"Bitcoin Jesus" renounced US citizenship, now can’t get back

[bobalot]

Bitcoin investor who renounced US citizenship now can’t get back in

A well-known entrepreneur, often dubbed "Bitcoin Jesus"—who famously renounced his American citizenship last year—was denied a visa on Tuesday to re-enter the United States to attend an upcoming Bitcoin conference in Miami.

According to Roger Ver’s tweets, it was his third attempt to re-enter in eight days. Ver, who on occasion wears a T-shirt that reads "borders are imaginary lines," lambasted consular officials at the US Embassy in Barbados, where he made his application.

Ver has been a citizen of the Caribbean nation of St. Kitts and Nevis since February 2014. For the last 30 years, St. Kitts has offered citizenship through its "Citizenship by Investment" program.

That program, according to the government's official website, requires either:

an investment in designated real estate with a value of at least US$ 400,000 plus payment of various registration and other fees (the Real-Estate Option), or a contribution to the Sugar Industry Diversification Foundation (a public charity) to the amount of between US$ 250,000 and US$ 450,000, depending on the number of dependants included in the application (the SIDF Contribution Option)

Some wealthy American citizens renounce their passports as a way to avoid paying federal income taxes. The United States is fairly unique in that it requires all citizens, regardless of where they live or where else they hold citizenship, to pay federal income taxes.

On Wednesday, one immigration lawyer, Ashwin Sharma, wrote on his blog:

Interestingly, Mr. Ver was denied under Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which states, “Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status…” In short, this section of the INA presumes every applicant for a visa to America intends to eventually reside in America. It is the burden of each applicant to demonstrate that this is not the case…

It is strange then, to say the least, that Mr. Ver was denied by the U.S. Consular General, Barbados, under a regulation that requires he prove his intent to depart the U.S. when he appears to have already done so.

After successfully gaining his own St. Kitts passports, Ver started PassportsForBitcoin.com, which was shut down by the local authorities within months. The domain, which Ver owns, now redirects to a law firm that helps with "residence and citizenship planning."
In 2002, Ver was sentenced to 10 months in prison after being convicted of federal charges of selling explosives on eBay. After he completed his probation in 2006, Ver moved to Japan. From 1999 until 2012, he was the CEO of MemoryDealers.com.

In July 2014, Ver donated $150,000 to the legal defense fund of Ross Ulbricht, a fellow libertarian who is accused of founding and operating the Silk Road. Ulbricht’s criminal trial is scheduled to begin on January 13, 2015 in New York.

Source

My only comment is... HAHAHHAhAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

[Grumman]

The United States is fairly unique in that it requires all citizens, regardless of where they live or where else they hold citizenship, to pay federal income taxes.

This is why I do not laugh at him. If this guy was a Brit or a Frenchman there would be nothing unique about what he wanted to do. The United States treats its expatriates exceptionally poorly in this regard, and bullshit like the ex-PATRIOT Act only exists to punish people for rejecting this treatment.

[LaCroix]

“Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status…” In short, this section of the INA presumes every applicant for a visa to America intends to eventually reside in America. It is the burden of each applicant to demonstrate that this is not the case…

That's bullshit (Apart from the "they all wish they could be us" nationalist vibe of that regulation). Someone attending a conference is certainly not wanting to reside, nor do tourists. This is nothing but a personal "fuck you" to that guy for daring to renounce his citizenship. There should be heads rolling for this abuse of office. (No matter if he's a saint or villain, this is simply abuse of power.)

[Irbis]

This is nothing but a personal "fuck you" to that guy for daring to renounce his citizenship. There should be heads rolling for this abuse of office. (No matter if he's a saint or villain, this is simply abuse of power.)

Is it? Or is it law working exactly as designed?

Let's see, here, US consul sees young English speaking white person without a family and yes, it's on you to prove you don't want to illegally stay, as such people are high risk as they can easily blend in. You want to come from poor Caribbean country? Oops, strike. You apply to enter several times in a row? Another strike, you must be desperate. Besides, same consul will just slap 'no' on all of these, possibly even just to spite you, and seeing St. Kitts is small, it's unlikely to have a lot of personnel. He'd need to be lucky to have his next application be considered by someone else. He was sentenced for crime in USA like article says? Oops, that's a huge strike against you. Three strikes, case closed.

If you go to US consulate outside West EU/AuNZ/Japan, chances are you will see such 'abuse' are 95%, thank you very much.

[LaCroix]

This is nothing but a personal "fuck you" to that guy for daring to renounce his citizenship. There should be heads rolling for this abuse of office. (No matter if he's a saint or villain, this is simply abuse of power.)

Is it? Or is it law working exactly as designed?

Let's see, here, US consul sees young English speaking white person without a family and yes, it's on you to prove you don't want to illegally stay, as such people are high risk as they can easily blend in. You want to come from poor Caribbean country? Oops, strike. You apply to enter several times in a row? Another strike, you must be desperate. Besides, same consul will just slap 'no' on all of these, possibly even just to spite you, and seeing St. Kitts is small, it's unlikely to have a lot of personnel. He'd need to be lucky to have his next application be considered by someone else. He was sentenced for crime in USA like article says? Oops, that's a huge strike against you. Three strikes, case closed.

If you go to US consulate outside West EU/AuNZ/Japan, chances are you will see such 'abuse' are 95%, thank you very much.

Apart from the fact that this is a well known, rich person, wanting a visa to attend a business conference. And he was denied under said regulation, that he needs to prove his intent to depart the US after the conference, not for having a previus conviction. (Which I'd have accepted as valid reason.)

Which is basically, impossible to do. You can't prove intent for future actions. It'S completely arbitrary, depending on the goodwill of the consul. You could deny every tourist a visa to the US, using the same reasoning.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Apart from the fact that this is a well known, rich person, wanting a visa to attend a business conference.

Is this guy actually well known enough that it could be reasonably expected that the individual consul in question knew who he was? I mean, sure, the consul I'm sure had access to a file or some sort of information about this guy. But I've never heard of him, and typically for generic border crossings they aren't doing a full, detailed background check, and it's hard to know how much information the consul would have had on-the-ground. I mean, if it were the CIA he was dealing with, I'd imagine they'd know everything about him, but a random diplomat in the Caribbean?

[LaCroix]

Apart from the fact that this is a well known, rich person, wanting a visa to attend a business conference.

Is this guy actually well known enough that it could be reasonably expected that the individual consul in question knew who he was? I mean, sure, the consul I'm sure had access to a file or some sort of information about this guy. But I've never heard of him, and typically for generic border crossings they aren't doing a full, detailed background check, and it's hard to know how much information the consul would have had on-the-ground. I mean, if it were the CIA he was dealing with, I'd imagine they'd know everything about him, but a random diplomat in the Caribbean?

There are less than 50k people living in the nation of St. Kitts& Nevis. With an annual average income of 10k, including the millionaires.

Anyone living there that is rich enough for the the "buy your citizenship" program should be well-known. Especially to the social circles a local consul would be found in, and as well for being one of the expats who renounced their citizenship in a very public manner.

Even if not, a simple inquiry with St. Kitts authorities (as you'd expect for a visa application) should have revealed all about him, and a second on Google (~70 million results to his name, and certainly at least 60 million before this stunt) the rest.

There is no doubt that the consul knew very well who he was dealing with.

[TheHammer]

Personally, I don't have a problem with any bureaucratic "Fuck You's" given to expatriates who have renounced citizenship. In my mind, that's more or less returning the favor... It seems a lot of these guys want to retain all of the benefits of US citizenship, but none of the responsibilities.

Further, I'd like more detail as to the Section 214(b) denial because it could mean more than simply proving someone is going to leave the country, rather that they don't qualify for the type of visa applied for. Since we don't have specifics there, that can't be properly answered.

Finally I believe he could be permanently denied a visa because of his conviction. INA section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) - Was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Selling explosives on ebay could probably qualify for that given the discretion given under that statute.

[Mr Bean]

Personally, I don't have a problem with any bureaucratic "Fuck You's" given to expatriates who have renounced citizenship. In my mind, that's more or less returning the favor... It seems a lot of these guys want to retain all of the benefits of US citizenship, but none of the responsibilities.

Further, I'd like more detail as to the Section 214(b) denial because it could mean more than simply proving someone is going to leave the country, rather that they don't qualify for the type of visa applied for. Since we don't have specifics there, that can't be properly answered.

Finally I believe he could be permanently denied a visa because of his conviction. INA section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) - Was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Selling explosives on ebay could probably qualify for that given the discretion given under that statute.

You could also throw in the fact that Roger Ver has been caught up in some interesting cases in the past not only the explosives thing but also Silk Road V1 and two other cases. Chances are he's on the Do not fly list, Watch list and the super secret we don't like you list and don't tell anyone list...list.

Either way when the consular ran his information he likely tripped six different kinds of alarms and re-applying again several times quickly tripped several more. Point being Mr Ver is doing nothing to help his case.

[Irbis]

Even if not, a simple inquiry with St. Kitts authorities (as you'd expect for a visa application) should have revealed all about him, and a second on Google (~70 million results to his name, and certainly at least 60 million before this stunt) the rest.

There is no doubt that the consul knew very well who he was dealing with.

Oh, yes. Precisely.

And that's why he can't get in.

Out of curiosity, I went to reddit/bitcoin to see what they have to say. I expected them to rabidly defend him as they always do against anyone threatened by law, and when I found out this is not the case at all, it turns out the story above is a bit one sided. Link. Short version:

A) his crime was selling explosives without licence, sending them through cheap post packages, and storing 50+ lb of explosives in bedroom in multi-apartment home. Oh, and when federal agents come to inquiry, he called them murderers and threatened with second amendment. Frankly, I am surprised how lenient they were in response.

B) as lawyer in thread noted, consuls don't look approvingly at people who denounce citizenship purely for tax reason. Normally, this is hard to prove so it's dead clause... If not for Ver being stupid enough to publish multiple manifestos calling rich to abandon US citizenship and taxes like he did, and starting a company helping doing that for a fee. All under his own name.

C) he was also tied to massive fraud scandal worth hundreds of millions of dollars, either by being incompetent puppet speaking about things he didn't understood or paid parrot lending his authority for a bribe.

And after all this, he still doesn't seem to get what or why he did wrong

Can you say incompetent, mouth breathing, anti-state libertarian throwing childish temper tantrums when it turns out disobeying laws and regulations can have consequences?

[Zixinus]

Is the USA in any way legally required to allow him in? Despite the fact that he was born in the USA?

If not, then this guy is really getting what he was asking for.

[Soontir C'boath]

I would not begrudge anyone who renounce their citizenship, but still want to enter the US for things such as business and visiting relatives. In this case however, Ver was convicted in federal court and things like that tend to make them persona non-grata. Heck, Canada will not allow US tourists to cross if they were convicted of a DWI.

[Irbis]

Is the USA in any way legally required to allow him in?

No.

And honestly, since I come *cue you forgot Poland jokes* from country occupying place of donut hole in this here map I am familiar with dozens of stories of people being denied US visa for no reason at all. Even if they proved everything correctly, since consul is absolute, unappeasable, non-appealable despotic ruler in his own fief.

So let me play this sad tune on tiniest violin for entitled douchebag who had not one but five issues with his application, each enough to disqualify him, even with sympathetic consulate. Turns out that imaginary piece of paper matters, eh, Ver?

[Darmalus]

The United States is fairly unique in that it requires all citizens, regardless of where they live or where else they hold citizenship, to pay federal income taxes.

This is why I do not laugh at him. If this guy was a Brit or a Frenchman there would be nothing unique about what he wanted to do. The United States treats its expatriates exceptionally poorly in this regard, and bullshit like the ex-PATRIOT Act only exists to punish people for rejecting this treatment.

If a nation's interest in it's citizens doesn't end at it's borders, I don't see why it's national taxes should.

[Tanasinn]

Apparently he needs a new shirt. That line doesn't seem so imaginary now, hm?

[Joun_Lord]

Apparently he needs a new shirt. That line doesn't seem so imaginary now, hm?

Or he could try to prove his shirt right and cross the border without permission. Let him test just how imaginary borders are and how much the law applies to him. Maybe write out a manifesto online of his intent to show how borders be imagination.

I wonder if he will think prison bars are imaginary too?

[Jub]

I dislike Ver's politics, but I also think the US's taxation of citizens that don't live within US territory is a stupid idea. You don't benefit from the spending of the tax money and people can never intend to live in the US another day in their lives, or vote or do anything else, but desire to maintain that citizenship for ease of visitation or other legitimate personal reasons.

[salm]

The United States is fairly unique in that it requires all citizens, regardless of where they live or where else they hold citizenship, to pay federal income taxes.

This is why I do not laugh at him. If this guy was a Brit or a Frenchman there would be nothing unique about what he wanted to do. The United States treats its expatriates exceptionally poorly in this regard, and bullshit like the ex-PATRIOT Act only exists to punish people for rejecting this treatment.

If a nation's interest in it's citizens doesn't end at it's borders, I don't see why it's national taxes should.

Because you allready pay taxes in your country of residence. Foreigners pay taxes and generate wealth in the USA so it should ballance out more or less.
Making a person pay taxes twice puts an unusually high financial burden on them.
At least the US only taxes well off expatriats (over 90K $US annual income I think) but it is still unreasonable in my oppinion as well as bloody annyoing to fill out two sets of tax forms which you are required to do even if you fall bellow the taxable limit of 90K.
Maybe if they raised the limit to only include very rich people it would target mainly tax evaders but 90K is far too low.

[Irbis]

I dislike Ver's politics, but I also think the US's taxation of citizens that don't live within US territory is a stupid idea. You don't benefit from the spending of the tax money and people can never intend to live in the US another day in their lives, or vote or do anything else, but desire to maintain that citizenship for ease of visitation or other legitimate personal reasons.

Yes, it's stupid. But, correct me if I am wrong, doesn't it just tax the difference between taxes you pay in new country and in the USA? So, since most of developed countries have taxes higher than USA, means you usually have no tax left to pay? Of course, if you're tax dodging asshole moving to shady tax haven with tiny taxes, this might suddenly become an issue, yes.

As for benefiting, you think 20 carriers and 300 foreign bases pay for themselves? Your taxes help the Right Thing™, help spying on your new countries so USA could properly exploit it. What if someday you need to dodge an International Tribunal or two?

By the way, if there is anyone who should understand throwing away your old expensive contract and picking up new cheap one offered by small inexperienced company just might mean you will suddenly find yourself with less options it's libertarians. But I guess that idiot is either too stupid to understand even that or he is only against the state when he finds it convenient. Either way, good riddance.

[LaCroix]

Even if not, a simple inquiry with St. Kitts authorities (as you'd expect for a visa application) should have revealed all about him, and a second on Google (~70 million results to his name, and certainly at least 60 million before this stunt) the rest.

There is no doubt that the consul knew very well who he was dealing with.

Oh, yes. Precisely.

And that's why he can't get in.

Out of curiosity, I went to reddit/bitcoin to see what they have to say. I expected them to rabidly defend him as they always do against anyone threatened by law, and when I found out this is not the case at all, it turns out the story above is a bit one sided. Link. Short version:

A) his crime was selling explosives without licence, sending them through cheap post packages, and storing 50+ lb of explosives in bedroom in multi-apartment home. Oh, and when federal agents come to inquiry, he called them murderers and threatened with second amendment. Frankly, I am surprised how lenient they were in response.

B) as lawyer in thread noted, consuls don't look approvingly at people who denounce citizenship purely for tax reason. Normally, this is hard to prove so it's dead clause... If not for Ver being stupid enough to publish multiple manifestos calling rich to abandon US citizenship and taxes like he did, and starting a company helping doing that for a fee. All under his own name.

C) he was also tied to massive fraud scandal worth hundreds of millions of dollars, either by being incompetent puppet speaking about things he didn't understood or paid parrot lending his authority for a bribe.

And after all this, he still doesn't seem to get what or why he did wrong

Can you say incompetent, mouth breathing, anti-state libertarian throwing childish temper tantrums when it turns out disobeying laws and regulations can have consequences?

As I said, if they used ANY of these reasons as the reason for the denial, I'd be ok with it. He'd have to man up and face the consequences, and so on.

But they didn't use these for some reason. They used 214b.
Which means "We are sure you are wanting to immigrate illegaly."

Now, if this turns out to be a spin, and he was in fact denied for the above list, fine with me, let him stew in his own juices. But if it was 214b, it is bullshit.

[Beowulf]

I dislike Ver's politics, but I also think the US's taxation of citizens that don't live within US territory is a stupid idea. You don't benefit from the spending of the tax money and people can never intend to live in the US another day in their lives, or vote or do anything else, but desire to maintain that citizenship for ease of visitation or other legitimate personal reasons.

You get a tax credit for taxes paid to a foreign government. So if they tax you more than the US government would, you pay no additional tax. It's when the foreign government taxes you less that you pay the difference.

And you do benefit, even if you never return to live. You retain the ability to use US consulates and embassies, and thereby be able to use the US Government's diplomatic pressure, when applicable. You benefit from ease of visitation: you have guaranteed ability to enter the US (though, admittedly, not necessarily by flying). You've already benefited from the US educational system.

[Jub]

I dislike Ver's politics, but I also think the US's taxation of citizens that don't live within US territory is a stupid idea. You don't benefit from the spending of the tax money and people can never intend to live in the US another day in their lives, or vote or do anything else, but desire to maintain that citizenship for ease of visitation or other legitimate personal reasons.

You get a tax credit for taxes paid to a foreign government. So if they tax you more than the US government would, you pay no additional tax. It's when the foreign government taxes you less that you pay the difference.

And you do benefit, even if you never return to live. You retain the ability to use US consulates and embassies, and thereby be able to use the US Government's diplomatic pressure, when applicable. You benefit from ease of visitation: you have guaranteed ability to enter the US (though, admittedly, not necessarily by flying). You've already benefited from the US educational system.

If this system is so great, why is the US pretty much the only nation to do this to their non-resident citizens? They aren't unique in having their taxes evaded, their consulates and embassies can't be that much better than those of most other nations, and you could argue that most people from western nations gain no benefit from the US grade school system and marginal benefit from the US post secondary system. It's just another way the US seeks overly strict control of people and then punishes them if they renounce citizenship and ever need to come back.

[Irbis]

But they didn't use these for some reason. They used 214b.
Which means "We are sure you are wanting to immigrate illegaly."

From what I heard - 214b is blanket reason for entry ban when consul doesn't want to let you in or can't say why he can't let you in (say being on secret terrorist list). Because these are not appealable.

But it might be that 214b applies here. He was citizen of Kitts for 3 months at the time of the application, and when asked about his ties to places outside USA, he shown his several years ties to Japan. Which not only doesn't apply to showing any ties of Kitts, being on another side of the world, it shows he has no ties at the moment and can relocate at a whim. In US law eyes, it's bad.

He also belongs to high risk category - he has family and assets in USA, while having no family or assets elsewhere, which is a big no no. Yes, that particular point was written with these pesky Latino in mind, but since it applies here too, tough luck. As if it was first time when racist US law backfired.

It's just another way the US seeks overly strict control of people and then punishes them if they renounce citizenship and ever need to come back.

Punishes them... by treating them as all other non-citizens?

You know he renounced citizenship willingly? But that's not the point. The point is, vast majority of people who renounce doesn't experience these problems. Because vast majority of people aren't stupid enough to try to enter on fresh citizenship of small Caribbean tax haven island selling citizenships to everyone interested.

And that after poisoning the well and trying to run illegal (in both USA and Kitts) tax dodging scheme selling citizenships for profit. And that after being idiot who was selling illegal explosives in 2001. He was sentenced a few months after 9/11 - he should consider himself lucky he didn't get terrorist charges.

Had he picked EU or Canadian citizenships, he would have zero problems, but alas, these places don't like petty, petulant tax/law dodgers either.

[Jub]

Punishes them... by treating them as all other non-citizens?

He was obviously born in the United States and legal issues aside, this seems like a way of making a statement about dodging taxes more so than a statement about him being a risk. They're also denying his claim in a way that isn't even appealable while basically giving him no information as to what he can do to remedy the situation.

You know he renounced citizenship willingly?

Yes, and he did so to avoid paying tax to a nation he was no longer a resident of. That shouldn't make him public enemy number one.

[/quote]But that's not the point. The point is, vast majority of people who renounce doesn't experience these problems. Because vast majority of people aren't stupid enough to try to enter on fresh citizenship of small Caribbean tax haven island selling citizenships to everyone interested.[/quote]

That shouldn't matter, your current country of citizenship should have fuck and all to do with you getting back into your country of birth.

And that after poisoning the well and trying to run illegal (in both USA and Kitts) tax dodging scheme selling citizenships for profit. And that after being idiot who was selling illegal explosives in 2001.

These are all valid reasons to deny him entry, but they aren't using them. If they wanted to keep him out n those grounds it would be trivial to have done so.

He was sentenced a few months after 9/11 - he should consider himself lucky he didn't get terrorist charges.

Bringing up the wave of fear, slashing of civil liberties, and general stupidity the US showed after the 9/11 tragedy doesn't make this look any better for the US...

Had he picked EU or Canadian citizenships, he would have zero problems, but alas, these places don't like petty, petulant tax/law dodgers either.

No denying the guy is a douche of the highest order, but denying him access because he decided your nation wasn't offering him enough benefit to be worth the taxes they wanted is not reason to be an asshole back.

[AMT]

That shouldn't matter, your current country of citizenship should have fuck and all to do with you getting back into your country of birth.

And it doesn't. Except when you renounce that citizenship, as this asshole did.