed questionnaire would actually impact the processing of passport issuance requests one can hope that the process will not become overly cumbersome.

In news pertaining to the struggle for LGBT Equality, it recently came to this blogger’s attention that a woman in the sovereign State of New York is challenging the legal status and Constitutionality of the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). In order to provide the reader with some relevant insight it is necessary to quote directly from an article by Mark Hamblett for the New York Law Journal posted on Law.com:

Challengers to the federal Defense of Marriage Act insist that every justification offered by Congress for defining marriage exclusively as between a man and a woman is contrary to logic and the law. In summary judgment papers filed in the Southern District of New York, lawyers for Edith Schlain Windsor argue that there is no good reason for treating her marriage to the late Thea Clara Spyer any differently than a heterosexual union. Read Ms. Windsor’s motion and memorandum. Ms. Windsor’s lawyers call the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) a radical measure and a clear violation of the right to equal protection of the laws under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “DOMA is a sweeping statute that rewrites over one thousand federal laws and overturns the federal government’s long-standing practice of deferring to state determinations of marital status,” the lawyers claim in a memorandum asking Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV for summary judgment in the case of Windsor v. United States, 10-cv-8435. “Throughout history, the federal government has never married people, leaving that to the states…”

This blogger asks readers to click upon the hyperlinks noted above to read about this case in detail.

Those unfamiliar with the current predicament of the LGBT community should note that in immigration matters same sex bi-national couples, even those who have entered into a same sex marriage in one of the sovereign American States which legalize and/or solemnize such unions, are unable to petition for the same immigration benefits as their different-sex counterparts. In order to attempt to remedy this particular discrepancy Representative Jerrold Nadler recently introduced legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). The Respect for Marriage Act was also introduced by Representative Nadler in order to remedy the issue of “certainty” in such cases. As of the time of this writing, neither of these bills has seen enactment although there has been recent news that the Senate Judiciary Committee may be holding hearings pertaining to the Respect for Marriage Act soon. On a related note, the Reuniting Families Act, which apparently includes UAFA-like language, was lately introduced by Representative Mike Honda although passage of this legislation remains to be seen.

There is certainly an “equal protection” component to any argument against DOMA, but relatively few commentators seem to take note of the fact that the way DOMA is currently enforced may also violate notions of States’ Rights. Generally, matters pertaining to the prerogatives of the Several States are debated by the United States Congress before enactment of legislation which maintains interstate compliance with the provisions of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. In this case, Congress has arguably abrogated the notion of Full Faith and Credit inherent in the provisions of the Full Faith and Credit Clause since section 3 of DOMA effectively renders the prerogatives of the sovereign States ineffective when it comes to the issue of same sex marriage.

The issues associated with DOMA have yet to be fully resolved, but it seems likely that these matters may remain contentious both inside the Courtrooms of America and elsewhere.

Tags: 10-cv-8435, American Passport, biographical questionnaire, Canada, Defense of Marriage Act, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, DOMA, Edith Schlain Windsor, equal protection, equal protection of the laws, Fifth Amendment, Full Faith and Credit, Full Faith and Credit Clause, heterosexual union, Homeland Security, homosexual union, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, Mexico, passport application, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Representative Mike Honda, Respect for Marriage Act, Reuniting Families Act, same sex civil union, Same Sex Marriage, Senate Judiciary Committee, Southern District of New York, State Department, state determinations of marital status, State of New York, summary judgment, Thea Clara Spyer, U.S. Constitution, uafa, Uniting American Families Act, us passport, Windsor v. United States
Posted in same sex visa, US Citizenship, US State Department | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has been noted by various media outlets for launching a new ad campaign to encourage those present in the United States as lawful permanent residents to naturalize to American Citizenship. In order to provide further insight into these developments it is best to quote directly from the website of China Daily, ChinaDaily.com.cn:

NEW YORK – The US Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has launched its first ever paid ad campaign urging roughly 7.9 million green card holders to become naturalized citizens. The $3.5 million multilingual campaign will be used for three years and is part of an $11 million allotment from Congress meant to promote integration of immigrants. This year’s campaign in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese will run in print, radio and digital formats between May 30 and Sept 5, primarily in states with large immigrant populations, such as California, New York, Florida and Texas. ”You’ve got to create that sense of urgency, and until they’ve reached that sense of urgency, they’ll just coast,” Nathan Stiefel, division chief of policy and programs for the Office of Citizenship at USCIS, told the Associated Press…

This blogger asks readers to click upon the relevant hyperlinks noted above to read this article in detail.

For those who are unfamiliar with matters pertaining to American immigration it should be noted that those who enter the United States of America on a CR-1 visa or an IR-1 visa are accorded lawful permanent residence (also colloquially referred to as Green Card status). After spending a specified period of time physically present in the United States it may be possible for an immigrant to naturalize to American citizenship. There are many benefits to be had by undergoing the naturalization process including, but not limited to: the right to vote, the right to a US Passport, as well as the various privileges and/or immunities of citizenship. Those interested in learning if they are eligible for such benefits are encouraged to contact a licensed American attorney.

In somewhat unrelated news, it recently came to this blogger’s attention that the government of Japan is apparently preparing to conduct tests on various nuclear facilities in that country. For further insight it is necessary to quote directly from the Channel News Asia website at ChannelNewsAsia.com:

TOKYO : Japan said Wednesday it will run “stress tests” on all its nuclear reactors in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi accident sparked by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami disaster. The ongoing crisis, the world’s worst atomic accident since Chernobyl 25 years ago, has ignited debate in Japan about the safety of nuclear power, which before the disaster accounted for a third of its electricity needs. The centre-left government ordered a round of initial tests on the country’s other atomic power plants after the disaster, and said the new stress tests aimed to reassure the public that the facilities are safe…

The administration of this blog asks readers to click on the appropriate hyperlinks above to read this article in detail.

For those unfamiliar with the ongoing situation in Japan it should be noted that an Earthquake which occurred in March of this year resulted in a nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima facility noted above. This situation had tremendous ramifications for both the Asia-Pacific region and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). As this tragic state of affairs continues to play out it is hoped that positive endeavors can mitigate some of the damage caused by this disaster. No doubt the Japanese citizenry remain in the hearts and minds of conscientious people the world over.

For related information please see: Certificate of Citizenship or Certificate of Naturalization.

Tags: American Citizenship, American Immigration, American Passport, ASEAN, Asia-Pacific, ASsociation of Southeast ASian Nations, California, Certificate of Citizenship, Certificate of Naturalization, Chernobyl, Chinese, CR-1 Visa, CR1 Visa, English, Florida, Fukushima, Fukushima Daiichi, Green Card, IR-1 Visa, IR1 Visa, Japan Earthquake, Japan news, Lawful Permanent Residence, Lawful Permanent Resident, March 11 earthquake, Naturalization, Naturalize, naturalized citizen, New York, privileges and immunities of United States Citizenship, privileges or immunities of United States Citizenship, Spanish, stress tests, Texas, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, US Citizenship, US Immigration, us passport, USCIS, USCIS Office of Citizenship, Vietnamese
Posted in US Citizenship, US Embassy Japan, USCIS | No Comments »

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that new In Vitro Fertilization methods could see future children born with 3 parents. Although this may sound like something from science fiction, clearly this is a real issue which could have real world implications. In order to provide a degree of insight to the reader on this topic it may be best to quote directly from Wikipedia:

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a process by which egg cells are fertilised by sperm outside the body, in vitro. IVF is a major treatment in infertility when other methods of assisted reproductive technology have failed. The process involves hormonally controlling the ovulatory process, removing ova (eggs) from the woman’s ovaries and letting sperm fertilise them in a fluid medium. The fertilised egg (zygote) is then transferred to the patient’s uterus with the intent to establish a successful pregnancy. The first successful birth of a “test tube baby”, Louise Brown, occurred in 1978. Robert G. Edwards, the doctor who developed the treatment, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2010. Before that, there was a transient biochemical pregnancy reported by Australian Foxton School researchers in 1953 and an ectopic pregnancy reported by Steptoe and Edwards in 1976.

The administration of this blog strongly encourages readers to click on the hyperlinks above in order to gain perspective and insight into the way that IVF actually works.  According to recent reports, it would appear that new IVF methodologies may allow for a child to be born with three biological parents.  To quote directly from the official website of the BBC at BBC.co.uk:

Embryos containing DNA from a man and two women have been created by scientists at Newcastle University.

They say their research, published in the journal Nature, has the potential to help mothers with rare genetic disorders have healthy children…The work raised several ethical problems… including safety risks, children with DNA from two mothers, and making genetic changes to unborn children.

IVF and medical procedures of the same ilk may have been considered of little concern in the legal and immigration contexts during years past, but new developments, such as those noted above, could have tremendous implications for future seekers of a US Passport, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or similar identity documentation acquired both domestically or at US Embassies and US Consulates abroad. For further insight this blogger felt it prudent to quote directly from a blog post by PrideAngelAdmin on PrideAngel.com:

The first baby with three biological parents could be conceived next year after the Government announced a major review of Britain’s fertility laws.

The move would allow doctors to use a revolutionary IVF technique that prevents incurable, deadly genetic illnesses being passed down from mothers to their children.

Babies created with the therapy – called three-parent IVF – would inherit 98 per cent of their DNA from their ‘real’ parents. The rest would come from a female donor.

The scientists say the donor genes would not alter the children’s appearance or personality, but would stop them dying from painful diseases of the heart, liver and brain.

As can be seen from the above cited quotations, most of the dialogue that is occurring with respect to the issue of 3 parent IVF is emanating more from Great Britain than from the United States, but it should be noted that these issues could have an impact upon the way in which possible future American immigration benefits are bequeathed. Meanwhile, new IVF methodologies may require changes in the rules and protocols regarding issuance of Consular Reports of Birth Abroad (CRBA) since there never really seem to have been provisions in place for a child born with three biological parents. It remains to be seen how these new technologies and procedures will impact American jurisprudence regarding United States Immigration, Family Law, and the rules and regulations regarding US Citizenship.

In this blogger’s personal opinion, the implications of possible 3 parent IVF could be as important in an American Citizenship context as the promulgation and enactment of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. Who can say if it might not be possible in the future to see a child receive a Certificate of Citizenship based upon a parent-child biological relationship stemming from shared mitochondrial DNA? As humanity’s technological prowess becomes more defined legal issues may be increasingly raised in contexts that few in the past would have dreamed could even exist at all.

For the LGBT community, the citations noted above should be borne in mind especially by those who may wish to start a family in the future as it may one day be possible to see children born as a result of increasingly creative medical breakthroughs.

Tags: 3 Parent In Vitro Fertilization, 3 Parent IVF, American Citizenship, assisted reproductive technology, CCA, Certificate of Citizenship, Child Citizenship Act, Child Citizenship Act of 2000, consular report of birth abroad, Consular Reports of Birth Abroad, CRBA, in vitro, In Vitro Fertilization, infertility, IVF, mitochondrial DNA, Test Tube Baby, Three Parent In Vitro Fertilization, Three Parent IVF, US Citizenship, us passport
Posted in US Citizenship | No Comments »

เมื่อเร็วๆนี้ มีเรื่องราวที่น่าสนใจว่า คณะกรรมการกำกับหลักทรัพย์ในสหรัฐอเมริการายงานถึงการสอบสวนการฝ่าฝืนพระราชบัญญัติการปฏิบัติการทุจริตต่อต่างชาติ อ้างโดยตรงจากบล็อกที่เขียนโดย แอชบรีย์ โจนส์ในเว็บไซต์ของนิตยสารวอลล์ สตรีท wsj.com

คณะกรรมการกำกับหลักทรัพย์กำลังสอบสวนธนาคารและภาคเอกชนที่กำลังฝ่าฝืนกฎหมายเกี่ยวกับสินบนในการจัดการกับกองทุนเพื่อความมั่งคั่งตามที่ประชาชนคุ้นเคยกันเป็นอย่างดี คลิกที่นี่เพื่อดูบทความที่ไดออนเน่ เซียร์ซี่และแลนเดลล์เขียนในWSJ และคลิกที่นี่เพื่อตขิดตามเรื่องราวของ NYT และคลิกที่นี่เพื่อติดตามเรื่องราวของบลูมเบิร์ก

ตามที่ WSJ และคณะกรรมการกำกับหลักทรัพย์SEC ส่งจดหมายถามข้อสงสัยต่อธนาคารเช่น ซิตี้กรุ๊ปและภาคเอกชน  เช่นแบล็กสโตนกรุ๊ป แม้ว่าในจดหมายไม่ได้ระบุถึงข้อกล่าวหาในเรื่องสินบน พวกเขายังคงเรียกร้องที่จะให้บริษัทเก็บรักษาเอกสารและถามถึงการจัดการบริษัทกับกองทุนเพื่อความมั่งคั่ง

ผู้ที่ไม่คุ้นเคยกับ FCPA ควรจะทราบไว้ว่า มีบทบัญญัติตามกฎหมายเบื้องต้นที่จะจัดการกับสินบนและการคอร์รัปชั่นของเจ้าหน้าที่ต่างประเทศ ชาวอเมริกันบางคนนั้นอยู่ภายใต้ความผิดพลาดของบริษัทและบุคคลที่ดำเนินการนอกเขตแดนสหรัฐอเมริกาและมีสิทธิที่เกี่ยวข้องกับสินบน ในความเป็นจริงแล้ว มีกรณีศึกษาที่ สหรัฐอเมริกาพยายามที่จะร่างกฎหมายเพื่อทำลายและลงโทษการกระทำเช่นว่านั้น เมื่อกฎหมายผ่านการพิจารณานั้นปรากฎถึงวัตถุประสงค์อย่างชัดแจ้งที่จะลงโทษการกระทำเช่นนี้ในต่างประเทศ (หรือบริษัทที่ทำธุรกิจในต่างประเทศ) อย่างไรก็ตามจากสถานการณ์ที่กล่าวถึงดูเหมือนว่า จะถูกแนะนำภายใต้การสอบสวน(อย่างน้อยที่สุดคือ บางส่วน)ภายในเขตแดนของสหรัฐอเมริกา อ้างจากข้อความในบล็อกที่เขียนใน wsj.com

จดหมายที่จะผูกพันการสอบสวนของอุตสาหกรรมการธนาคารตามพระราชบัญญัติการปฏิบัติคอร์รัปชั่นของชาวต่างชาติ ทนายความที่เชี่ยวชาญกับการสอบสวนครั้งก่อนๆของอุตสาหกรรม ลูกจ้างชาวต่างชาติผู้ที่ทำงานกับกองทุนเพื่อความมั่งคั่งอาจจะรวมถึงเจ้าหน้าที่ของรัฐและรวมถึง FCPA ผู้เชี่ยวชาญทางกฎหมายกล่าว

แต่มันเป็นที่ปรากฏอย่างชัดเจนว่า ไม่มีผู้ที่จะถูกกล่าวหาอย่างเป็นทางการในข้อหาใดๆต่อ FCPA นอกจากนี้มันควรจะเป็นที่ปรากฏอย่างชัดแจ้งว่า จนกระทั่งเวลานั้น คู่กรณีมักให้การ หรือถูกกล่าวหาว่าการละเมิดของ FCPAในสายตาของกฎหมายพวกเขาเป็นผู้บริสุทธิ์

พระราชบัญญัติการคอรรัปชั่นของชาวต่างชาติเป็นงานชิ้นสำคัญของการร่างกฎหมายของชาวอเมริกันและบริษัทอเมริกัน ตามบทบัญญัติของFCPA ช่าวอเมริกันแต่ละคนและนิติบุคคลอื่นนั้นไม่อยู่ในการเกี่ยวข้องกับการกระทำเกี่ยวกับสินบนหรือสิทธิอื่นๆหรือ การคอร์รัปชั่น คำร้องของFCPA ต้องได้รับการพิจารณาตามข้อเท็จจริงในแต่ละคดี ดังนั้นหลักการปฏิบัติทางธุรกิจต่างประเทศอาจจะเห็นได้จากความเห็นของผู้เชี่ยวชาญที่มีประสบการณ์ในการจัดการเกี่ยวกับคดีเกี่ยวกับธุรกิจและกฎหมายในเขตอำนาจศาลนอกสหรัฐอเมริกาสามารถให้สิทธิประโยชน์โดยการให้มุมมองที่มีลักษณะเฉพาะและแง่มุมในแบบพิธีการและขั้นตอนขององค์กรรัฐบาลและเจ้าหน้าที่ต่างแดนในขณะที่ยังคงรักษาความเข้าใจของทนายความอเมริกันของ FCPA

ตัวอย่างเช่น ราชอาณาจักรไทยมีระบบกฎหมายที่แตกต่างจากสหรัฐอเมริกา ในขณะเดียวกัน แวดวงธุรกิจในประเทศไทยนั้นก็แตกต่างไปจากสหรัฐอเมริกา ข้อเท็จจริงคือ พลเมืองสหรัฐอเมริกาและบริษัทอเมริกัน มีความพยายามที่จะดำเนินธุรกิจซึ่งทีแนวความคิดของการจัดการธุรกิจอย่างมีประสิทธิภาพในขณะเดียวกันก็ยังคงเป็นไปตามกฎหมายอย่างเช่น พระราชบัญญัติการปฏิบัติคอร์รัปชั่นของชาวต่างชาติ เช่นเดียวกันกับระบบกฎหมาย วัฒนธรรม ประเพณี และการปฏิบัติทางการค้าของหลายๆชาติในเอเชียสามารถที่จะพิสูจน์ข้อสงสัยหลายๆอย่างของผู้ที่จะดำเนินธุรกิจในบริบทของการเป็นแบบ “ตะวันตก” มากกว่า ข้อเท็จจริงคือ FCPA เป็นการร่างกฎหมายที่เข้มข้นกับบริษัทอเมริกันและบุคคลที่จะต้องปฏิบัติตาม ในบางกรณี การที่จะให้บริการทางกฎหมายในการช่วยเหลือให้ความเข้าใจFCPA และวิธีการที่จะประนีประนอมสามารถพิสูจน์ถึงสิทธิประโยชน์ทั้งบุคคลตามธรรมชาติและนิติบุคคล

ผู้ที่หวังว่า ข้อซักถามก่อนหน้านี้สามารถที่จะพิสูจน์สิ่งที่ไร้ประโยชน์ เนื่องจากข้อเท็จจริงต่างๆไม่ได้มีการละเมิดเกิดขึ้น สิ่งที่พึงระลึกถึงคือ ถ้ามีการละเมิด FCPA เกิดขึ้นต่อจากนั้นดูเหมือนว่า มีแนวโน้มที่จะมีองค์กรเช่นคณะกรรมการกำกับตลาดหลักทรัพย์สามารถที่จะเปิดเผยข้อเท็จจริง

ข้อมูลที่เกี่ยวข้องกับ บริษัทไทย หรือ การจัดตั้งบริษัทอเมริกัน

To read this information in English please see: Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Tags: FCPA, FCPA Thailand, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, กฎระเบียบการทุจริตของอเมริกัน, กฎหมายการเงินอเมริกัน, กฎหมายจัดตั้งบริษัทอเมริกัน, กฎหมายทุจริตของอเมริกา, กฎหมายธุรกิจอเมริกัน, กฎหมายบริษัทอเมริกัน, กฎหมายสินบนอเมริกัน, กฎหมายหลักทรัพย์อเมริกา, ธุรกิจในประเทศไทย, พระราชบัญญัติการกระทำต่อการทุจริตต่างชาติ, สินบน
Posted in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), Thailand Business, US Business, US Citizenship, US Company Registration, US LLC, บริษัทอเมริกัน | No Comments »