STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Simon Black Says You Need a Second Passport Now
By Daily Bell Staff - October 15, 2015

Case Study #3: Why you need a second passport … In recent years, the number of people who are divorcing themselves from the heavy hand of Uncle Sam has been increasing exponentially. In 2013 the number of people renouncing US citizenship jumped 221% over the previous year. In the last quarter of 2013 alone, people abandoning US citizenship jumped 1,402% over the same period a year earlier. This year the number of people refusing to support the system is on course to hit a new record high, despite the government increasing the fee charged to renounce US citizenship by 522%. – Sovereign Man: Notes From The Field email

Dominant Social Theme: You don't need another passport. Where the heck are you going to go anyway?

Free-Market Analysis: Sovereign Man's Simon Black has been writing and distributing "case studies" focused on freedom issues and providing solutions for those who want to take action on a variety of topics.

This analysis will focus on the benefits of a second passport. Black's case study is interesting in part because he discusses Edward Snowden and how his situation was affected by passport issues.

Here's what Simon Black has to say about Snowden and his predicament as a US whistleblower trapped in Russia:

Now, would Mr. Snowden have been aided if he had procured a second passport? The answer, quite simply, is a resounding Yes. Snowden is now marred in a number of banal legal technicalities.

The US government cancelled his passport (another questionable legal move from Uncle Sam). So after being stuck in the international transit area at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport he's now living in an undisclosed location in Russia. He's not legally able to travel anywhere.

If Mr. Snowden had been able to procure a second passport prior to stepping into the limelight, he would likely not be in this predicament, as he could have been traveling on his other passport. This is one of the hidden virtues of having a second passport. You might never 'need' one. But should such a need ever arise, it can really be a life saver.

Black's perspective regarding passports is especially important for US citizens because of legislation affecting people's ability to hold a valid passport outside of the United States.

The US House of Representatives has made two recent efforts at providing government with the ability to revoke passports at will, based either on tax arrears or "suspicion of terrorism." Neither bill has been enacted into law, but their codification and progress must alarm those interested in the ability to travel without significant restrictions.

It is perhaps the terrorism bill that is the most disturbing. According to GovTrack.us, the formal name of bill H.R. 237 is the "FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization) Passport Revocation Act of 2015."

The bill will allow the U.S. Secretary of State the unchecked authority to prohibit individuals from traveling internationally. According to the bill, the Secretary may unilaterally revoke (or refuse to issue) a passport from "any individual whom the Secretary has determined has aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise helped an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189)."

This is pretty significant stuff given that the US government has apparently decided people overly concerned with their eroding constitutional rights may be deemed terrorists. Back in January 2013, constitutional attorney John Whitehead pointed out that under Obama directives the US government labeled constitutionalists as terrorists.

This was accomplished with the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). According to Whitehead, military veterans have been remanded to psychiatric hospitals for speaking out about constitutional rights, according to an article at Occupycorporatism.com.

Simon Black continues his passport case study by pointing out that when Ron Paul ran for president, he was mocked by the mainstream media and other candidates for proposing that the US border patrol's strategy was based not on keeping "illegal immigrants" out but keeping US citizens in via a number of different strategies.

Today, given efforts by the House to grant the government broad passport revocation powers, Ron Paul's predictions look increasingly prescient. The number of US citizens seeking to renounce their citizenship keeps growing even though the fee for renunciation keeps climbing. There is considerable suspicion that those who keep track of statistics on such things are fudging the numbers so as to downplay the number of renunciations.

Black ends his article by giving us a perspective on what may be the "best" second passport to have. He believes it is a Brazilian passport.

Why? Because anyone can be Brazilian. It doesn't matter what your ethnicity is; Brazil is a melting pot of 200+ million people. White, black, brown, Asian… it doesn't matter. Even obviously anglo names like Edward Snowden are not terribly uncommon in Brazil. Moreover, Brazil has a very clear policy of not extraditing its citizens.

So if Snowden had become a Brazilian (which anyone can do – via 2-4 years of residency, or marriage, or having a child, hell even adopting a rain forest in some cases), he could be happily living out his days on the beach in Fortaleza, rather than being stuck in Russia.

Right now the demand for citizenship in Brazil is low. Few people are thinking about this… which means the 'cost' is low. You can apply for naturalization in as little as a year, and there are dozens of backdoor loopholes to qualify.

After Thoughts

Here at The Daily Bell, we'll shortly be introducing a variety of lifestyle insurance options such as the one that Black has explored, which will introduce locales we consider ideal for securing a second home abroad. Subscribe to The Daily Bell Newswire and ensure you're dialed in to receive investor alerts that share these and other great asset protection and wealth accumulation ideas.

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Andrew Cullen

    I am curious to understand who is “Simon Black” ?

    Is it his real name ?

    What is his expertise and experience in this domain ?

    From his website one learns that he was in the US military ( no specifics as to geography or role) and that then, having left, he had the ability to travel the world at leisure to investigate entrepreneurial opportunities.

    Nice work if you can get it.

    Until one asks the questions:
    (i) how did his earlier military salary pay for this globetrotting lifestyle and
    (ii) also pay for the investments that he has made (eg a multi hectare property in chile).

    There is a question too for The Daily Bell. You claim an affinity and friendship to this person in the context of your Colombia real estate project. What role if any does,or will, Mr Black have in this ?

    • Guy Christopher

      Simon Black is a legit world traveler, observer, analyst and writer. Have been reading him for years. Don’t really care where he got his money, what his real name is, or which war he fought, just as nobody cares same about me.

    • We respect the privacy of others and suggest if you wish to know more about Simon Black you contact him directly.

      Additionally, we said nothing about him having any involvement with our Colombian real estate community … we stated that he visited and explored the project … that was it. Careful with how you frame things. And again, if you have any problem with Simon or anyone else whose views we report on here, either take it up directly with them or leave. Simple as that.

      • Marten

        Well said

    • Benjamin Titshaw

      Many have questioned the past of Simon Black. However, I would be more concerned with a passport pusher based out of ‘anarchapulco’ the evidence says stay away.

  • Guy Christopher

    Won’t need even one passport. I’m not leaving. Not sending my metals to Singapore. Not opening an offshore bank account. Not setting up dual citizenship. Don’t trust any gov’t, especially those in S. America. So, thanks, but no thanks. I’m staying here. And, at the risk of offending DB, I’ll fight the war here in my homeland when the time comes, rather than run to foreign hills.

    • We are not offended at all. Everyone has the right to decide for themselves how they wish to live their own life. That is the essence of a free society.

    • Blank Reg

      When the SHTF, I’m outta here. Prepping now. Have economic opportunity and contacts in latin america, and speak the language well enough. I’m too long in the tooth to be a front line soldier in Civil or Revolutionary War 2.0. Besides, I’m so frustrated with the sheer numbers of mindless fat f***s infesting this country, that when the shooting starts, I’d feel half-compelled to start shooting the slack-jawed sheeple all around me at random, never mind a discernible “enemy”. I didn’t leave my country – my country (it’s idiocracy of people) left ME a long time ago. They are not worth saving, or trying to drag kicking and screaming into a world of freedom and responsibility. That’s the last thing they want. Perhaps when the dust settles, we’ll see who pops their heads out.

      I grew up in a nation, a republic, not a “homeland”. That word makes my teeth grind.

      • dave jr

        Good, then I’ll not worry about covering your back, nor falsely think you might defend mine. The sooner you leave the better. Good luck defending yourself amongst strangers and good luck in your search of a better State.

    • Samarami

      Hear, hear!

      Those who run to “a more favourable government” are expressing their faith in the most dangerous of superstitions:

      http://www.mensenrechten.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/the-most-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose-20111.pdf

      Plus, they are bound to be leaving behind loved ones who can’t or won’t flee alongside them. How good of an example does that present for those who might want to see how liberty can actually work??? Sam

  • Bruce C.

    I guess it’s fun to think that one might become a famous insurgent of some sort one day and have one’s travel documentation revoked but how likely is that for “the little guy” (like me)?

  • I think it is nonsense to think that another passport would have helped Snowden! Unless it were either a Russian or a Chinese passport, the US is powerful enough that they could have and would have put sufficient pressure on any other country (even Switzerland) to get it revoked and him extradited from any country except Russia and China.

    • It would have taken time, though. Maybe enough time for him to move around.

  • Praetor

    I did like Australia and Japan quite a bit, and some of the other countries were fine, but the U.S. is still the best for the individual and don’t count out we the people, it isn’t over yet, the empire of washington won’t last for long, they can’t print money forever. All they have to do is take a trip on down to Gettysburg to see what their loony behavior leads too!!!

    • Impending Sky

      A decisive battle which led to further centralization?

      • Bruce C.

        But that’s probably because “the centralizers” won. Had the centralizers not tried to maintain unity most of the Confederacy would have become an extension of Europe and all that that implies. Hindsight is 20-20 and we don’t know all the implications of that but my hunch is that it would not have been better, at least in terms of the potential for liberty.

        • Impending Sky

          And all of the bloodshed did not amount to a drop of sweat off from the backs of the elites. It is not unreasonable to be reluctant about being caught up in something like that, regardless of either side’s claim to righteousness.

          I agree that more options for individuals and competition between states for would have most probably led to greater freedoms today. As long as we are going back in our time machine, we might as well ask that the federal government was never formed in the first place.

          I assume that you are implying confederate states would have come under the influence of European powers directly or indirectly?

          • Bruce C.

            Yes, my understanding is that some/most of the Confederate states were already establishing trade agreements and such with Europe and Europe was “okay” with slavery so that probably would have lasted longer. Another potential problem is that if that had happened the “US” would probably have been “reduced” to the Northern states and not have been as independent as it became (geography matters.) European influence would have been everywhere.

            But I’m saying that the “preservation of the Union” – the real reason for the Civil War – WAS the better choice vs allowing the Confederate states to secede and secure ties with Europe.

            To me this is another of many examples of the ideal of freedom ironically becoming its own enemy. If you want to grant the Confederate states the freedom to ally with whomever they chose then the concept of a “United States of America” breaks down, and not for the better IMO since roughly half of its “members” would have just regressed back to that which “we” were trying to emerge from, and that in turn would threaten the remaining “United States.”

            It’s a hugely complex and fascinating subject, but it always seems to come back to the concept that not everyone thinks the same way or has the same values (I’m talking historically). Why the people/politicians in the Confederate states would rather continue to deal with the Devil (Europe) rather than work things out with the “new world” is beyond me. Maybe the distances between them developed different cultures, etc., which brings us back to geography.

          • Samarami

            It seems that all but a remnant ( https://mises.org/library/isaiahs-job ) possess the capacity to think entirely in terms of freedom. All others have no choice but to think in terms of nations and states and “powers”.

            The Internet Reformation ( http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/2195/ ) may be changing that. Slowly.

            Ever so slowly.

            The enormity of the truth is incredible. Sam

          • Impending Sky

            Nook was a talented writer. The fact that today’s The Atlantic seems incapable of printing something of that caliber speaks to his message.

  • Impending Sky

    Looking over the comments, I have to wonder what people identify with in a place. Certainly the Potomac is not weeping for me. The mountains in Colorado are not sending me care packages. The endless strip malls in suburban S. California don’t even bother to call.

    It seems strange, even alien to me at this point in life, to contemplate an attachment to a locale. Maybe at one time I would have felt that way, but people change and places change. I can not say I am better off than others for unburdening myself of those irrational attachments, but in my personal progression I’d say I have advanced from where I was.

    Looking back I can only view it through the lens of my own experiences. Nobody asked, but if they did I would say that I don’t define myself through attachments to a location, allegiance to a state, or even my personal idealized vision of what that state should represent. It would be plainly absurd to try to pick an abstraction of a place or attempt to distill a location down to its essence. Even sillier still would be to identify with and idolize a landmark or flag while continuously repeating the mantra: ‘this is me’. It seems antithetical to the individualist perspective.

    Again, I can not say which view is right or wrong. Whichever option suits the individual is none of my concern. My preference happens to be to remain supple and open to all things rather than lashing myself to a locale. In my opinion this perspective allows for a greater degree of growth and experience.

    What does not bend becomes brittle and breaks. To live life in the present, there are risks we must take. The fear of the unknown won’t keep me cooped up at home. Otherwise, I’d just as soon jump inside – a vat of formaldehyde. Freedom to change, not freedom from change. I have no wish to become mummified.

    • Samarami

      Excellent, Sky!

      I am a sovereign state. In order to become what I am required that I spend time and effort erasing all vestiges of indelible nationalism that had been infused upon me since I was a baby. All the rigmarole about “passports” exposes that nationalism. And I am aware that there are dangerously armed men and women all over the known earth dedicated to making “a citizen” out of anybody walking their streets and roads — or to force them to go elsewhere. Freedom is learning to sidestep the lunatics.

      A number of my friends came here from south of the stream they’re calling “Rio Grande”. “Wetbacks”! cry the nationalists, because they asked nobody’s “permission” to come here. But they work hard, leave little in the way of paper trails, and are excellent examples for the community. OK, I know: “community” is a mindless abstraction (https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/david-calderwood/the-abstract-abomination/ ) made up of a large cross-section of folks.. But if ever I am to be free and help those I love to also become free, I’d better begin to think like a free individual.

      “Passports” and/or “visas” issued by psychopaths hiding under the mantle of “the-government” do not fit that mold. Sam

  • TTT

    The article, i.e. analysis, is rubbish. To start with, Edward Snowden is a fugitive from US government, and having Brazilian or any other passport would not help him anyhow.faced with State Department threat or extortion, Brazil would extradite Edward Snowden in a second, and lets not even go into CIA abduction practices. Have no doubt about that. There is a reason why Snowden chose Russia after all: because only Russians wouldn’t extradite him and in Russia (and China) CIA have no power to do what they do. Snowden is not stupid. He knows well why he landed in Russia and not in Brazil, Chile or Columbia.

    And the other thing, who are those “browns?” I often hear about in your American media/commentaries? I know you are
    referring to Arabic Semites, and generally to Middle Eastern populace, as “browns,” but you should know they are Caucasians, whites. Berbers on the Mediterranean shores are of the Caucasian race too. Perhaps you refer to the half-breed race, to Mullatos? That is something future Americans are ought to become I suspect? Anyway, you should be accurate in your descriptions and meanings.

    • Again, there was a point early on where it might have helped Snowden move about more easily. Your fascination with race and skin color is one we do not share.

    • What are you writing about? What article are you reading? Certainly not this one. First of all, if you think DB articles are “rubbish,” feel free to not read them.

      Second, again we’d ask, what are you talking about?! Nothing in this article referred to “browns.” Simon Black is quoted as saying, “Brazil is a melting pot of 200+ million people. White, black, brown, Asian… it doesn’t matter.” Yet “You KNOW he’s referring to blah blah.” Absurd. That’s the only mention of the word “brown,” and it certainly doesn’t refer to any particular ethnicity. In fact, that’s his point. It doesn’t matter. Apparently, the chip on your shoulder is weighing you down and making it impossible for you to comprehend what you’re reading. Please take your racism elsewhere and we suggest you try to be “accurate in your descriptions and meanings” in the future if you’re going to post here.

loading