In my anecdotal experience, it is not just ultra wealthy Americans trying to get second passports.
We can't afford these investment visas, but because of our fear that gay marriage rights may be repealed [0], my husband and I are exploring the possibility of Spanish citizenship via descent. It's unclear if we can even apply before my dad gets it or become citizens without at least a year of residency, but when my dad emailed a major consulate recently, they had an automated message saying there's a 5 day wait for return emails. Their listed phone number also had no response and went to voicemail with no automated message. My in laws are also looking into Mexican citizenship by descent.
I am curious how many folks are fleeing states or looking into it, also. We've checked with our workplaces about relocating out of state (Texas). That seems a lot easier than figuring out visas, but we are really dreading about how far things are going to go.
We're hoping for the best, preparing for the worst. I am sure it is not just UHNW individuals who are preparing.
and Google around for some op-eds. There's a lot of debate around this and whether stare decisis will outweigh the court's extreme views, but ultimately there's a lot of uncertainty.
I am sorry you are going through this. I have dual citizenship in Germany/US which certainly gives me a certain feeling of comfort as having a way out should I feel I need it. For me personally its not gay rights, though those are still very important to me. I would cast your net as wide as possible in looking at various countries that have laws/cultures that are more aligned with your own; some might have much more lax citizenship requirements than others. But as with everything there is usually a trade off.
Moving out of state might also work of course, and it will hopefully over time send a strong message to states like Texas.
Good Luck one way or the other.
PS: btw if you do leave the state, send a quick email to all your reps and perhaps those on the other side of the isle to let them know why you are leaving and how much you contributed to the local economy in order to send a strong message. Might help those left behind in Texas who are in a similar situation to you but have less means to move.
Your in laws might be better served with Mexican permanent residency. The economic solvency requirements are reasonable (about $120k in a savings/investment/retirement account seasoned for a year), and once approved by a Mexican consulate in the US, the process moves very fast once you get to Mexico. There is no upkeep cost, you have it for life once obtained. The only downside is that if you bring a vehicle to Mexico from the US, even temporarily, you’re paying duty on the vehicle’s value.
The housekeepers were immigrants and saving up to open AirBnB properties in Mexico as their next salary/profession/business.
They were going down to check on what they were investing in or actually buy the properties or something similar to that.
I don't know where it was. It was probably close to one of the vacation areas which are supposed to be safer. Not sure if it was their home town / area or not.
I suppose you can point to killings in the US and turf wars and the like, but ... the vacation areas are supposed to be more heavily policed / controlled since they are such huge profit centers.
From San Diego, what I would do is just walk across the border and then rent the car there. If you are already going to rent it's just so much easier. Though I guess it could depend on the border crossing.
You need a letter of permission from a rental car company to allow the rental into Mexico. Most rental car companies won’t issue it; the ones who do have a border arrangement with Mexico. If it has foreign plates, you’re paying duty if you’re permanent.
"I am curious how many folks are fleeing states or looking into it, also."
I'm curious about this too. Are there any past examples or studies about similar situations and migration (segregation, interracial marriage, "legal" pot, gun laws, etc)? I couldn't find anything in a quick search. Just in my personal experience it seems very few people actually move and just talk about it, especially if they talk about leaving the country, like with a specific president winning an election.
What are the costs and restrictions of getting a passport in another country?
Taxes? Annual reporting of some such?
What happens if your American passport expires, can you fly on whatever foreign one you have only? Or do you need to present your US passport when leaving the US and your foreign one when arriving some place?
Can you fly back into the US only using your Spanish passport?
Would you have to reveal at the border that you are a US citizen? Or just show your foreign one and not mention US citizenship?
What happens if your American passport expires, can you fly on whatever foreign one you have only?
As long as you don't fly to the US. US citizens need a valid US passport to enter the US, even if they also have another passport[1]. Entering the US is literally the only thing I use my US passport for and the only reason I get it renewed.
[1] I guess you can try to lie on your visa/ESTA application and hope they don't notice, but I wouldn't recommend it.
US citizens are required to report all worldwide income for taxation. Elsewhere, requirements to pay tax generally depend on residing in the country for some number of days per year.
> do you need to present your US passport when leaving the US and your foreign one when arriving some place?
Yes.
> Would you have to reveal at the border that you are a US citizen?
At the US border, yes. If, say, you have a European passport and you're entering Europe, you present the European one.
The article defines 300% increase in the requests made to a particular company as “skyrocketing”, but I see no base value that this change is measured against. If four dudes got themselves an extra passport as opposed to one in 2019, the numbers start sounding far less impressive.
>The article defines 300% increase in the requests made to a particular company as “skyrocketing”, but I see no base value that this change is measured against. If four dudes got themselves an extra passport as opposed to one in 2019, the numbers start sounding far less impressive.
You may be interested in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25367731 , in which @bildung and I discuss German migration to the US over the past 30 years (including 2019 data) as compared to US migration to Germany, and how the German government's statistical office blatantly manipulates data to make Germany look good. As is so often in such cases lately, Trump is involved.
A small dataset is not statistically insignificant. It changes the calculations, but it is possible to make significant conclusions from small data. Whether this situation is significant or not depends on the underlying data you first asked about. Without it we cannot say.
True, but that’s still a skewed measurement ; billionaires have the resources to do/go wherever they please.
If joe “regulars” <$250k net worth are jumping ship, and needing to work their situation - not an army of lawyers/assistants - it’s much different than bill billionaire doing anything…
What conclusion can reasonably be made here? If it’s “The number of wealthy people moving abroad to avoid taxes is skyrocketing”, you’d have to show that:
1.) The change in requests is statistically significant when put in the context of the total number of such individuals
2.) Tax avoidance is the primary driver of this activity
3.) The individuals do not just acquire the passport, but actually move
Personally I look at it in a much more benign way: Billionaires that are bored and spending their money.
It's not that they genuinely fear the future of American society, it's that they've run out of ideas to protect their wealth and getting a "golden passport" is the next logical step. It's a bit like a regular joe buying one of those "seed backup" (hunk of metal that you write your bitcoin seed phrase on) devices on Amazon.
What are the chances your house will burn down, leaving nothing except this indestructible seed phrase device? I'd say very low. The same can be said for the fears of these billionaires buying foreign passports. The chances of American "turning" is vanishingly small, but when you have money to burn, why not prepare for that scenario too.
Conventionally, insurance is a financial instrument designed to hedge against unlikely events, like a house fire. In the US, it’s easy to lose sight of this because we use a product called ‘insurance’ to pay for a bunch of regularly occurring expenses, like medical checkups, but that’s not really insurance, it’s a healthcare plan.
Even if I thought the US was 99.5% likely to remain politically stable in my lifetime, I might still think a second passport is a good idea.
Very much this. Although sovereigns have alot of soft power over their citizens, There's very little they can do if you pack up and leave. You'd have to be china or north korea to influence this market of people leaving for greener pastures.
its possible that what's bad for the billionaire is good for the rest of us. They could just maintain these backups in to evade something like a wealth tax.
Indeed. Look at China and Taiwan. The Chinese that fled to Taiwan at the end of their Civil War loaded boats with gold and wealth. They also were generally well educated. A small island that stood and still stands.
What would anyone want with a place that's been nuked to hell and back? Too much issues with fallout and the risk the rest of the world sanctions you into submission, and if you'd bomb it to pieces with conventional weaponry you would have to bomb down so much stuff that there isn't anything left worth invading.
Even without the security agreements that Taiwan has, it's ridiculously hard to invade and take over if one does not want to bomb it to pieces: it being an island means it's extremely hard to land troops and supplies for them (Ukraine has shown that even without a navy, it is possible to sink ships or that it's perfectly possible to run an air force even after almost all infrastructure has been destroyed), and a highly motivated population can and will put up a fight.
China is definitely looking at Ukraine - not just on how the Western world reacts at this clear break with any and all international rules on war, but also how a country under siege and its population behaves.
I agree wholeheartedly with the fact that China is looking at Ukraine. What it shows is that an invasion would set up a chain reaction that would disrupt international order with very negative effects for its economy and strategic goals. Obviously there will need to be another way. Diplomatically China has been getting good wins in "the other way".
Russia also has nuclear weapons and even she does not use it for this invasion. Nuclear weapons have a great effect on public opinion including domestically as it is clearly a weapon of mass destruction/murder. Actually any form of offensive is faux pas and most beligerants avoid calling it a war. It is always framed as a defense of something, see Russian "special military operation", see American "liberation" of Afghanistan or Iraq. Likewise the Chinese would call it "taking it back" and a mere domestic affair. A nuke is clearly a form of total war.
Dropping nukes is taken in the last resort doctrine, and there is no historical precedent of euphemism in its use.
Speaking of which, a country's nuclear weapon usage doctrines are public so that coexistence can exist and mistakes do not happen. People talk as if commanders can consider nuclear weapons as standard part of the arsenal but that is not so. It is one of the few weapons which likely would lead to the total destruction and thus defeat of a state due to the Mutual assured destruction concept.
A great example is the Pakistani nuclear weapon doctrine[1]. It is so clear that i almost wish all countries would have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan would have had murderous wars if not for them. Instead they are the stick that allows for softer talk.
I’m not arguing politics - I’m simply stating that China’s military is superior to taiwans, which it is. Taiwan will not win a conflict with China, without intervention.
Agreed, but the goal is not for Taiwan's army to fend off against the full might of the PLA - the goal is to show and build up enough strength to make the PLA pay a brutal price even for an attempt. Similar to Ukraine.
Capital flight makes no difference. Argentina's government has defaulted 9 times, capital has always come back and always will.
The reason why people invest in the US is: legal system, the educated workforce, etc. I think people get it completely twisted about why investors invest (ironically, this notion of a "capitalist's strike" is just pure bait from right-wing people who don't understand how investing works). There is always an excess of capital because economic advantage is not evenly distributed, you are always chasing the limited number of good opportunities. And there is no competitive advantage in money (in theory, not totally true in practice): $100 from X is as good as $100 from Y.
If you believe capital flight exists, you believe that humans don't like money.
The advantage the US has is strengthening and compounding. There is nowhere like it in the world, I don't think anyone is even close.
>Capital flight makes no difference. Argentina's government has defaulted 9 times, capital has always come back and always will.
How does Argentina prove your point that capital flight makes no difference? Defaulting on loans doesn't even represent capital flight. It just means people who have already invested will not get their return for a very long time, if at all.
>If you believe capital flight exists, you believe that humans don't like money.
>If I believe X then I must believe Y.
Not really, If I had a lot of Turkish Lira and lived in turkey then I would call moving my ass before the collapse capital flight. And I would have been better off doing so. Same with Venezuela and many other countries that clearly weren't too big to fail.
Do you think we should institute capital controls? I'm not sure that's a good idea, but I've heard people talk about it a little. I'm willing to listen (to either side) as I really don't have a strong instinct on why it should or should not be done.
Portugal has been the retirement plan for my wife and me since we spent time there six years ago. We’re from Southern California, so the weather feels similar, it’s beautiful, and the people were super nice.
But the key differentiator was health care. We have issues that require multiple medications, and while there we needed refills. The person renting to us said to go to the ER, so we did. We were with a doctor in twenty minutes, who asked us why we had come. We said we had double-checked with the landlord and he insisted that was the right course to take. The doctor said they could have been busy and we would have had to wait, but in any case she was happy to write that refills. All up it took under half an hour and cost under $30.
We’ve been to the ER multiple times in the US and never seen a doctor in less than an hour (except when I had a motorcycle accident, but that’s a different circumstance entirely). And of course no ER visit in the US costs less than thousands of $$$.
And filling the prescriptions cost less than the copay in the US.
Retirement is some time away, so I hope the wealthy don’t screw it up for us :-/
I didn't buy my second passport but having two has been very handy. Unless it is prohibited by a law in one country or the other, and assuming you look into all the details like compulsory military service and such things, a second passport is a great investment.
You can travel between the countries you hold a passport of regardless of what emergency rules they impose. No country refused entry to its own citizens during the pandemic.
Eh, it’s still an excellent passport. Decent social safety net, visa-free entry to a ton of countries, E-3 US work visa (the best US work visa class out there), and automatic residency in New Zealand.
This was a short lived measure but did have the effect of preventing some citizens from returning. It could be argued that they could travel by boat, but I believe most ocean travel was also restricted at the time.
I know what you mean, but in legal terms Chinese citizens still have a "right of entry". In reality of course there are no flights and there are onerous rules about quarantines and "Green Codes".
De-facto they are preventing citizens from entering but de-jure they are still allowed. But I mean it's China, is anyone surprised here?
I would really appreciate if you tell me how to get back to China from US. I can't even book a flight as all flights are cancelled. https://www.ikkyinchina.com/
Like others said, many countries make it very difficult or borderline impossible to go back during the pandemic. Funnily enough, being treated like that makes me want to immigrate/gain a second citizenship more than ever. It's tough to feel like a citizen of one's country when the basic thing of being able to go back is so damn tough.
I'm not sure that's completely true. Some certainly had strict limits on the numbers that could enter (Australia, New Zealand, etc.) as everyone had to go through he government run quarantine systems.
I have an Australian and a European passport. Australians travelling to Europe either need to be out of the Schengen Zone in 90 days or get a long term visa. My EU passport means I don't have to worry about visas, term of stay, and get all the rights of an EU citizen even if - to this point - I've never even visited the country that gave me the passport 20 years ago.
An edge use case - but one I've enjoyed - was visiting Israel and then traveling on to other countries in the region. An Israel entry stamp can cause issues entering other Middle Eastern states but, in my case, I used a different passport when traveling to other ME countries.
Makes sense, America has been in decline for quite a while. If the violent anarchists which seemed to have the protection of our intelligence and law enforcement communities didn't scare you off, maybe an adjustment of what you thought were rights will. Alinsky will dominate American politics now that everybody knows how it works, and I think it's a good thing. We're all past pretending now.
The fascinating thing is that depending on their politicial preference, you could get a number of answers, each based off their interpretation of real events.
Next time you have, what I imagine you believe to be, a real good comment. Head for a mirror and look at yourself and say these words allowed: “ There are more ways to look at life, society, politics than the one I have. I haven’t given this adequate thought and my opinion is likely wrong. I should educate myself rather than write comments.”
I see whataboutism is the name of the game, whatabout when the Black Lives Matter head bombed Congress? Unite the Right doesn't justify the 2020 summer of bolshevik terror any more than the summer of terror would justify January 6th. Next time you want to play whatabout I'll be ready.
If you are ready to “play”, provide a legit source for your claim “BLM head bombed congress”. All I find is kids shooting up schools in the US.
You stated a “2020 summer of terror” - was that terror the deaths of citizens by government servants? Likely not your concern. I stated that that comment shows your political bias. Which it does, and continues to do. What aboutism does not enter this debate on your bias.
To highlight your bias, you relate bolshevism to BLM protests, a real stretch (also continuing to reveal your indoctrination). You see protests (property damage, violence) against clear examples of police violence as ”bolshevism”. You’re not thinking.
Assuming you’re a US citizen, do you realize you already live under an example of socialism? How do you think roads, school, social security benefits, both good and killer cops, etc. are all paid for? By collective taxes used to pay for services, infrastructure that helps society function.
Also you wanna see terror, how bout plots to kidnap the MI governor or attack OH’s power grid [2].
Doubtful you give much thought to domestic terrorism when it’s not for purposes of opposing your political opponent.
Don’t lump half of your country under the guise of a single umbrella term. It will severely distort/disrupt your ability to think.
I've taken a paycut in the UK with the aim of getting a second passport. I'm not sure the UK will fare well in a scenario where the US goes full tilt bozo, but being an island surrounded by shitty weather has proven advantageous historically.
Yep. I'm glad I took a masters program in Ireland when I did. Now just to find a job where I can actually live in Dublin and not squeak by... which sadly isn't likely give Irish salaries and how ridiculous Dublin is.
I think this is the right move for most upper middle class folks.
Many big developed and developing countries are increasing their taxes on young people to fund unsustainable pension systems. They are introducing exit taxes, world wide citizen obligations, compulsory reporting overseas, and restricting ease of moving your business elsewhere.
Look up pension bombs. If you predict population will stop growing, who will pay for elderly pension and healthcare where majority of funding goes in developed countries?
In times of covid, countries like Australia had greater restriction than China.
Pension and healthcare system is still unsustainable though. Even if population is growing, it doesn't always mean you can repay the debt back and keep promises. Someone will get taxed unreasonably in future to fund it.
If you are a citizen of a single country and they turn authoritarian like Australia in the period of covid, you are at the mercy of them.
They may restrict your capital flows, shut off your local bank accounts, make it impossible to get out of the country, and a lot more. Every action they take will impact you directly as the passport holder.
So having more passports allow greater freedom and stability in the long run.
Nobody would have thought a highly developed western country would refuse citizen entry before covid.
> Many big developed and developing countries are increasing their taxes on young people to fund unsustainable pension systems. They are introducing exit taxes, world wide citizen obligations, compulsory reporting overseas, and restricting ease of moving your business elsewhere.
How does 2nd passport skirt world wide citizen obligations, compulsory reporting overseas?
To renounce, you first have to meet several criteria:
• You must hold citizenship of another country, so you don’t become stateless.
• You have to be up-to-date with your U.S. tax filing, with the past five years submitted.
• You have to attend an exit interview at your nearest U.S. consulate or embassy.
• You have to pay a $2,350 renunciation fee.
• If you have financial assets worth over $2 million, you may have to pay a one-off exit tax calculated as a capital gains tax as if you sold all of your assets on the day you renounced.
---
At least two of those points seem to be pretty prohibitive, if your goal is to avoid taxes on money already earned...
> If you have financial assets worth over $2 million, you may have to pay a one-off exit tax calculated as a capital gains tax as if you sold all of your assets on the day you renounced.
Enforcement on that appears to be about zero.
A fair amount of the increase this article is discussing is likely cryptobros inspired by Roger Ver's success-- he renounced US citizenship while owning >40k bitcoin (potentially much more than 40k, that is just what was in his publicly identified wallet) at a near zero cost basis worth over $20 million at the time while paying only about $200k in exit taxes (he tweeted a picture of the exit taxes check), presumably for his non-bitcoin properties.
He even setup a company to help other people get st. kitts passports that promoted evading US taxes as a top level feature.
If you have enough money that you are renouncing US citizenship to avoid your taxes, then the fee is a rounding error. And I'm quite happy with US citizens who make their money as US citizens paying their taxes on cap gains before they go. Morally it seems superior, and practically it keeps everyone from renouncing their citizenship right before their startup sells.
Is this viable? As in, is there a reasonable pathway for renouncing US citizenship and then getting citizenship somewhere else?
I wonder if this opens up pathways to citizenship that aren't available otherwise. The "passports for sale" are mostly either extremely expensive or for tiny island nations like St. Kitts. But maybe there are additional countries that offer citizenship to stateless people out of compassion?
> Stateless people, when officially registered as 'stateless', can apply for naturalisation after three years' legal stay, which is reduced from the standard five years. They are also exempt from providing a passport, but they do need to provide a birth certificate.
How did you find out that the US will allow you to renounce and make yourself stateless? I'm genuinely curious, and also slightly skeptical that it's really true.
> Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. They may also have difficulty traveling as they may not be entitled to a passport from any country.
> If you have financial assets worth over $2 million, you may have to pay a one-off exit tax calculated as a capital gains tax as if you sold all of your assets on the day you renounced.
Do you have to pay capital gains taxes on anything over $2 million or wholesale all capital gain?
> You have to attend an exit interview at your nearest U.S. consulate or embassy.
I believe the exit interview is to ensure that you understand the consequences, sign papers that are motorized, make sure you pay your taxes, etc.
I'm sure they can reject your exit if you haven't finished paying taxes owed or you seem under duress or mental impairment. But absent that (or maybe similar reasons you wouldn't let someone sign a contract) I don't think they can.
If you live in another country and make over $112,000 USD (2022 number) there, you're paying US taxes on the difference even with the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. That sucks a lot for a lot of Americans.
What do you mean by, "you won't pay anything"? The issue is that you pay taxes to _two_ countries on the same income because you can't shield the income from the US above the foreign earned income exclusion amount. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.
Yes, I mentioned the FEIE in the first post you replied to. Wealthy/high income Americans renounce their citizenships to avoid being double taxed if they don't live in the US because the FEIE has a cap and they are double taxed on the remainder.
Really? US citizenship is a huge liability because of global taxation. If you have the opportunity to exchange it for another, and you don't want to live in the US, it seems like a no-brainer.
>> practical arguments
> Such as? All of them stem from FATCA, and we’re back to taxes.
I understand that FATCA's reporting requirements are onerous enough for banks that they reject US account holders. Then, the inability to get a local bank account may cause problems.
This is where I ask, "can't you just use a US bank account, then? One with good international support? (No fees, etc.)" I suspect this is feasible in many countries?
I do know, however, that in India, many activities require an Indian credit card (regular Visa &etc cards work fine for many things, but for others -- particularly if they touch the government in any way -- they are rejected). And the way to get an Indian credit card is to have an Indian bank account. You see where this is going. So e.g., you end up unable to buy train tickets without bugging an Indian citizen to do it for you.
I would also suspect that, the minute you need to deal with an account with any kind of special government classification -- say, a retirement account -- then you need that account to be at an institution that knows about those laws, which again would require a local bank.
There isn’t even a US bank that functions well in the US, let alone abroad. Absolutely nothing like Monzo available (until Monzo itself becomes more broadly available…)
So if you’re renouncing your citizenship for tax reasons, it’s very unlikely that it’s going to be worth it, if you’ve got under $2m in assets.
Not to mention that if you decide to return to the US, not only have to go through the US immigation system, but you also won’t clear a background check, because people who renounce their US citizenship are entered into the NICS system.
But what would the LTCG be on those assets? At most $2m * 15% = 300k (assuming you were able to realize it over several years and avoid the 20% LTCG bracket and 3.8% NIIT), cheaper to pay the taxes than buy a passport and you would preserve your ability to return to the US if you found it in your interest.
You could look at climate projections and figure out which areas are less screwed than the US.
I wouldn't bet on Europe; the Atlantic currents are near a tipping point where they shut down. That'll cover most of Western Europe in a glacier if it happens. (Go look up European cities' latitudes; the fossil record also backs up this concern.)
Moving to avoid covid policies seems secondary vs. what the Supreme Court is likely to do in the next decade (especially after more justices are appointed by minority-elected presidents and senates).
You don’t need to get citizenship to get a passport. Panama and many other countries have resident visas that get you a passport without becoming a citizen.
Not possible for Panama, or not possible in general? Because it's definitely possible in general. You can even get passports from organizations such as the U.N.
The first line of that literally says it's a diplomatic travel document. It's valid for official diplomatic travel on UN business only, so hardly relevant here.
With abortion being made illegal, senile presidents, Capitol invasions, rampant poverty, homelessness, crumbling infrastructure it has become clear that the US is on its way to becoming a failed state like Afghanistan. I think a lot of smart people are seeing the writing on the wall and making escape plans for themselves as well as for their future generations. When Rome falls, not all the wealthy Romans do.
Unfortunately the breakdown of the political discourse and the factors (including - but not limited to - stupidity) that causes it appears to be spreading to other English-speaking countries too, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time (if it hasn't happened already) that non-English-speaking countries are affected as well.
> Unfortunately the breakdown of the political discourse and the stupidity that causes it appears to be spreading to other English-speaking countries too
This is a good point. I hold passports to the USA and Canada. I have considered moving to Canada over the last five-seven years and I don’t feel like it would be much of an improvement. Taxes, housing and COL are significantly higher and the political climate seems to similarly polarized. And these people seeking greener political pastures are probably taking some political dysfunction with them.
> Unfortunately the breakdown of the political discourse and the stupidity that causes it appears to be spreading to other English-speaking countries too, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time (if it hasn't happened already) that non-English-speaking countries are affected as well.
Thank God that kind of thing is currently limited to English-speaking countries.
Abortion hasn't been (and won't be) made illegal. It's been "delegated^" back to the states where the decision belongs. There are always going to be liberal states where it's legal. The structure of the US as independent states coordinated by the federal government means people can hold mutually exclusive ideas about law and morality without having to live in separate nations.
^The states really delegate a small number of powers to the federal government, things like murder and abortion aren't among those. This is really the way it was supposed to be and Roe vs Wade was a mistake that undermined the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. So delegation is really the wrong word for this but a surprising number of people here seem to have almost no understanding of American civics.
This ruling says the federal government has no say in abortion rights. That prevents the federal government from legislating on it. It actually protects your rights from populist right wing mobs on the other side of the continent.
> Why do you assert that it was never under the mandate of the federal government? Obviously it's a contended issue.
All of the powers the federal government has are delegated to it in the Constitution. Show me where this one is.
>- why do you assert anyone who disagree with you is ignorant? Perhaps they listen to the very loud lobby of anti abortion goals, and view this milestone as part of a trend and extrapolate?
Regardless of how they got confused it's not an accurate view of how American government works and thinking that way is harmful to both sides
Right, the population there wants it banned, the population in California does not. Now both groups get what they want. It won't be banned in California and, in fact, this ruling makes it harder for republicans to ban it in states like California. This protects your rights if you live in a liberal state.
Here's the problem, Roe v. Wade isn't just about abortion. Birth control legality, gay sex being legal and gay marriage being legal all henge on decisions based on Roe v. Wade. In one fell swoop, the religious right has thrown their religious ideology into the face of a nation that some 80% (I'm not sure of the exact number) of a population doesn't want enforced on the whole of the rest of the population, whether they agree with it or not. We're sliding back towards some back water theocracy that bans books and spies on our population.
The leaked opinion also makes it clear that Congress can now regulate abortion if it wants to.
They're rolling back a raft of rights that we, as a society, decided follow from the constitution fifty years ago. A large majority of the population supports having those rights, but the justices were mostly appointed by minority elected presidents.
Given demographic trends, the senate will represent a narrowing minority of the population over time. The supreme court has also rolled back many voters rights and election integrity rules in the last few years.
Given that, it's likely we won't have a Democrat controlled senate for the forseeable future. If the Republicans control the house and presidency for a hot second, they'll be able to pass a national abortion (and gay rights, civil rights, and probably privacy) ban, and that will be the end of the US as a Democratic nation.
Because of the elctoral college math and existing court corruption, they'll be able to do this with under 40% of the vote.
I hate to be one of those "both party" people (clearly, the Dems are a lesser extreme, even though both have slid towards conservative positions) but both parties have represented less and less of the population and seem to actively stoke political disenfranchisement in the nation, playing towards a fervent party base who don't examine passed policy but only look at talking points. This can be seen in both foreign policy and the filibuster legislation, as well as previous promises of codifying Roe v. Wade. I'd like to say this is a sad "day" but this slide truly started during the Reagan era, quickened during the Gingrich era and Clinton turned the Democrats into the center right party in a lot of their practical policies(foreign policy, military budget, corporate spending, corporate rights). And while the center right policy might actual message well to a lot of America, they try to sell to a fringe left for some reason.
It only takes 12% (edit: 5%) of the US vote for the small states (which are almost all Republican) to mount a filibuster.
I'm tired of the excuses. We're facing multiple existential crises, and a small, antidemocratic, minority is blocking action that has broad popular support.
All citizens over 18 should have a vote, and all votes should have equal weight.
Which I misread. It takes 12% of the vote to create a filibuster proof majority from small red states, and 5% for those states to sustain a fillibuster.
The people who live in those places are also facing existential problems that get completely ignored by people like you. The solution is to give individual communities like states more control over the law so that people who feel strongly about things like this (on both sides) have more control.
Sure the legislator can decide to do that, it doesn't matter though. The court would be taking two directly incompatible rulings in sequence. No one would tolerate that and it would completely undermine their legitimacy. This ruling protects you from what the Republicans are trying to do, without it they could actually ban abortion nationally.
> Abortion hasn't been (and won't be) made illegal.
Here are 13 states that have "trigger laws" that get enacted the instant upon Roe being overruled.
> Idaho’s trigger law, for example, would make performing an abortion a felony 30 days after the “issuance of the judgment in any decision of the United States supreme court that restores to the states their authority to prohibit abortion.” The law states that the offense would be punishable by a prison sentence of 2 to 5 years in prison.
It's still not nationally banned. You won't have to leave the country to get an abortion and if you care strongly about it you can get involved in state level politics or move. Having discussions about it at the federal level just wasted everyone's time since it's too complex to find consensus on and allowed the politicians to get away with other things because of Arrow's Theorem.
EDIT: I'm out of quota, here's my reply: I don't care if it's free'd up legislative time. Because of this precedent the federal legislatures can legislate all they want but it won't be meaningful. What I do care about is that it means people can hold federal politicians more accountable for other things since they don't have to care about their stance on abortion one way or the other since nothing can be changed from the federal level.
Mitch McConnell is doing press hits saying the republicans are going to enact a federal law against abortion when they retake Congress. Hard to imagine this Supreme Court having a problem with that, given what we’ve all read in the leaked opinion.
It sure doesn’t seem like opponents of abortion have any issues talking about it at the federal level.
That would be overreach and hopefully the Supreme Court would strike it down. The precedent from this ruling actually protects you from that sort of thing, without it the Republicans would be more capable of pushing the states to do whatever they want.
I'm totally shocked at the degree to which people are upset by this since it helps both sides. The only explanation I have is that no one really understands what's going on and they're just "fighting for their tribe."
EDIT: I'm out of quota, here's my reply: This isn't politicization, they're literally interpreting the constitution. Anything other than this would be politicization that would allow populist mobs to run over the states. They're not banning anything, they're giving the power back to you where it belongs.
My understanding is the underlying argument is ultimately about fetal personhood and a national ban would be about protecting constitutional rights of the unborn (and having disputes about that rise to the level of SCOTUS for a ruling).
That’s the bit I think you’re missing and why it may not just be about reserved rights for the states or about congressional legislation. I believe this is also the stated goal of some of these orgs and it’s a moral belief they hold.
I'm part way through it and while it mentions recognition of fetal personhood in the past it only seems to use that to establish that there's no precedent for this idea of a right to abortion.
For clarity I’m not talking about the text of this opinion, but the larger argument that’s happening outside of it. I think you’re probably accurate about this decision and its consequences in the short term, but I thought you were missing why this could have a bigger effect in the long term.
I don't know where you are getting this information. All this ruling does is eliminate constitutional rights. It explicitly encourages congress to regulate abortion, and even provides a list of other constitutional rights that can now be rolled back, including condoms, privacy, gay marriage, and "civil rights".
Have you read the politico article (which links to the full document)?
I know at least where I live almost everyone is against it. The only way to prevent further destabilization of American politics is for us to agree to disagree and live near other like minded people.
> That would be overreach and hopefully the Supreme Court would strike it down.
With the way that the Supreme Court not just got politicized, but effectively taken over over the last six years, it is IMO foolish to the extreme to rely on the SC defending anything in the future.
Not yet, that is the point. The first GOP people are openly thinking about nationwide abortion bans [1], banning condoms [2] or questioning if couples should be allowed to use birth control [3].
The problem is, a lot of freedoms the US people take for granted are not backed by a constitutional amendment but by court decisions or executive orders and so they can be revoked pretty easily.
If you think this stopped discussions about abortion or freed up legislative time I seriously question your sincerity. Now we get 50 states making their own laws and congress is now voting on it and probably will be a topic for congress more now. And you are saying with a straight face, hey now we can work on more important issues with all our free time! Actually amazing. You don’t get paid to debug right?
- Why do you assert that it was never under the mandate of the federal government? Obviously it's a contended issue.
- why do you assert anyone who disagree with you is ignorant? Perhaps they listen to the very loud lobby of anti abortion goals, and view this milestone as part of a trend and extrapolate?
No borders would lead to some negative effects for societies and governments. Whether that be currency/economic instability, disease, sovereignty issues, cultural issues with human rights.
We have a long way to go before we even begin a discussion on an open world.
OP means that "there should be no passports". Which still does not stand, because there where you have free movement that legal position can change and the citizen should inherit pertinence to some side; and even there where you have free movement it is realistically difficult to rule out the existence of some other entities which one may be interested in as document providers.
He’s bankrolling a truly odious class of disingenuous goon political candidates who are bent on rolling back not just civil rights for half of Americans but basic things like contraception. Just look at what his protege Blake Masters is tweeting and you’ll get the picture pretty quickly. That’s the “Plan B” reference.
I know HN loves Peter Thiel (who also happens to have bought citizenship in New Zealand to bring his fuck-everyone-but-the-rich mentality there too) like fat kids love cake but I didn’t think I’d be downvoted so quickly for mentioning his obvious role in undermining Roe. C’est la vie. He sucks, and I pine for the day I can say that to his, Rabois’, or any of his enabler’s faces.
"bought a vanity passport"? I've never heard that; my understanding is that he got a passport via the investment route, probably as a hedge in case he doesn't want to live in US any more, or because he likes NZ.
I spent a good first portion of my career badly picking startups that would fail. I got pretty darn good at sniffing failure. In 2018, I started getting those smells from the US itself. My family packed up and moved to the EU in 2018. I don’t regret it, not for a second.
Unrelated, there is a trend here. Estonia has been marketing and operating itself like a startup. Many are following it with lithuania introducing e-residency and government services to non-citizens.
It's even more common with island countries where you can buy passports or government services otherwise not available to non-residents in elsewhere without even visiting.
It's 21st century and governments are startups attracting capital and skilled workers (employees).
marketing? maybe. operating? doubt it. if the country you’re a citizen of would say “let’s see how this quarter goes. if thing don’t work out we will reach the end of our runway and all that property you bought is going to be sold to the highest bidder without consulting you” you’d think they are a bunch of clown. “Also, it’s called Estonia today, but it may be Germany tomorrow and you cannot stay here unless you are a German citizen”. Bananas! + Instant uprising against the government.
I defined the limited area they act as a startup above. They are providing government services that are usually only available to citizens to everyone for money.
I know that you mean well, but I feel this is a bad-faith argument. The president at the time was specifically saying he wanted to run the government like a business. From many friends who worked in government, that actually happened to some extent.
I never claimed to see the future, only similarities to things I’d seen before, from friends in government to the news.
I get where you’re coming from and the argument is not in bad faith.
A startup looks to turn an idea into reality and make it self-sustainable and profitable. They will ofter make compromises in order to accelerate their growth (and some things that VC make them do make zero sense if you’re not considering the hyper growth scenario).
A country, imho, offers a framework for its citizens and does not optimize for government growth or government profitability. They don’t need yo justify their existence and don’t need to be profitable to accomplish their mission. This framework offers a multitude of “services” and enables businesses and private citizens to exist + offers them stability needed. By any means it’s not a startup and should not be looked at through the lens of a startup
Ah, yeah. I don’t think a government is anything like a startup. It should be making decisions that span generations. I was mostly referring to “culture smells” rather than anything business-like.
in your analogy: who are the investors? the US not only burns the money, it has the ability to print more money. between the petrodollar and the military supremacy the only thing that can topple the US are internal factors.
Highly debatable. However, I think most citizens would consider their nations age date of acquisition of sovereignty, not from the date of the current form of government or any other standard.
Anyway, calling United States one of the oldest countries in the world is about as defensible as calling it one of the newest countries in the world. I just don't see the data for it.
There is no data for it, its definitional. The two definitions skew the perception of the answer. Perhaps you care about stability and somehow you've got a correlation between length of government standing and your perception of stability. What defines a country?
> I got pretty darn good at sniffing failure. In 2018, I started getting those smells from the US itself. My family packed up and moved to the EU in 2018. I don’t regret it, not for a second.
Was Russia fighting a land war in Europe just a little blip on the radar that has not yet caused you to question your "sniffing" ability?
EU was a great decision. Do you mind sharing which country you picked, and how the transition was for your family?
One option we are considering is starting our family in the US and moving to the EU slightly later in life, but before the kids would start school. Adoption and surrogacy are generally harder or take longer in the EU, although the processes are substantially the same for same sex and opposite sex married couples, at least in western Europe.
We picked the Netherlands for a number of reasons:
- high taxes that you actually see the output of. Also, higher taxes than the US means not paying US taxes due to tax treaties, though you still have to file them.
- Dutch-American Friendship Treaty (DAFT) means you can move here and start a business with minimal investment.
- Our son was 3 when we moved here. He speaks fluent Dutch now and is on his way to learning Spanish and German.
I can't speak for original poster. But in 2018 - fascism, authoritarianism and break down of political discourse were very alarming. Now in 2022, we see it is likely Roe vs Wade gets overturned. The basis of that argument works for throwing out civil rights, contraception and voting rights. There are already moves in some states to make abortion murder and so punishable by death.
And that's not even getting into the attempted coup.
I'd say that's all pretty terrifying.
I think I'd agree that in 2018, if you were paying attention, that the 'smell' was that's where we were heading.
No 'they' don't. And prefixing with 'to be fair' is sadistically hilarious in context.
To clarify. There are people who want fascism. Who want authoritarianism. Who are purposefully breaking political discourse. Who think women should be forced to have babies even if there is incest and rape. That if they get an abortion they could potentially get the death penalty. That white people are superior. That overthrowing the democracy is good (if they are doing the overthrowing). And on and on...
So no and 'to be fair', 'the other side of the proverbial fence' absolutely do not 'also see the same problem.'
Would you call that a new problem, or something with old roots?
Nonetheless, the point of smelling points of no return is valid for all situations, where you can see looming crises but at the same time a provisionally livable state and "doom not fully scheduled".
I don't see how drinking will prevent the US from continuing to slide into an apartheid-style government. Unlike with apartheid, educated city dwellers are being oppressed by plutocrats and the willfully ignorant.
Heck, rednecks can already drive across state lines with the intent of shooting some townies, then get off by claiming self defence.
> “The basis of that argument works for throwing out civil rights, contraception and voting rights.”
I don’t think this is true? I’m in favor of women having the right to abortion, but my understanding of the anti-abortion steelman position is that it stems from defending individual rights of the unborn (basically fetal personhood). That doesn’t really apply to restricting any of these other rights - it’s a special case (if anything it should be an argument for increasing availability of contraception).
The real discussion should be about that bit imo, but both camps are often talking past each other without engaging on the core disagreement. For example, the bodily autonomy argument falls flat if you believe the unborn have individual rights that are being violated.
The leak contains logic that deletes the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy completely. It can absolutely be generalized to saying contraception bans are constitutional.
What about the bodily autonomy of the baby flushed down the toilet?
You’re avoiding the point of the parent. There is nothing crazy about saying something that has its own elbows, asshole, DNA, brainwaves, and beating heart is a person and deserves protection.
It’s quite a leap to get from that to banning condoms.
The leaked opinion specifically states that, despite nullifying the legal arguments that prevent bans on consensual sex acts, gay marriage, civil rights and privacy, this ruling is not rolling those rights back yet.
IMHO, one of the biggest differences between failing/successful businesses comes down to risk and how it is handled. A failing business usually takes one of two extremes: “fuck it” or “no way.” A business that isn’t actively failing looks for ways to mitigate risk, no matter how risk adverse it is. From some friends working in the nuclear sector (federal), the government was taking a “fuck it” approach, with some friends saying it was borderline reckless.
Another thing is fear. A failing business gives you worry that your next paycheck won’t be coming. Not only has this happened numerous times to government employees since 2006, I realized how much general fear you live with in the US. As a resident, there was a constant underlying fear of dealing with police, to ending up on a hospital bed and no way to afford it (again). In a successful business, no one is living in fear — maybe stress, but not fear.
Those are the two biggest smells I remember thinking about at the time. Is the US actually going to fail? I don’t think so. I think it’s too big to fail atm. If talent starts leaving the US in droves, that’d be the first harbinger in my opinion. But I can’t see the future and wars are usually good for the US, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see the US provoke Russia or some other country into a pointless war.
> picking startups that would fail. I got pretty darn good at sniffing failure
Picking failures is easy because the majority of start-ups fail. If you pick failures 50% of the time, and 90% of startups fail, then actually you are really good at picking successes.
100% of the first 5-6 businesses I worked at failed. Only one did I stay at beyond the end and help with selling off the IP as a consultant, and given some IP as payment. There was no cash.
But since then, 100% of the businesses I’ve worked at are still in operation today (another 5).
I thought the US prohibited this by law, which to me means you can only have citizenship in the US. To me that means these people should be stripped of their citizenship and deported.
Initially it was because I became a US citizen, I didn't really feel the need to do anything with my Iranian citizenship.
At this point though, it's a backup. Some things would definitely be harder for me in Iran - but depending on how things go in the US - I might feel like I'd be safer in Iran.
We can't afford these investment visas, but because of our fear that gay marriage rights may be repealed [0], my husband and I are exploring the possibility of Spanish citizenship via descent. It's unclear if we can even apply before my dad gets it or become citizens without at least a year of residency, but when my dad emailed a major consulate recently, they had an automated message saying there's a 5 day wait for return emails. Their listed phone number also had no response and went to voicemail with no automated message. My in laws are also looking into Mexican citizenship by descent.
I am curious how many folks are fleeing states or looking into it, also. We've checked with our workplaces about relocating out of state (Texas). That seems a lot easier than figuring out visas, but we are really dreading about how far things are going to go.
We're hoping for the best, preparing for the worst. I am sure it is not just UHNW individuals who are preparing.
[0] See:
https://nitter.net/NoLieWithBTC/status/1521912691824148482
https://nitter.net/BrynnTannehill/status/1521481078376181760
and Google around for some op-eds. There's a lot of debate around this and whether stare decisis will outweigh the court's extreme views, but ultimately there's a lot of uncertainty.