Demographics, Immigration, and the U.S. Election

The aftermath of the U.S. election is really something to see.  The Democrats (Obama's party) are jubilant while the Republicans (right-wing) are in a state of shock.  Between you and me, I think both sides need to watch what they say - people in the grip of strong emotion are often not terribly coherent and apt to say things they later regret.  Restraint of pen and tongue should be the order of the day until everyone gets enough distance to be rational and cool-headed.

But there is one theme coming out of the election post-mortem that is worth discussing here.  More than one analyst has pointed to demographics and immigration as key reasons for the Republican's loss.  Their argument is summed up by Juan Williams in the Wall Street Journal:

The critical political message from President Obama's re-election victory Tuesday is that he cemented a new coalition of Democrats, led by the Latino vote, which threatens to reduce Republicans to an afterthought in future national elections.

Who belongs to this new coalition that William's is referring to?  African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics, young voters and others.  Who is presumably not part of this coalition according to Mr. Williams?  Something called "white voters" - basically those Americans of Northern European origin whose numbers are declining.  In order for the Republicans to stay relevant, says Mr. Williams, they must broaden their base and appeal to other groups like Hispanics.

Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post concurs and argues that the call for the Republican party to adapt to demographic realities is very very true when it comes to Hispanics who are in his words, "a natural Republican constituency: striving immigrant community, religious, Catholic, family-oriented and socially conservative (on abortion, for example)."  So why then in his view did Hispanics vote for Obama?  Immigration issues, says Mr. Krauthammer.  The Republican party should never have been so strident about enforcement of the immigration laws and should have offered an amnesty or some sort of path to regularization/citizenship for 'illegals' in the U.S.

Versions of this argument were around before the election and have gained a great deal of steam since because the Republicans lost (no hiding that grim reality) and must explain that loss to their supporters.  It may be more palatable for American conservatives to blame forces like demographics instead of focusing on their platform and their message.  But there is truth in it.  This 2011 Pew study showed that Hispanic voters do tend to lean toward the Democrats and feel that they (as opposed to the Republicans) show "more concern for Hispanics."

But does it necessarily follow that Hispanic voters are deeply concerned about immigration issues and voted accordingly?  Not necessarily.  This Gallup poll from June 2012 showed that healthcare, unemployment and the economy were the top issues for registered Hispanic voters, not immigration.  As for U.S. adults overall,  immigration was dead last on the list of their top concerns.

This is a very good example of why immigration is such a deadly topic for politicians.  There were many passionate voices in the Republican party that called for electric fences no amnesty, and punishing the "illegals."  In reaction to that many Republican candidates were genuflecting in the direction of those voices. - falling over themselves to prove how tough they were going to be on the "sans papiers."  Did this help them?  Probably not.

On the other hand there was the Obama administration who over the past four years presided over massive deportations of undocumented migrants and, in some cases, U.S. citizens.  Did this hurt Obama and the Democrats?  Doesn't appear to have had much of an impact.

So what lessons am I taking away from this election?

Race and ethnicity still matter so much in the U.S.  After many years living outside of the U.S. I find it shocking to see how Americans are sliced and diced and poured into racial categories in a way that you don't see in other places. It took me a moment to realize that I fall into the category of "white voter" in the U.S.  Now if I were to become a French citizen, would the French refer to me in that way?    Don't think so and while there are other categories like "Français de souche" these are used primarily by a few and are not invoked systematically as a way of dividing up the French population along racial or ethnic lines.

Race in the U.S. seems to trump almost all other ways of looking at the population.   Some of the categories are pretty dubious and clearly cultural constructs since they seem to have been created solely by Americans for other Americans.  Are there other countries that use race and ethnicity in this way?   Not that I know of but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.  Forgive me but I don't see much "E pluribus unum" going on in the U.S. these days.  But hasn't that always been true and doesn't that Latin phrase represent more of a wish than a reality?

Immigration may not be that big a deal to most Americans:  For all the passion behind the debate the rhetoric and the reality doesn't seem to have changed people's minds.  Hispanics did not refuse to vote for Obama because of stricter immigration enforcement and it doesn't appear that Americans in general were all that concerned about immigration policy and enforcement when it came down to voting for or against a candidate.   Lot of noise around the issue but in the end it didn't really matter.

Perhaps American politicians would do better to just stop talking about it at all. So much of immigration policy is simply beyond the control of the U.S. authorities.  The U.S. can staple as many Green Cards as it likes to immigrants' diplomas but that won't change the growing attractiveness of other destinations.  The U.S. can put up all kinds of fences along the border with Mexico (good luck with that - it's a long border) but determined migrants will always find a way in.  Nearly 30% of immigration to the U.S. is from Mexico which means that an intelligent approach to U.S. immigration policy would be to treat it as a regional migrant management issue. And that means working with the Mexican government which already asked the U.S. back in 2006 to consider a joint approach.  

And isn't it interesting that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats floated that idea to the American people?  Just a suggestion for U.S. lawmakers whatever party they belong to:  Kick the entire business up to some regional supra-national committee and be done with it.

After all, this does seem to be a viable strategy for some European politicians who are more than happy to have the EU take this contentious issue off their hands. :-)

French Media Articles About the U.S. Election

The Flophouse remained under a media blackout until 8:00 this morning.  Then with coffee in hand I had a look at the headlines in the U.S. and France.  I started with the New York Times and first thing I saw was all that BLUE on the map and the words, Obama's Night.  From this I gathered that the U.S. president was re-elected yesterday.

Once I got that and the results of the local races clear in my head, I went straight to the French papers to get their reactions.

Let's start with Le Monde.  The front-page headline this morning was:   Obama réélu : "Le meilleur est à venir" (Obama re-elected: "The best is yet to come").

Another headline focused on the Republicans and the failure of their strategy:   La stratégie électorale des républicains n'a pas fonctionné which they say was designed to make do without the state of Ohio even though "aucun conservateur n'avait gagné la Maison Blanche sans l'Ohio depuis plus d'un siècle." (no conservative has won the White House without Ohio in over a century.)  Clearly this plan had a few design flaws.

And finally Le Monde had an article about what some members of the American community in Paris  were doing last night:  Une nuit américaine à Paris (An American Night in Paris).  Looks like my fellow Americans abroad here have assimilated the French idea that anything and everything are  good reasons to party, drink and dance.

"Dans plusieurs quartiers, ils ont loué des bars et des restaurants, bien décidés à faire la fête quels que soient les résultats du scrutin. Les jeunes militants de l'association Democrats Abroad, qui représente le parti démocrate à l'étranger, ont privatisé le Palais Maillot pour une soirée dansante."
(In several neighborhoods, they rented bars and resturants, planning to party regardless of the voting results.  The young militants of Democrats Abroad, who represent the Democrat party outside the U.S., even booked the Palais Maillot for an evening of dancing.)

And

Des Américains plus fortunés se sont retrouvés dans les salons luxueux de l'hôtel Pershing Hall, près des Champs Elysées – un lieu très symbolique, qui fut le quartier général du corps expéditionnaire américain pendant la première guerre mondiale, puis le siège parisien de l'American Legion. Le ticket d'entrée était à 80 euros, consommations non comprises. 

Dans un esprit de rassemblement patriotique, l'événement a été organisé conjointement par les sections parisiennes des deux associations Democrats Abroad et Republicans Abroad. 

(Wealthier Americans gathered in the luxurious rooms of the hotel, Pershing Hall near the  Champs Elysées - a symbolic location that was the headquarters of the American expeditionary force during World War I and is now the Paris seat of the American Legion.  Tickets were 80 Euros with food and drink not included. 

In the spirit of a patriotic gathering, the event was sponsored jointly by the Parisian chapters of Democrats Abroad and Republicans Abroad.)

Moving on the Le Figaro.

Funny but they seem a lot less enthusiastic than Le Monde about an Obama victory.  Their headline was:  L'Amérique offre quatre ans de plus à Barack Obama (America offers four more years of Barack Obama).

In this article  Les républicains gardent la main sur la Chambre des représentants, they point out that the Republicans still have a majority in House of Representatives and in another article they warn that
Obama va être vite confronté au risque de paralysie (Obama will be quickly faced with a risk of [political] paralysis).

La configuration politique promet en effet d'être quasiment la même qu'auparavant au Congrès: les Républicains gardent la Chambre et les démocrates semblent assurés de garder le Sénat. «Cette élection a montré un pays divisé», explique David Gergen, ancien conseiller de Reagan.
(The political landscape promises to be exactly the same as before concerning the Congress:  the Republicans with a majority in the House of Representatives and the Democrats assured of keeping the Senate. 'This election shows a divided country,' explains David Gergen, former advisor to Reagan.)

And finally here are the headlines from three others: 

Le Parisien :  Les «plus chaleureuses félicitations» de Hollande à Obama (Warmest congratulation from Hollande to Obama)

L'Humanité:  Barack Obama président pour 4 ans de plus (Barack Obama will govern for 4 more years)

La Croix: L’Amérique accorde un second mandat à Barack Obama (America gives a second mandate to Barack Obama).

Bonne lecture, everyone!

The 2012 Election and the U.S. Expatriate Vote

There is an excellent article up on the New York Times website called "Evaluating the Expat Factor" by Brian Knowlton.  Both U.S. presidential candidates, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, have been going after votes and money abroad.  This post by swisspinoy at Isaac Brock pointed out that the Romney campaign revised their website to make it easier for Americans abroad to donate to the campaign.  (Note to the Romney campaign, it still needs work.)

A couple of things worth pointing out here about this election and expatriates:

Political Polarization:  The American political landscape is divided up into two camps often called "Red" and "Blue" (Republicans versus Democrats, Right-wing versus Left-wing).  It appears that voters who consider themselves to be in one or the other camp have pretty much made up their minds and will vote for their candidate.  This is why it is such a close race (see the Politico website here for the latest polls).  Are there other candidates besides these two?  Indeed there are:  libertarians, socialists, greens and independents but they are considered to be irrelevant.  Not much room in this race for those third parties and Americans (to my knowledge) are not allowed to "voter blanc" (none of the candidates).  For all extents and purposes the race is between the Republican and Democrat candidates - between the "Reds" and the "Blues."

The Chase for the Undecided:  This polarization means that the race is on to grab the few independent or undecided voters who have yet to make up their minds a mere two months before the election.  Barring unforeseen circumstances much of the vote is locked in already for one or the other candidate and so their only hope is to find and convince the few people in the homeland and outside of it to vote in their favor.  This means, mes amis, that a small minority of U.S. voters will define the political face of the nation for the next 4+ years.

The Expatriate Vote:  Where do Americans abroad sit in this divided political arena?  No one really knows.  There's no census so even the number of U.S. citizens abroad who are potential voters varies widely between 2 to 7 million.  In 20 years abroad I've never had any direct communication with any political candidate in the U.S.  Unlike last last French election where the candidates sent emails to expats, nothing like that is happening in the ramp up to the 2012 election.    As Knowlton points out the conventional wisdom is that the overseas military votes right and civilians abroad votes left.  Is that true?  Not necessarily.  I've seen many articles that claim that the expat vote is more to the Left (or the Right) but that tends to be based on limited experience.  An American expat in Paris, for example, may look at his social and business circles, see mostly Democrats (or Republicans), and then extrapolate from that.  That is a very dangerous error and anyone who claims the expat vote for one or the other party has very little empirical evidence to back that up.  Knowlton is absolutely right when  he talks about the diversity of this population. There are small businessmen and women, Americans married to foreign nationals, retirees, missionaries and they are scattered all over the world.  Almost every stereotype about Americans abroad is really just hot air and until we get some decent research (and I don't think the studies he cited are conclusive) any broad brush used to paint American expatriates should be taken with a BIG grain of salt.

Just for fun, here are a few other things about the American Diaspora and voting that I think Knowlton didn't talk about in his piece:

Limited Voice:  Our voice (such as it is) is filtered in various ways.  There is the odd nature of how Americans abroad vote (in their last state of residence).  Our opinions often go through the local political party organizations like Democrats or Republicans abroad or the various diaspora organizations like American Citizens Abroad (ACA) or the Association of Americans Residing Abroad (AARO).  The latter are purely non-partisan.  My experience has been however (and please let me know if your experience is different) that most Americans abroad belong to none of these organizations.   Hard to know if either of these organizations (and I truly like them, deeply appreciate their efforts, and am a member of both ACA and AARO) really represents a majority of Americans abroad.   I also question seriously whether the political party overseas branches have any real pull with the homeland party HQ's.  Can they claim to be able to deliver X number of votes or X amount of money?  That's the kind of information homeland politicians want to know before they invest time and money in winning this population over.  And, as far as I know, there are no polls that include the opinions of overseas Americans.  Direct mail to U.S. politicians and candidates is iffy at best - some local politicians never answer at all and some answer with a form letter (like the ones I received from the Romney campaign and from my local U.S. senator).

Influence of the Host Country:  No one talks about this but I think it matters a lot.  People change when they go abroad.  What seemed vitally important in Seattle, Washington becomes much less so a few thousand miles away and in another context.  Events (like 911 or the recession) are viewed from a distance and the main source of information about them is often the local media. Such things are lived differently by those of us who live outside the U.S. and how they are interpreted can be heavily influenced by the people around an expatriate who are not Americans.  Obama is very popular in France and if you live here and are fairly well integrated, your co-workers, family and friends will more than likely share their opinions about who you should vote for and why. They may even express a strong negative opinion if you declare for the other candidate. That situation may be entirely reversed in other countries where Obama is not so popular.

Different Interests: Let's be entirely honest here, the interests of Americans abroad are not exactly the same as the interests of people in the homeland.  For a homelander, Marriage Equality may be a big deal but it's not likely to be one of the top burning issues of an long-term American abroad.  Same for Obamacare since a lot of us live in countries that already have a national healthcare system.  The future of Social Security is a toss-up and depends on if an expatriate qualifies for it or has close family members already in the system.  If not, so what?  On the other hand, the things that Americans abroad really care about like U.S. tax policy, consular protection and citizenship for children born abroad are not even a blip on the radar of the average homeland American. And it must be said that there is one major issue that has united Americans abroad in fear and loathing and that is FATCA. Democrat or Republican abroad, no one likes it and if the discussions on the Internet are anything to go by this is having a major influence on how this population will vote in November.

Probably the only issue that both Americans abroad and homelanders consistently share is foreign policy and even then Americans abroad may have a radically different take on it because they have to live with the consequences of it.  This should not be taken to imply that Americans abroad don't love the U.S. or want the best for it or that homeland Americans don't wish their citizens abroad well (no accusations here) but since the two don't really have much of a dialogue, the default is for everyone to vote his or interests convinced that his or her position is the "right" one.

My conclusion?  If we take the high number of U.S. citizens abroad of about 6 million and assume that a third of them do vote in the next election, that makes for 2 million loose cannons.   Depending on how those votes are allocated (which states have high numbers of expatriate voters) they could change the outcome of Congressional races (senators and representatives).  They could also have an impact on the presidential race.

But there is too much uncertainty and too little information to know for sure.  We'll see what happens in November.  I will confess that I am hoping for a surprise ending - a show of force on the part of the diaspora in November and a little shock and awe in the aftermath.  A wake up call for the homeland courtesy of the "Domestic Abroad."

Serving Overseas Voters - Doing It Right

Yesterday I sent off my ballot for the primary election in my home state in the U.S.  For those U.S. citizens abroad who have tried to vote in the past and found it to be a frustrating and fruitless endeavor, this year I urge you to give it another shot.  For citizens abroad from other countries who also vote in home country elections, it might be interesting to compare experiences.  Please note, however, that the U.S. has 50 different voting systems for its "domestic abroad" and it all depends on what U.S. state that citizen calls "home."   So this is just my experience with one state out of 50, The State of Washington - a little state on the U.S. West Coast tucked up there on the border with Canada.

My starting point was the Overseas Vote Foundation.  I used their wizard to answer a few simple questions and got a printable packet of documents that I then mailed to the government agency in the U.S. responsible for handling these requests for my voting district.

In a few short weeks, I received a new voter registration card in the mail at my Versailles address. A few weeks after that I got a mail from them that asked me how I would like to receive my ballot (paper copy or on-line).  I asked for a paper ballot but it didn't seem to have been taken into account because, although I have been watching for it in the mail, it didn't come.  With the date for the primary fast approaching, I was wondering what do.

In the end, I didn't have to do anything.  They contacted me.  Here is the email I received - a gentle reminder that said:

Dear VICTORIA FERAUGE:
The deadline to return your ballot for the 2012 Primary Election is fast approaching and we have not yet received your ballot.  You must submit your ballot packet on or before 8 p.m. (PT) Election Day, August 7, 2012, for your vote to be counted!
You can go online to access King County’s secure electronic ballot delivery system where you may log in, mark, and print your ballot packet.

So I did as they suggested. I logged on, filled out my ballot using their very nice, user-friendly on-line interface, printed it out, signed it, scanned it and sent off the .pdf this morning.  Green.  Done.

Outstanding!

I sent along a Thank You note with my ballot.  Hey, when you catch people doing something right, it's important to say so.  This was better than "right" - it was perfect.  I'd like to say again (publicly) to King Country Elections that they did a really fine job this year making life easier for us overseas voters who want to participate and have a voice in homeland politics.

Now, that is my experience with my state's election officials.  It's likely to be a bit different in other U.S. states.  Nevertheless, there is progress and if you are a U.S. voter you may be pleasantly surprised this year.

So give it a try and register.  Americans abroad have a few issues on the table right now and this is one way we can make those issues known and put pressure on homeland politicians to sit up and pay attention.

Evaluating U.S. Presidential Candidates

A few days ago I wrote about how I evaluate U.S. politicians from abroad.  At that time I focused my attention on the Senate races and didn't say anything about the presidential contest  (Obama versus Romney).

Recently, Just Me over at the Isaac Brock Society filled that gap with this excellent post:

As an American abroad, What assurances do I want from the U.S. Candidate for President?

He makes 5 points which are, in my humble opinion, just good old common sense.

Allow me to add 3 more points of my own:

1.  That the U.S. government be required to include Americans abroad in all future censuses.  Right now, American civilians abroad are not included and not counted because the U.S. government says that it's "too hard" to find them.  Nonsense.  If they think it's possible to find them for tax purposes then clearly they think they can find them, right?  Enough with this laziness.  Time to count us, homelanders!

2.  That some sort of agency be created within the U.S. government (perhaps the State department) that is responsible for managing the relationship between the U.S. government and the American diaspora.  These would be the "go to guys" when the diaspora wants to communicate with the U.S. government and vice versa.

3.  That an effort be made to inform the "Accidental Americans,"  those people who have no idea whatsoever that because of an accident of birth (birthplace or parent's citizenship) that they are considered U.S. citizens according to the laws of the United States.  Once they are made aware of their status, these people should be given a full disclosure about the rights and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship and they should be given the chance to opt out with a fast and simple procedure and no penalties and no exit fees. If an "Accidental" chooses not to retain U.S. citizenship then a CLN (certificate of loss of nationality) should be issued on the spot by the U.S. embassies concerned.

Evaluating U.S. Politicians from Abroad

A few days ago I cross-posted Why Americans Abroad Should Vote to the Isaac Brock Society website and  received some very interesting comments in response.  One in particular sparked my interest:  OK for voting, he said, but who to vote for - that is the real question.

And it's a darn good one.  2012 is a major U.S. election year .  In addition to the presidential race there are quite a few Senate seats  up for grabs in 2012.  If Americans abroad decide to vote in large numbers it is quite conceivable that they will have an impact on how some of these races shake out.

Now I would not even think of telling anyone how to vote.  All I can do is tell you what is important to me and what I look for in a candidate.  To that end I thought it would be an interesting exercise to take a few of these races at random and tell you what I see when I look at their websites, platforms and biographies.

As an American abroad what am I looking for in a candidate?  First of all I would like to see some life experience that includes studying, traveling or living/working/serving in the military outside the U.S.  If the candidate is already in Congress, I want to know if he/she a member of the Americans Abroad Caucus and how he/she voted on FATCA.  For that matter,  does he/she ever mention issues of direct interest to Americans abroad (taxation, voting rights, citizenship, strong interest in foreign affairs) on his/her official website(s) or even acknowledge the fact that he/she has constituents outside the U.S.?  Is that website "expat friendly".  In other words,  is it easy or hard for a constituent overseas to contact him/her via email or to make a contribution to his/her campaign?

I also include for each state an estimated number of expat voters from this site, the U.S. Elections Project and I used the 2010 "Overseas Eligible" numbers.  No idea if this reliable but it was the only information I could find.  For those who are interested in how some of the incumbents and candidates (those who are already in Congress) stood on H.R. 2847 (111th): Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (father of FATCA) you can find their voting records here.

Hawaii:  Estimated number of eligible expat voters:  20,090.  Here is their Factsheet for voting from abroad.  What is the situation in 2012?  Senator Daniel Akaka (Democrat) is retiring.  Democrats appear to be divided between two candidates:  Ed Case and Mazie K. Hirono.   The Republican candidate is Linda Lingle.

Ed Case:  Former U.S. representative from Hawaii.  A quick look at his agenda shows no particular interest in issues of direct interest to Americans Abroad but he does have some experience traveling outside the U.S.  In his biography he says, "Perhaps the trip that influenced me most was a low-budget six-month backpack through Asia..."

Mazie K. Hirono:  A naturalized U.S. citizen (she was born in Japan). Three terms in the House of Representatives.  Member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.  Not a member of the Americans Abroad Caucus.  Official website is not  "expat friendly" and does not make it easy for non-residents of Hawaii to contact her.  I could not find anything on her campaign website mentioning issues of direct interest to Americans abroad.  Hirono voted for FATCA.

Linda Lingle:  Former governor of Hawaii.  No experience abroad noted.  Her website does indicate that she is interested in Asia-Pacific economic relationships and in tax reform.  Like many others her "Donations" page asks for a U.S. city, state and zip code. It is possible to contact her campaign directly through email or snail mail here.


California:  Estimated number of eligible expat voters:  486,207.  California's Secretary of State has this very nice, very friendly website for those voting from abroad.  The incumbent senator, Diane Feinstein (Democrat), is up for re-election.  Her opponent is Elizabeth Emken (Republican).

Dianne Feinstein:  Her biography lists no overseas experience but she has a strong interest in foreign affairs.  Her website does not reveal any particular attention to civilian Americans abroad.  Her "Contact by Email" page requires that an overseas constituent select a U.S. state and give a local zip code. Feinstein voted for FATCA.

Elizabeth Emken:  Her biography shows that she studied in the UK at Cambridge University. Looking at the list of issues that is interested in, most of them appear to be local.  Her "Donations" page does not allow for a foreign address and the "State" field will only permit her military constituents to indicate that they are out of the country (Armed Forces Europe/Canada/Asia).


Pennsylvania:  Estimated number of eligible expat voters:  203,791.  For help voting from abroad there is this website for overseas civilian voters.  The incumbent for this senate seat is Robert Casey (Democrat) and his opponent is Tom Smith (Republican).

Robert Casey:  No overseas experience on his official biography but under his Issues and Priorities he shows a strong interest in foreign affairs and is a frequent traveler abroad:  "In July, Senator Casey led a Senate delegation to the Middle East to discuss the ongoing threat posed by Iran and to review developments in the Middle East peace process. Senator Casey traveled to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and Egypt where he met with top officials. He met with U.S. troops in Iraq and Kuwait. In Iraq he also met with Vice President Biden and General Ray Odierno, Commander of U.S. troops."  The "Contact" page on his website calls for a state and county but the only overseas voters that are taken into account are military (FPO/APO).

Tom Smith:  No experience abroad on his biography and there is no particular attention to the interests of Americans abroad on his Issues page. His "Contributions" page only has a few options for those living outside of the U.S. (American Samoa, Virgin Islands....)


Wisconsin:  Estimated number of expat voters:  33,788.  The State of Wisconsin has this fine site explaining overseas voting.  The incumbent in this senate race, Herbert Kohl (Democrat), is not seeking re-election and the primary is not until August.  Tammy Baldwin is the candidate from the Democrat party and I count no fewer than six contenders on the Republican side so I will select two at random: Marc Neumann and Tommy Thompson.

Tammy Baldwin:  Her biography reveals no overseas experience and her Issues page is almost 100% devoted to domestic concerns. She says that "fighting for Wisconsin’s middle class is her top priority."  Not clear if she would include the interest of middle-class overseas Wisconsin constituents in her fight.  In the State field of her "Donations" page an overseas voter can select some areas outside the US:  AA, AE, AS (I think this is for overseas military voters) but also GU (Guam?) and PR (Puerto Rico).  A bit confusing for a civilian voter from, say, Europe.  Baldwin is currently serving in the House of Representatives but does not appear to be a member of the Americans Abroad Caucus.  Her "Contact" page is not expat-friendly. In fact it clearly states, "Regrettably, I am unable to reply to any email from constituents outside of the district."  Baldwin voted "Yes" on FATCA.

Marc Neumann:  No experience overseas on his biography and no particular attention to Americans abroad on his website.  He is, however, a supporter of tax reform, "a simpler, fairer, and flatter tax system with fewer loopholes."  Not sure if this can be interpreted as something that would help Americans abroad. His "Donations" page requires a State and it's not clear if an overseas donor would be able to complete the form with a foreign address.

Tommy Thompson:  No overseas experience on his biography and I found no issues of direct interest to civilian Americans abroad anywhere on his website.  He is, however, for tax reform and wants to "simplify taxes for individuals."    His "Donations" page requires a State but a voter can select AE, AP and the like if one is (I think) overseas military.  Again it is not clear if a civilian voter can complete the form with a foreign address.  His "Contact" page does not require an physical address - just a name and email address.

I'll stop there.  All the information above was what I was able to glean from on-line sources.  It is entirely possible that the above candidates have a more complete (more nuanced) approach to their overseas constituents that they just didn't feel compelled to share. If that is the case, I'd be delighted to hear their reasoning for hiding their light under a bushel.   As always, feel free to disagree with (or correct) me if you feel that the candidates above are misrepresented.  And finally if you are an American abroad who plans to vote in 2012, I would love to hear your take on the federal elections in your home state.  Just add a comment or send me an email.

Why Americans Abroad Should Vote

A few days ago I tried to make a contribution to a political campaign in the U.S. and was stymied by their on-line software that didn't like my foreign address and wouldn't take my home phone number (French format  + 33 1...).  If this had happened a few years ago I probably would have given up in disgust but this time around I decided I wasn't going to let it go.  So I wrote them an email and I explained that I was one of millions of Americans abroad and gently proposed that they look at their software and make it more expat-friendly.  In the meantime I asked for a workaround so that I could send them money and participate in the American political process just like Americans in the homeland.

To their credit they got right back to me and started working on a fix.  But one email from a staff member set me back on my heels.  He thanked me for my support but said that in his travels he had met communities of Americans abroad and his experience was that none of them ever showed any interest in voting in the U.S. much less in making a contribution to a campaign.

Let's be honest and admit that there is some truth to what he said.  The reasons vary but, yes, out of the estimated 6-7 millions Americans abroad only a small percentage ever cast votes.  The Overseas Vote Foundation has this excellent report from 2010 which attempted to analyze the number of Americans abroad who are eligible to vote and how many actually succeeded in the 2008 election.  Their conclusion?

If voter turnout is defined as the number of people who attempted to vote (total ballots submitted for counting or 273,408) divided by the total population (approximately 4 million), approximately 6.8 percent of the overseas civilian population attempted to participate and were successful in doing so.

That's pathetic. But does this indicate a lack of interest or outright disenfranchisement?  Both.  Once an expatriate has been abroad for 10, 15, 20 years he/she may no longer be particularly well-informed about local politics (remember that Americans abroad vote from the U.S. state where they last resided regardless of how many years they've been abroad).  Then there is the matter of the rather byzantine procedures that U.S. states had for overseas voters that made registering and casting a ballot in the U.S. from abroad complex and rather painful.  Interest wanes when confronted with a process that is not terribly friendly and hard to understand.  To add insult to injury, many of those who did navigate the process in 2008 saw their ballots rejected.  And finally, there is one group of Americans citizens abroad who actually are unable to vote at all in many cases in the U.S.:  American citizens born abroad and living abroad.  That's right, not all U.S. states allow them to vote at all even though these U.S. citizens are required to pay U.S. taxes and could be liable for a military draft.  Homelanders can bluster all they want about getting Americans abroad to "pay their faire share in taxes," but this is flat-out taxation without any representation and I fail to see on what planet this constitutes "fair."  

All this is very disheartening but there are some blue skies on the horizon and, I think, some very good reasons for Americans abroad to vote in 2012.  Here are my responses to some of the rationales I've heard from my compatriots abroad for not voting in U.S. elections.  If you have a problem with my reasoning, please feel free to disagree.  This is a topic worth debating.

They'll find me:  Many Americans abroad are struggling with the compliance dilemma.  As people become aware of the U.S. tax and reporting requirements, and realize that they are potentially in a lot of trouble, they are afraid to vote because they think that by doing so this will give the U.S. government (the IRS) a heads-up.  My .02 on this is that, with FATCA coming on-line in 2013, they will find you in any case with the help of your host country.  I suppose it is possible to do a deep-dive: close your bank accounts, transfer your money to a spouse, live on cash, give up your career/business and hide in a rural area, let your U.S. passport lapse and avoid the local U.S. Embassy as if it were plague-infested territory and so on.  Some people will undoubtedly go that route but, personally, I don't find any of that to be terribly congenial.  I respectfully suggest that the time for sticking our heads in the sand and hoping we will be left alone has come and gone, my friends. So instead of limiting our options, let's expand them by registering to vote, casting our ballots and raising an unholy stink if the states try to disenfranchise us.

Local politicians in the U.S. don't care about my overseas vote:  Maybe we need to start giving them a reason to care.  Look, if we have any hope of getting some of this nonsense corrected, we must start flexing our muscles and showing the homelanders that not only do we care, but we will vote and punish local politicians that don't take our interests into account.  The staff of the political campaign I mentioned in a previous paragraph is now aware that there is a strange middle-aged American lady in Versailles, France who is not only registered to vote (and wants to vote for their candidate) but cares enough to throw some cash their way.  If enough of us do this, we can raise awareness and get our issues on the agenda. Local politicians in the U.S. may not understand why so many of us live abroad but they do understand two basic things:  dollars and votes (in that order).  If we can start speaking their language, perhaps we will finally get some traction for the things we care about.

My vote won't count because there are too few of us voting from abroad:  Yes, the system is stacked against us in some ways since we have to vote in the last state we resided in and some say we lack effective representation.  But instead of moaning about how ridiculous this is, let's look at the opportunities inherent in this rather perverse situation.  Many elections these days in the U.S. are decided by an incredibly small margin.  Have a look at this video produced by Democrats Abroad:

In all these races just a few votes made the difference.  This means that even a small number of votes from abroad could have some serious consequences for the U.S. political scene in 2012.  And think how much fun it would be if in 2012 the expat vote turned a few key races in the U.S. around and made some of those U.S. politicians that have been maligning us from their cushy Washington offices into very unhappy ex-senators and representatives.   

I've tried to vote in the past from abroad and it's just too darn complicated:  Meet the 2009 MOVE Act (Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act).  It is now much easier to vote from abroad.  How easy?  Well, I tested it using this fine on-line overseas voter registration tool provided by the Overseas Vote Foundation and it was a no-brainer.  Took me less than 15 minutes and a trip to my local post office.  I was rewarded just a few weeks later when I received my official voter registration card from King County Elections in Renton, Washington, USA.  Since then I have also received follow-up material asking me, among other things, if I would prefer to vote on-line or via mail (paper absentee ballot) from the comfort of my home here in Versailles, France.  Not too shabby.  So give it a shot and, if you are so inclined, think about making a contribution to the Overseas Vote Foundation.  This is a non-partisan foundation that is devoted to one thing - making it possible for Americans abroad to vote in U.S. elections.  They are good folks and deserve support for their efforts.

Last comment and this is a tough one that I've struggled with for years.  Given that we do not live in the U.S. and many of us haven't darkened the doors of our supposed "states of residence" for years, is it moral for us to cast votes in local elections.  After all, for the most part, we are not subject to the consequences of that vote.  Obamacare could be overturned tomorrow, U.S. Social Security could be privatized in a few years, Federal money flowing to the states could be cut off or reduced, and the impact on me personally would be zero.  I derive no benefits from any of the above though I do have family stateside that does depend on these things.  

After a lot of reflection, this is my answer:  If the United States of America is going to exert its sovereignty over us by requiring us to pay taxes and file reams of paperwork from abroad in order to comply with a byzantine tax code and onerous reporting requirements voted into law by those local politicians then, yes, Americans abroad have every right to vote in U.S. elections. Granted, our interests may diverge substantially from homelanders' interests but that fundamentally changes nothing.

We are U.S. citizens and if we are going to held to the responsibilities of that citizenship then we have the legal and moral right to get into the political game and vote for things we care about and for politicians who will advance our interests which are just as valid and important as any homelander's interests even if we haven't set one foot in the U.S. in the last 40 years.  End of story. 

Mexican Expatriates Vote in 2012

The ECJ ruling against Greek expatriates trying to vote from abroad seems to be something of an exception because overall things seem to be looking up for overseas voters elsewhere.  In the U.S. the passage of the 2009 MOVE Act at the federal level cleared away some onerous (and very silly) state requirements  and made it much easier for Americans abroad to vote in the 2012 U.S. presidential election.  This year representation for French expatriates will nearly double with the addition of 11 Députés (representatives) to the already existing Senators representing the French abroad (see two candidates' websites here and here to get an idea of who is running and on what platforms). And now the estimated 11 million Mexican citizens abroad will get their chance to vote in Mexico's 2012 presidential election.  Yes, folks, Mexico is also electing a president in 2012 and their race is every bit as interesting as the one in France or the U.S.

Voting rights for Mexicans abroad is a relatively new phenomenon.  In spite of intense lobbying by Mexicans abroad, the right to participate in home country elections was denied right up until 2005.  After the law changed there were very high expectations for the first presidential race in 2006 but overseas voter turnout was quite low with only 33,000 of the millions of eligible overseas voters successfully completing the registration process and casting absentee ballots.  This is not to say, however, that they had no influence in the outcome of the election.  According to this Migration Policy Institute article Mexican overseas voters showed their preferences and their potential power:

In 2006, Felipe Calderon of the conservative National Action Party (PAN) and Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) were the primary beneficiaries of the absentee vote, together receiving 91 percent of the ballots cast from abroad in 2006. Fifty-eight percent (19,016) of the votes went to the PAN; 33 percent (11,088) went to the leftist Coalition for the Good of All, an alliance between the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), Convergence, and the Labor Party; and 4 percent (1,360) went to the Alliance for Mexico, which consisted of the Ecologist Green Party of Mexico and the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI).

The 2006 race was a close one with only 243,934 votes separating the winning candidate, Felipe Calderon, from his second-place rival.

Since that first experience in 2006 the Mexican government has worked to refine the process in order to encourage participation by overseas voters.  The Instituto Federal Electoral (IFE) held a vote-from-abroad campaign and encouraged embassies and consulates to inform Mexicans abroad of their voting rights and to help them get registered.  As a result registrations were up slightly with "around 61,687 absentee ballots requested from over 100 countries (compared to 56,749 in 2006)." That is a mere drop in the bucket when one consider the millions of Mexican citizens who live abroad. Why are the numbers so low?  The reasons, according to MPI, are enough to make one weep.  While lack of information and an easy clear process are surely factors there are others that relate directly to the status of Mexican citizens in their host countries. While Mexican migrants can be found all over the globe, most live in the United States of America, in states like California and Texas.  Because many are undocumented (or have relatives who are) they are afraid that the U.S. government will intercept their ballots via the postal service and trace them back in order to deport them.

I can completely understand their fear but it makes me queasy to think that people are so scared of my home country (their host) government that they are afraid to vote in their own.  Since I don't believe that the American election will change much for migrants in the U.S. I'd say that the only realistic solution here to increase Mexican overseas voter participation would be a secure system of on-line voting.   A suivre.

Calling on All Americans Voting from Abroad

Voting from abroad is always quite a challenge for Americans.  I've lived nearly half my lifetime outside the United States and I've never quite figured out the exact rules for overseas voters.

Happily, I no longer have to because the Overseas Vote Foundation is here to help.  They are a non-partisan, non-political organization that exists for the sole reason to help American living abroad vote in U.S. elections.  On their website is all the information you need if you are an American citizen living temporarily or indefinitely abroad.  There is even a wizard to guide you through the process to get registered and obtain a ballot for the 2012 elections.

And if that weren't enough they have also produced this video which up on the site and Youtube to guide you (many thanks to the person who posted the link on the SFN site).



There are at least 6 million of us and I firmly believe that the very best way to send a message to Washington that we exist and pay attention to homeland matters is to VOTE.

Perhaps this will wake a few of those politicians up to the power of the American diaspora. :-)

Confusing Politicians with Archangels

In my last post I made a comment about how lovely it would be if American politicians had as much interest as French politicians in their "domestic abroad."  The author of another excellent blog, Overseas Exile, drew my attention to this statement made by our cher president, Barack Obama, back in 2008 when he was trolling for votes and was interested in convincing the 6 million Americans abroad that he was the man for them.  Four years later (an eternity for a politician) it is illuminating to read what he was saying back in 2008:

"Obama understands the special concerns and issues of Americans living abroad and will seek to address these as president."

"Barack Obama believes that the U.S. government should pay close attention to how American citizens are treated in the private sector while they live and work abroad. Our government must work to ensure that overseas Americans have every chance to compete on a level playing field...."

"Obama will work with members of the Americans abroad community and the U.S. embassies to determine how the U.S. government can be responsive to the concerns of overseas Americans.  As a U.S. Senator, Obama has taken seriously the concerns of all Illinoisans, whether they are currently in Illinois or not.  As president, Obama will work to establish a direct dialogue with Americans abroad."

"Americans living abroad have little access to basic information about U.S. government services and affairs.  Barack Obama believes that U.S. embassies and consulates, which are the main U.S. government contact points for Americans abroad, should develop and implement concrete plans on how to communicate basic information to Americans living abroad."

Between 2008 and 2012 Mr. Obama seems to have had a change of heart.  Of all that he promised in 2008, only his commitment to making voting easier for overseas Americans has been realized.  In this policy statement he demonstrated that he had a very good grasp of the facts and of the concerns of the 6-7 million Americans abroad, so the contention of some of my fellow expatriates that he is blissfully unaware of the impact of his recent policies on Americans abroad simply does not stand up to serious scrutiny.

Ah well, Obama is not the first politician to weasel out of his campaign promises and he certainly won't be the last.  In his defense, this situation is not entirely his fault - in the euphoria over his election too many of us forgot to heed the immortal words of  H.L. Mencken on the basic nature of politicians:

Their primary error lies in making the false assumption that some politicians are better than others... I propose that it be renounced and contend that its renunciation would greatly rationalize and improve our politics. I do not argue that there would be any improvement in our politicians; on the contrary, I believe that would remain substantially as they are today, and perhaps grow even worse. But what I do argue is that recognizing them frankly for what they are would instantly and automatically dissipate the indignation caused by their present abominations, and that the disappearance of this indignation would promote the public contentment and happiness. Under my scheme there would be no more false assumptions and no more false hopes, and hence no more painful surprises, no more bitter resentment of fraud, no more despair.
Politicians, in so far as they remained necessary, would be kept at work - but not with any insane notion that they were archangels.

And maybe that is why I have a grudging respect for Marine Le Pen (Front National).  Her politics may make me shudder but I don't think anyone (even her supporters) has ever taken her for a Celestial Being. 

Diaspora Voting Rights - a Recent ECJ Ruling

Peter Spiro, the author of the excellent book Beyond Citizenship, has an interesting article up about a recent ECJ (European Court of Justice) ruling concerning voting rights for the Greek diaspora.

Unlike most EU countries Greece does not allow its citizens abroad to vote in Greek elections. Figures vary but there are around 3-5 millions Greeks living outside of their home country concentrated in places like the U.S., U.K. and Canada.  The recent Greek crisis has provoked considerable emigration with Greeks headed for other EU countries and North America.  According to this site, there are about 35,000 Greeks living in France and two of them decided to fight on behalf of Greek overseas everywhere.

In 2007 two EU civil servants living in Strasbourg who are Greek citizens asked the Greek Ambassador to France to allow them to vote from France (their country of residence) in Greek parliamentary elections.  The Greek ambassador said "no" because it was not practical for them to do so - no process existed to make this possible.

That led to the case Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v. Greece.  The plaintiffs argued that denying Greek expatriates the right to vote in Greece elections amounted to "disproportionate interference with the exercise of their voting rights."  It appears that the Greek Constitution does indeed have a provision that allows for expatriate voting but it doesn't seem to have ever been implemented - theoretically it's possible but the mechanisms have never been put into place to make it a reality.

EU citizens living outside their hosts countries should sit up and take notice because they lost.  Here is how the ECJ ruled:

The Court notably found that neither the relevant international and regional law nor the varying practices of the member States in this sphere revealed any obligation or consensus which would require States to make arrangements for the exercise of voting rights by citizens living abroad.

So if you are a citizen of France, for example, living abroad, understand that your right to vote in France is viewed as "desirable but not mandatory" from the standpoint of the EU.  This is true even where that right may be enshrined in the national constitution.

"Out of country" or "overseas voting" is a really tough call.  Let's be honest here - many countries and their citizens do not like this idea one bit.  I've had many hostile reactions from my compatriots when they discover that, after many years abroad, I still vote in U.S. elections.  I think it's fair to ask if this a good thing or not.  This excellent report from the European Commission on overseas voting rights in the EU is worth reading because it not only talks about where the different member states and other countries are in conferring these right on their expatriates, it also gives some pros and cons.  Here are some of the arguments in favor:

• Citizens are citizens wherever they are and should have the same rights regardless of where they live
• Overseas voting allows these citizen to participate in the "political life of the nation."  Though they live abroad they still have an interest and a stake in home country politics.  Voting is one way they maintain a tangible connection with the home country. 
• Not allowing them to vote would be discrimination.  Expatriates would be unequal to resident citizens.
• If overseas citizens lack the right to vote in their home countries and in their host countries, then they effectively have no right to vote at all, anywhere.  This shuts them out of any democratic process.

And here are some of the arguments against:

• Citizens abroad may be less concerned with or even have very limited knowledge of issues in the homeland.  I have absolutely no stake in American Social Security (U.S. state retirement program) so is it reasonable that I have a voice about what happens to it?  There is something to that "tenuous link" argument.
• Countries that have lots of citizens abroad could see their elections skewed by overseas voters.   This could happen in the U.S. in certain state elections but it could also be true of other countries that have large numbers of emigrants abroad.  It is possible that their vote could change the course of home country politics.
• It may be impractical.  There has to be a process for overseas voters to exercise the right to vote and some countries may simply lack the means to make it possible. 

It's quite a conundrum and, frankly, as proud as I am of my King Country voter card, I can see both sides.  Is this a topic on which, as member of the American Diaspora, I would be willing to negotiate?  Absolutely.  I don't speak here for anyone but myself but I would consider trading my U.S. voter rights for the right not to be taxed by or report my assets to the U.S. government.  I'm sure some of you would violently disagree with that but I think it is an option that we could discuss. 

All diaspora past, present and future rights are the result of negotiation between the home country and the "Domestic Abroad."  The expatriate Greeks may have lost this round but I don't think they should give up.  If this is something they really want then surely something could be arranged.  And, for those of you who are fortunate enough to be citizens of countries where voting rights and even direct representation are a fait accompli, be careful.  They have been given but they could be taken away and, in the case of Europe, this could happen with nary a peep of protest from the EU since it seems to be a "nice to have" and not a fundamental right.

Immigration Policy - An International Affair

I came across some very interesting articles about U.S. immigration law recently and I thought I'd share them with you.  It seems that the U.S. Congress is not necessarily the highest authority in this matter and some very creative people have had the intelligence to take this out of the national realm and make it an international fight.

Civil Rights Groups Take Alabama Immigration Law to the UN:  Union and civil rights leaders have filed a complaint against Alabama and the U.S. government with the United Nation International Labor Organization.  They allege that Alabama's immigration laws are a "flagrant violation of international norms" and that the United States' inability to come up with coherent immigration policy hurts domestic and migrant workers alike.  The Service Employees International Union filed the complaint with the UN earlier this week:

The complaint, submitted to the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association alleges the U.S. government’s “inability to act promptly and decisively to put in place a national policy related to immigration - attentive to international guarantees related to individual workers’ rights as well as to the rights of trade unions with immigrant members - has given the space to individual states to enact laws that are in flagrant violation of international norms.”

They are holding the US government responsible for the recently enacted Alabama immigration laws and they are not only willing to take it to the UN, they are bringing the fight directly to the foreign companies that have invested in that state.

In a statement to Daimler AG, which produces Mercedes-Benz vehicles in Alabama, the SEIU and its affiliate, the Southern Regional Joint Board of Workers United wrote, “Until now, Daimler and Mercedes-Benz have been silent on this law which violates human rights, even though one of its German executives was arrested under the Alabama law.”

Labor Leaders Take Alabama Immigration Law Repeal Bid to Berlin:  Labor leaders are backing up their words with action by going directly to the source in Berlin, Seoul and Tokyo and calling these companies on their tacit collaboration with what they feel is legislation that violates human rights:

At the Daimler AG annual shareholders meeting in Berlin April 4, U.S. labor and civil rights leaders said that unless the German company takes a stand on Alabama’s infamous anti-immigrant law, it is tacitly supporting a racist and unjust regime in a state where its Mercedes Benz factory is considered responsible for 10,000 jobs and $1.5 billion in economic impact.
In March, civil rights activists and labor leaders attended Hyundai’s annual shareholder meeting in Seoul to make a similar point, as Colorlines reported, since Hyundai’s Alabama operations account for 2 percent of the state’s GDP. Depending whether the state legislature acts to repeal before then, they may also visit Honda’s shareholder meeting in Tokyo in June.

That is not only very gutsy, it's a very smart strategy.  This is not exactly the kind of publicity these companies need.  As for the U.S. government, if the ILO rules against them, it makes their criticism of other governments' policies (like China) look terribly hypocritical.  Alabama certainly doesn't come off well either.  If the unions and civil rights leaders can successfully equate investment in that state with support for violating international standards for human rights, companies might be less willing to do business there and that ought to make local lawmakers sit up and take notice.  This is one to watch closely.  If anyone in Germany, Korea or Japan finds links to this story in the local media, I'd really appreciate your adding them in the comments section.  It would be interesting to see how this story is presented in these companies' home country media.

India challenges U.S. immigration rules at WTO:  India has filed a complaint against the U.S. government with the World Trade Organization (WTO).  In 2010 the U.S. raised visa fees for skilled workers to a whopping 4,500 USD per visa.  Indian IT firms say that this discriminatory (and it does seem to have been directed against them) and a barrier to free trade.  This may be a bit of a "tit for tat" situation since the complaint was filed after India put a ban on poultry imports from abroad - something that hurts the U.S. poultry industry.  Nonetheless, the high fees and the high rejection rates of Indian applicants for U.S. work visas (H1B and L-1) really hurts the Indian IT industry.

The law under which those business visa fees were raised is known as the James Zadroga Act. Under the law, fees are substantially increased for H1B and L1 immigrant business visas. The rule also makes it harder for Indian multinationals in the U.S. like Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys and Wipro to bring in top executives or senior computer engineers from abroad.
“It is the sovereign right of any country to hike visa fee, but the U.S. move is mainly against Indian IT companies. The law discriminates between an American and Indian companies. This is a breach of national treatment and most favored nation status,” an unnamed Commerce Ministry official told the ET.

Tech CEOs visit Washington to lobby for H1B visa, tax reforms:  Last month 60 CEOs of high-tech companies in the U.S. descended on Washington to fight for immigration reform.  What do they want?  More H1-B visas, faster processing of visa applications and a better retention policy for foreign graduates from U.S. universities with high-tech degrees.  Technet is a lobbying organization that represents high-tech industries in the U.S.  However, if you take a look at the executives they sent to Washington, you'll see that its members are not really U.S. companies, they are international companies like Cisco, HP,  Intel, Google, Microsoft and EMC.

These articles really highlight the complex nature of immigration policy and how it can't ever be made in a vacuum that takes into account only local concerns.  Look at the stakeholders above:  United Nations, WTO, trade unions, civil rights leaders, workers, lobbyists, local and international industry, local and national governments.  And then take a look at the people who are responsible for sorting through all this and actually passing laws that make sense in this complex environment.  How many U.S. congressman, for example, have ever lived or worked overseas as a civilian?  How many of them have been immigrants?  How many of them speak a foreign language or have extensive experience with another culture?  I couldn't find any statistics on the Web but just looking at my Congresswomen, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, the answer is they have zero international experience. That's a bit worrisome when you consider that they represent a state that hosts the offices of international companies like Boeing and Microsoft.  And lest you think that I am picking on the U.S. check out the biography of Claude Guéant, the French Minister of the Interior.  His world is the Hexagone and reading his profile you start to understand why he was so surprised when his infamous circulaire received international attention.  

I am not saying that these people are not intelligent - on the contrary they are smart, dedicated public servants who I am sure are doing the very best they can for their constituents.  What I am saying is that when it comes to immigration policy they may be at the lowest level of ignorance which is "not even knowing what you don't know." They just don't have sufficient international experience that would give them the context they need for the decisions that they are responsible for making.

I think this is something to take into account in this election year even at the local level. Globalization is a fact of life and your local representative might just find him or herself thrust into an international spotlight thanks to some local policy or law that has international stakeholders.  The question to ask is:  can this person play at that level?   Is he/she experienced and knowledgeable enough to understand the international implications of the votes he casts or the policies he has a hand in making?  If the answer is "no" or "I'm not sure," you might want to think again.  For your own protection and so that globalization may be rightly guided to the benefit of us all.

Citizenship 101 for Americans

This week I had the immense pleasure of going into town and having lunch with a very handsome and thoroughly charming American man near Saint Sulpice.  Like me he is married to a French national and has lived here in France for many years.  As you can imagine we had a lot to talk about but there was one topic in particular that had us both chortling over our meal:  how little Americans know about how American citizenship really works.  Over the years we have both heard some truly amazing statements and interrogations from people in the homeland about our status.  Americans don't seem to have a very good grip on what their citizenship really means:  how it is acquired, kept or lost, the duties and responsibilities attached to that citizenship and what it means in the world outside the U.S.

All joking aside, I find that a bit frightening.  Citizenship is an individual status - something that is between an individual (you) and a country and it will impact all aspects of your life.  Not understanding that relationship is downright dangerous and can get you into all kinds of trouble or, conversely, confer certain benefits that you may not be aware of.

Here are a few of the things I've heard or been asked about over the years about the status of American citizens abroad.  Some of these questions may seem very silly to some of you but I assure you the people who asked were genuinely interested (or genuinely hostile) and were very surprised by my answers.  I'll give the question/statement first and then my answer with links to sites where you can explore further.  As always, feel free to comment or challenge what I say:

Are all people born in the U.S. citizens of the United States?:  Yes, for the most part.  The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says that anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen.  This has been very broadly interpreted to mean everyone including babies whose mothers are tourists, businesswomen, students, undocumented workers and so on.  So, for example, a Frenchwoman on a business trip who goes into premature labor and has a baby in Boston has just given birth to a dual U.S./French citizen. This is irrespective of the wishes of the mother or father (even the other country's government has nothing to say about it).  Quite often the parents are completely unaware that the child is, in fact, an American citizen.  We call these children "Accidental" or "Involuntary" American citizens.

Nevertheless they are full U.S. citizens and have equal status with Americans in the homeland:  they have the right to return to the U.S. to live and work, they can vote in U.S. elections, they are required to have a U.S. passport to enter the U.S. and they are subject to all the tax and reporting requirements of the U.S. government.  Very often the only way these people find out they are U.S. citizens is when they grow up and travel to the U.S. on business or as tourists.   They are stopped at the border, questioned closely when the immigration officer notes their place of birth on their passport and then informed that they are, in fact, U.S. citizens.  This often comes as a huge (and often unpleasant) surprise to them.  The only people born in the U.S. who are not U.S. citizens are those who have renounced that citizenship formally at a U.S. consulate abroad and can present a CLN (Certificate of Loss of Nationality) if they are challenged.

You have to be born in the U.S. to be a U.S. citizen:  False.  American citizenship is transmitted though both jus soli (birth on U.S. soil) and jus sanguinis (blood).  A child born in China of an American mother who lived in the U.S. at some point prior to the birth and a Chinese father is an American citizen by blood even if that child never sets foot on U.S. soil.

People born in the U.S.who have never lived or worked there lose U.S. citizenship if they don't "activate" their American citizenship once they reach their majority:  False.  The U.S. has no automatic "opt out" mechanism for U.S. citizenship at the age of 18.  If a French child born in the U.S. but living in France does nothing once he/she reaches the age of majority then he/she is still an American citizen.   The only way to stop being one is to go down in person to the U.S. Embassy and renounce.  This process includes paperwork, interviews and in most cases a fee of 450 USD.  Failure to do this means that person is an American for life.

Americans who live outside the U.S. for X number of years lose U.S. citizenship:  False.  American citizenship does not come with an expiration date and is not tied to residency in the U.S.  An American citizen can leave the U.S. at any age, never come back to the U.S. to live and will still be an American citizen until he/she dies.

American citizens abroad can't vote:  False.  This is a situation so strange that it is practically a comedy.  All American citizens have the right to vote but it is tied to that U.S. state where he or she last resided or had a U.S. address. So, for example, a U.S. citizen born in California who last resided in the state of Washington and who then moved abroad and hasn't lived in the U.S. in 30 years will vote in Washington State elections.  Specifically that person is eligible to vote for Washington state representatives to the U.S. Congress (senators and representatives) and for President. In other states it appears that overseas Americans are also allowed to vote in the local elections as well as the federal ones.  There are even 18 states that allow people who have never lived or worked in the U.S. to register to vote where their parents were registered to vote.  

American citizens who marry foreign nationals and live in the foreign spouse's country lose American citizenship:  False and this one always makes me laugh because it is almost always thrown at American women who marry foreign men (rarely of American men who marry foreign women).  It used to be true in the early 20th century but those laws were challenged and dropped because, among other things, they were highly discriminatory toward women.    So, no, gentlemen, an American woman who marries a Frenchman (however mad that may make you) will still be an American for life unless she renounces.

American citizens who become citizens of another country automatically lose American citizenship:  False. An American who voluntarily naturalizes in another country is only committing a potentially expatriating act (one of 7 in fact).  However it is only an expatriating act (one that causes that person to lose citizenship) if it is committed with the intent of giving up U.S. citizenship. So, an American who becomes a citizen of Brazil, for example, will not lose American citizenship unless she intends to give up her American citizenship.  If that is not her intent, then she keeps her U.S. citizenship and becomes a dual.

American citizens abroad have to obey U.S. laws even if they are living in a foreign country:  True.  This is one that always amazes people because, after all, if someone is doing something legal in a foreign country that is illegal in the U.S. how in the world can the U.S. claim that U.S. law still applies?   Well, folks, in some cases it does though prosecutions are few.  Some U.S. laws are extra-territorial and American citizens, wherever they happen to be, are subject to them even if they are dual citizens.  Still don't believe me?  Here is a direct quotation from the U.S. State Department website:

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.

American citizens abroad receive special services and protection from the U.S. government:  This one is a heartbreaker because the answer is "no" for the most part.  There are no special services for long-term Americans abroad other than document services (passports and other official documents required by the host country) and some limited help when it comes to U.S. taxes.  Consular protection is limited to making sure that the family is notified if an American citizen ends up in jail or is in trouble.  They can also visit that citizen in jail and make sure that the conditions are correct.  That is about it and I want to emphasize that this is not at all the fault of the Embassy/Consulate personnel who are very nice, very efficient folks.  In my experience they always try to help but there just isn't a whole lot they can do for an American on foreign soil and they can do almost nothing for a dual.  A U.S. passport is not necessarily much help either - it doesn't buy special treatment or a "get out of jail free" card.  When a U.S. national is in another country and that country decides that person has done something wrong that person is in their jurisdiction and will suffer the consequences.  I know people who have been in that situation and, yes, those U.S. citizens went straight to a foreign jail.

As for those very particular circumstances where American citizens need evacuation from dangerous situations, the reality is that this is a service for which those citizens will be billed.  Yes, you heard me right, and you can find this information on the U.S. Department of State website where it clearly states:

Departure assistance is expensive. U.S. law 22 U.S.C. 2671(b) (2) (A) requires that any departure assistance be provided “on a reimbursable basis to the maximum extent practicable.” This means that evacuation costs are ultimately your responsibility; you will be asked to sign a form promising to repay the U.S. government. We charge you the equivalent of a full coach fare on commercial air at the time that commercial options cease to be a viable option. You will be taken to a nearby safe location, where the traveler will need to make his or her own onward travel arrangements. If you are destitute, and private resources are not available to cover the cost of onward travel, you may be eligible for emergency financial assistance.

I had a friend who was in a bad situation here in France.  She had medical problems, an abusive spouse and was completely destitute (her French spouse took all the assets). She went to the U.S. embassy here and they were very very sympathetic but the only thing they could do for her was provide her with a short-term loan for a plane ticket.  Since there was no one to help her once she got home (and she had visions of ending up sick on the streets of her home city in the U.S.) she thanked them and then threw herself on the mercy of the French who did care for her and helped her to sort out her situation.  She is now a French citizen and a very loyal and grateful one.

Another very long post.  I'll stop there.  Please feel free to comment or add your own questions and answers.  I deliberately did not touch on the U.S. tax/reporting situation but I'm sure some of you will be more than happy to talk about it. :-)