I almost forgot to mention this one.
On June 15 (tomorrow for me) some Americans abroad are planning a mass call to Congress in support of Residency-Based Taxation (as opposed to the system we have now called Citizenship-Based Taxation aka the reason you must file a tax return in the US even if you live and work abroad .)
If you are unclear about RBT versus CBT have a look at this really nifty summary published by American Citizens Abroad (ACA)
So the idea behind a "Call Storm" is that you and other Americans abroad give your elected representatives in Washington, D.C. a call tomorrow and tell them what you think about CBT versus RBT (and while you're at it you can throw some FATCA fat on the fire). If enough people call then, yes, they sit up and pay attention.
You can find the contact info for your reps here and your senators here.
I am going to keep this post strictly non-partisan and not mention either political party. Certainly you don't have to be affiliated with one or the other to participate.
However, if anyone from either party happens to pass by the Flophouse with helpful information and encouraging words, feel free to post them in the comments section.
Showing posts with label Americans abroad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Americans abroad. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Another Take on "Being Taken for a Tourist"
For those of you who have wondered about the naturalization process in Japan, look no further than the site Becoming Legally Japanese. In particular, cast an eye upon the Questions section of the blog for answers to questions you may have (and answers that may surprise you). I highly recommend it.
In a recent post they directly address the question of Why Japanese assume that people who appear non-Asian can't speak Japanese and give a very plausible answer ("it's bad for business.") One that makes sense to me and is probably true in many places - not just Japan. And there is advice for how to avoid situations where the Japanese are most likely to speak English to a foreign Japanese-speaker.
It's a very thoughtful post and I recommend it as highly as I recommend the blog. But I do have some thoughts and questions of my own which I offer here. It's a great topic and one I wish we migrants/expatriates would talk about more.
English: The post was written from the perspective of English-speakers and English is clearly touted by all (including the Japanese government) as being "the" foreign-language to learn. Speakers of other languages (like my spouse) are forced to use it more than they would like. Think of English as a "lowest common denominator" language - the one most likely for both Japanese and foreigners to speak. And this is good for some business - no doubt about it. I do note, however, that in Osaka inside and outside of tourist areas there are signs that say "No English Menu" or "English menu available" which seems to indicate where tourists are and are not welcome. But wait! There are also plenty of signs that say "Chinese spoken."
Are the proprietors of the "No English" establishments committing economic suicide in support of some higher principle? That is a serious question because there does seem to be this enormous push by the Japanese government and people to learn English. I could well understand a resistance to that. I suspect that business decisions do drive a lot of this and English, contrary to the ideology of English as globalization, really isn't necessary for many businesses to thrive (or avoid going broke). In Osaka there are certainly many tourists but most of them are Chinese. And just from walking around the city for a few years, the impression I have is that they are the ones with the money. So perhaps it's about what kind of tourist a business wants to draw in. And here it looks like Chinese is an equal or better bet to draw customers.
Class: And here I go into a subject that many Americans are mighty uneasy about. I suggest that "tourist" is sometimes used as a code for middle or lower-class Americans. These are the people without the time (almost no vacation) or money (they have jobs or families at home they can't leave) to do more than spend a few days or weeks in a foreign country. That is not to say that American migrants or expatriates are rich - they may indeed very often come from the same socioeconomic class as the tourists. But the American migrants found a way to go abroad and stay. And having earned that social capital (often though much hard work and hardship) and raised one's status, how horrible and embarrassing to meet... yourself. What you might have been if you hadn't applied for that visa. There is a sick feeling that associating with them might drag you back, much as if you were the first person in your family to graduate from college and get a white-collar job. Suddenly your old friends from your old town showed up one day to meet the family and drag you off to a bar to talk about people and places you had hoped you would never see again (or only see when visiting family back in the home country).
I don't know if the above is true of anyone but myself. (But I suspect that it is.) And I should know because I have felt all of those things at different times in France and I have sat with my fellow integrated migrants and talked about how to avoid those "short-timers." If the author of the blog post had come to France I would have treated him badly and not wanted to associate with him/her since I would have assumed that he was just another of those "tourists" (and yes I would have been using that word as code for class). I would have also treated badly those migrants that I deemed "not integrated enough" or those not lucky enough to live in Paris or those Americans who still wore tennis shoes and a whole host of other things. It is safe to say that I was a perfect class-conscious snob.
How I came to this realization is a story for another day. Suffice to say that the idea of separating friends by their level of integration and language ability reminds me a lot of separating friends into "those who have MAs" and "those who don't." And while I do understand that these strategies would be helpful when it comes to learning a language and not being treated like a tourist, I have to ask if something is also missed when we do this. If the author of the post, for example, came to Paris and I dismissed him/her as an ignorant, non-French speaker tourist, then I would lose the benefit of meeting someone who has a whole host of experiences that I am ignorant about. He/she in turn might find out a few things about what it's like to live in France which would broaden his/her experience of what it means to live in Japan. In short, we both might learn something from the experience, but if we aren't open to even acknowledging each other than we both miss out. That is how I have come to see it.
Integration: Finally, I would agree that the total immersion approach is probably the most effective way for learning a language quickly. However, where that happens is important and goes beyond restaurants, karaoke bars, family, and friends. I am talking about the world of work. Most of us have to do that. That is one area where the stakes are highest, but one where I would say you get the most gains. Your sposue and friends may forgive your accent and grammatical errors, the poorly written email or lack of accent marks, but your boss and colleagues are less amused.
From what I have seen most Anglophone foreigners work in the "cultural services industry" where their foreignness and language skills are what got them the visa and the jobs in the first place. I believe that it is very hard to speak English for 8-10 hours a day and master the local language at the same time. I'm sure that some do manage it but I would argue that they are the minority. Those I have met who really have mastered Japanese had the time to study before they started working and so they were able to go to Japanese universities or apply for jobs in Japanese companies. So I speculate that there is a catch-22 situation here where, for example, teaching English (or in English) means that it takes longer to learn the language. But without local language skills (which include literacy) it is extremely difficult to get a better job in a Japanese company (or a French one for that matter.) I note that in addition to the sterotype of the visible-minority foreigner lacking Japanese language skills, there is also one that sees them as all teaching English for a living. And that one, I'm afraid, probably is true. But if there were better economic and occupational integration than I strongly suspect that better cultural integration will follow. (And that goes for migrants/expats in other countries as well.) The problem is solving the catch-22 problem and I have no good answers for that one.
My .02 and please go ahead and contradict/argue/agree. I'm offering this up for discussion, not as a lecture where I think I'm right and that's all there is to it. In fact. rereading this I can see where I could easily argue with myself. So fire away, my friends!
In a recent post they directly address the question of Why Japanese assume that people who appear non-Asian can't speak Japanese and give a very plausible answer ("it's bad for business.") One that makes sense to me and is probably true in many places - not just Japan. And there is advice for how to avoid situations where the Japanese are most likely to speak English to a foreign Japanese-speaker.
It's a very thoughtful post and I recommend it as highly as I recommend the blog. But I do have some thoughts and questions of my own which I offer here. It's a great topic and one I wish we migrants/expatriates would talk about more.
English: The post was written from the perspective of English-speakers and English is clearly touted by all (including the Japanese government) as being "the" foreign-language to learn. Speakers of other languages (like my spouse) are forced to use it more than they would like. Think of English as a "lowest common denominator" language - the one most likely for both Japanese and foreigners to speak. And this is good for some business - no doubt about it. I do note, however, that in Osaka inside and outside of tourist areas there are signs that say "No English Menu" or "English menu available" which seems to indicate where tourists are and are not welcome. But wait! There are also plenty of signs that say "Chinese spoken."
Are the proprietors of the "No English" establishments committing economic suicide in support of some higher principle? That is a serious question because there does seem to be this enormous push by the Japanese government and people to learn English. I could well understand a resistance to that. I suspect that business decisions do drive a lot of this and English, contrary to the ideology of English as globalization, really isn't necessary for many businesses to thrive (or avoid going broke). In Osaka there are certainly many tourists but most of them are Chinese. And just from walking around the city for a few years, the impression I have is that they are the ones with the money. So perhaps it's about what kind of tourist a business wants to draw in. And here it looks like Chinese is an equal or better bet to draw customers.
Class: And here I go into a subject that many Americans are mighty uneasy about. I suggest that "tourist" is sometimes used as a code for middle or lower-class Americans. These are the people without the time (almost no vacation) or money (they have jobs or families at home they can't leave) to do more than spend a few days or weeks in a foreign country. That is not to say that American migrants or expatriates are rich - they may indeed very often come from the same socioeconomic class as the tourists. But the American migrants found a way to go abroad and stay. And having earned that social capital (often though much hard work and hardship) and raised one's status, how horrible and embarrassing to meet... yourself. What you might have been if you hadn't applied for that visa. There is a sick feeling that associating with them might drag you back, much as if you were the first person in your family to graduate from college and get a white-collar job. Suddenly your old friends from your old town showed up one day to meet the family and drag you off to a bar to talk about people and places you had hoped you would never see again (or only see when visiting family back in the home country).
I don't know if the above is true of anyone but myself. (But I suspect that it is.) And I should know because I have felt all of those things at different times in France and I have sat with my fellow integrated migrants and talked about how to avoid those "short-timers." If the author of the blog post had come to France I would have treated him badly and not wanted to associate with him/her since I would have assumed that he was just another of those "tourists" (and yes I would have been using that word as code for class). I would have also treated badly those migrants that I deemed "not integrated enough" or those not lucky enough to live in Paris or those Americans who still wore tennis shoes and a whole host of other things. It is safe to say that I was a perfect class-conscious snob.
How I came to this realization is a story for another day. Suffice to say that the idea of separating friends by their level of integration and language ability reminds me a lot of separating friends into "those who have MAs" and "those who don't." And while I do understand that these strategies would be helpful when it comes to learning a language and not being treated like a tourist, I have to ask if something is also missed when we do this. If the author of the post, for example, came to Paris and I dismissed him/her as an ignorant, non-French speaker tourist, then I would lose the benefit of meeting someone who has a whole host of experiences that I am ignorant about. He/she in turn might find out a few things about what it's like to live in France which would broaden his/her experience of what it means to live in Japan. In short, we both might learn something from the experience, but if we aren't open to even acknowledging each other than we both miss out. That is how I have come to see it.
Integration: Finally, I would agree that the total immersion approach is probably the most effective way for learning a language quickly. However, where that happens is important and goes beyond restaurants, karaoke bars, family, and friends. I am talking about the world of work. Most of us have to do that. That is one area where the stakes are highest, but one where I would say you get the most gains. Your sposue and friends may forgive your accent and grammatical errors, the poorly written email or lack of accent marks, but your boss and colleagues are less amused.
From what I have seen most Anglophone foreigners work in the "cultural services industry" where their foreignness and language skills are what got them the visa and the jobs in the first place. I believe that it is very hard to speak English for 8-10 hours a day and master the local language at the same time. I'm sure that some do manage it but I would argue that they are the minority. Those I have met who really have mastered Japanese had the time to study before they started working and so they were able to go to Japanese universities or apply for jobs in Japanese companies. So I speculate that there is a catch-22 situation here where, for example, teaching English (or in English) means that it takes longer to learn the language. But without local language skills (which include literacy) it is extremely difficult to get a better job in a Japanese company (or a French one for that matter.) I note that in addition to the sterotype of the visible-minority foreigner lacking Japanese language skills, there is also one that sees them as all teaching English for a living. And that one, I'm afraid, probably is true. But if there were better economic and occupational integration than I strongly suspect that better cultural integration will follow. (And that goes for migrants/expats in other countries as well.) The problem is solving the catch-22 problem and I have no good answers for that one.
My .02 and please go ahead and contradict/argue/agree. I'm offering this up for discussion, not as a lecture where I think I'm right and that's all there is to it. In fact. rereading this I can see where I could easily argue with myself. So fire away, my friends!
Monday, April 24, 2017
The Diversity of Americans Abroad
In the Greater Journey: Americans In Paris the author David McCullough described the epiphany experienced by Charles Sumner in 1838 at a lecture at the Sorbonne on the Greek philosopher Heraclites. Sumner was startled to see young, well-dressed people of African origin in the audience. He was even more intrigued because their presence did not cause any comment and they were simply students like any other student at this prestigious institution of learning. Sumner wrote:
Oddly enough, Americans at home and abroad are often surprised by this. What they have to say goes something like this: "African-Americans (and other non-white Americans) are so oppressed at home and are so poor that they can't possibly travel or go abroad like white Americans." Really. And so how would they explain the presence of African-Americans, Asian-Americans, native Americans and Hispanic Americans in places like Paris, Tokyo, Shanghai, Berlin?
That kind of thinking just makes me crazy. I'm not sure what offends me more, the vision of African-Americans as so lacking in resources that they are stuck in the US, or the idea that all Americans of European origin are rich and thus they are the only Americans able to go abroad. African-Americans were going abroad before slavery was abolished in the US and one of the reasons many left was because of racism and lack of opportunity in the US. Whatever progress has been made in America, it is still an argument that resonates. In an article on the Fly Brother website, Ernest White II writes:
As explained in The Age of Migration (Castles, Haas & Miller 5th edition, p. 29) the problem with classic economic models of migration is that while extreme poverty can slow or stop some migration, "Improved education and media exposure may increase feeling of relative deprivation, and may give rise to higher aspirations and, therefore, increased migration, without any change in local opportunities."
In my study of Anglophones in Japan the American survey and interview participants had very diverse socio-economic statuses in the United States. Many were the children of police officers, teachers, nurses, truck drivers, factory workers, or domestic workers. The majority did not have degrees from elite institutions. And many were from rural areas, small towns or small regional cities as opposed to connected global metropolises like New York or Los Angeles.
Add to this mix the Great Recession and the decline of the middle-class, and worsening conditions for the working classes and I am amazed that so many of the 62% of Americans making less than 50,000 USD actually stay in the US. And what stops them from migrating, I suspect, has more to do with the myth that America is a place people immigrate to and not a place people emigrate from, debt, problems with certificates and other professional credentials being recognized abroad, and nation-state emigration and immigration bureaucracy than extreme poverty. I could be entirely off base about this, and please challenge me if you have a different opinion.
Because the fact is that Americans do leave and have always left America. Today, there are African-Americans in Tokyo, Chinese-Americans in Paris, and Native Americans in Berlin. And let us not forget that a sizable number of Americans abroad are military personnel (about 200,000) living in over 150 countries. The US Army and Navy are even more diverse than the general US population (see page 34 of the Population Representation in the Military Services). Civilian Americans abroad frequently overlook them because US foreign policy is often criticized by our host countries and there is a distancing from it. And, to be brutally honest, I think there are generational, class and racial issues here as well. Not all American military go home to the US as the wide network of VFW posts around the world will attest. In my travels I have met veterans of World War II, Vietnam, and both Iraq wars living in France, Japan, and Belgium.
So for me there is no doubt that the diversity of Americans in the homeland is reflected in the population of Americans living abroad. And that leads us back to Sumner's epiphany. In some ways Americans in the homeland and abroad are just as clueless as he was. African-Americans abroad? How ever did they manage to do that? Well, drop the condescending attitude, learn something about Americans abroad, and you'll find out, folks.
The diversity is there, we just don't acknowledge and value it as much as we should. At our worst we actually perpetuate harmful stereotypes about our compatriots and acquiesce to the racism in our host societies. I have had some very troubling conversations over the years where Americans have stood by and watched (or even colluded with) the racism, classism, and sexism in their host societies against their fellow Americans.
The ugliest Americans, I suggest to you, my dear readers, are not those who struggle with a foreign language and the culture, but those "consummate asses" who elevate themselves at the expense of other migrants and their own compatriots. Pretend to be the only American in Paris, Buenos Aires, Brussels, Tokyo, Shanghai or Singapore, if you must, but do get a reality check from time to time. There are 75,000 other Americans in Paris with tales to tell and you are hardly living in a "ghetto" if you acknowledge them in the streets and have coffee and a chat once in a while. Broadening your horizons in a foreign country can be as much about meeting Americans you would never have encountered at home as it is about integrating in the host society. Before I moved to France I had never spent time with anyone from New York Arizona or Michigan.
Above all, do no harm by word or deed to other settlers and sojourners. We have all rolled the dice in the Cosmic Crapshoot of Life. We have all crossed borders. We are all migrants. And for those of us with pretty blue passports, we are all Americans.
- "They were standing in the midst of a knot of young men and their color seemed no objection to them. I was glad to see this, though with American impressions, it seemed very strange. It must be then that the distance between free blacks and whites among us is derived from education, and does not exist in the nature of things."
Oddly enough, Americans at home and abroad are often surprised by this. What they have to say goes something like this: "African-Americans (and other non-white Americans) are so oppressed at home and are so poor that they can't possibly travel or go abroad like white Americans." Really. And so how would they explain the presence of African-Americans, Asian-Americans, native Americans and Hispanic Americans in places like Paris, Tokyo, Shanghai, Berlin?
That kind of thinking just makes me crazy. I'm not sure what offends me more, the vision of African-Americans as so lacking in resources that they are stuck in the US, or the idea that all Americans of European origin are rich and thus they are the only Americans able to go abroad. African-Americans were going abroad before slavery was abolished in the US and one of the reasons many left was because of racism and lack of opportunity in the US. Whatever progress has been made in America, it is still an argument that resonates. In an article on the Fly Brother website, Ernest White II writes:
- "We have options. There are places in this world where our presence isn’t viewed as a menace, as a problem, or even as an inconvenience. There are places where we are welcomed, listened to, appreciated, and even loved. These places can and do challenge us in ways we could have never imagined, but our very existence isn’t challenged...In the end, the tangible investment in passport fees, airline tickets, and lodging expenses pay off in that they remove the yoke of low expectations. They can release us from the snares of a society that thinks it’s got us all figured out. Most importantly, these investments pay off in options."
As explained in The Age of Migration (Castles, Haas & Miller 5th edition, p. 29) the problem with classic economic models of migration is that while extreme poverty can slow or stop some migration, "Improved education and media exposure may increase feeling of relative deprivation, and may give rise to higher aspirations and, therefore, increased migration, without any change in local opportunities."
In my study of Anglophones in Japan the American survey and interview participants had very diverse socio-economic statuses in the United States. Many were the children of police officers, teachers, nurses, truck drivers, factory workers, or domestic workers. The majority did not have degrees from elite institutions. And many were from rural areas, small towns or small regional cities as opposed to connected global metropolises like New York or Los Angeles.
Add to this mix the Great Recession and the decline of the middle-class, and worsening conditions for the working classes and I am amazed that so many of the 62% of Americans making less than 50,000 USD actually stay in the US. And what stops them from migrating, I suspect, has more to do with the myth that America is a place people immigrate to and not a place people emigrate from, debt, problems with certificates and other professional credentials being recognized abroad, and nation-state emigration and immigration bureaucracy than extreme poverty. I could be entirely off base about this, and please challenge me if you have a different opinion.
Because the fact is that Americans do leave and have always left America. Today, there are African-Americans in Tokyo, Chinese-Americans in Paris, and Native Americans in Berlin. And let us not forget that a sizable number of Americans abroad are military personnel (about 200,000) living in over 150 countries. The US Army and Navy are even more diverse than the general US population (see page 34 of the Population Representation in the Military Services). Civilian Americans abroad frequently overlook them because US foreign policy is often criticized by our host countries and there is a distancing from it. And, to be brutally honest, I think there are generational, class and racial issues here as well. Not all American military go home to the US as the wide network of VFW posts around the world will attest. In my travels I have met veterans of World War II, Vietnam, and both Iraq wars living in France, Japan, and Belgium.
So for me there is no doubt that the diversity of Americans in the homeland is reflected in the population of Americans living abroad. And that leads us back to Sumner's epiphany. In some ways Americans in the homeland and abroad are just as clueless as he was. African-Americans abroad? How ever did they manage to do that? Well, drop the condescending attitude, learn something about Americans abroad, and you'll find out, folks.
The diversity is there, we just don't acknowledge and value it as much as we should. At our worst we actually perpetuate harmful stereotypes about our compatriots and acquiesce to the racism in our host societies. I have had some very troubling conversations over the years where Americans have stood by and watched (or even colluded with) the racism, classism, and sexism in their host societies against their fellow Americans.
The ugliest Americans, I suggest to you, my dear readers, are not those who struggle with a foreign language and the culture, but those "consummate asses" who elevate themselves at the expense of other migrants and their own compatriots. Pretend to be the only American in Paris, Buenos Aires, Brussels, Tokyo, Shanghai or Singapore, if you must, but do get a reality check from time to time. There are 75,000 other Americans in Paris with tales to tell and you are hardly living in a "ghetto" if you acknowledge them in the streets and have coffee and a chat once in a while. Broadening your horizons in a foreign country can be as much about meeting Americans you would never have encountered at home as it is about integrating in the host society. Before I moved to France I had never spent time with anyone from New York Arizona or Michigan.
Above all, do no harm by word or deed to other settlers and sojourners. We have all rolled the dice in the Cosmic Crapshoot of Life. We have all crossed borders. We are all migrants. And for those of us with pretty blue passports, we are all Americans.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Return to the Ancestral Homeland
There are books that make me want to ask for my dissertation back so I can cite them and add to my bibliography. Redefining Japaneseness: Japanese Americans in the Ancestral Homeland by Jane Yamashiro is one I really regret not having read before I submitted.
This work is based on a study and fieldwork on Americans of Japanese origin who came to Japan to live and work. In this very clear, very well-written book, Yamashiro has some fascinating insights about their experiences. There are a few areas where I would respectfully disagree with her, but overall her arguments and conclusions are cogent and worth reading by anyone interested in migration.
Yamashiro declines to use terms like return migration or diaspora in favor of her own term: ancestral homeland migration. She makes a very good case that her term is more accurate and more useful in the context of her research on Japanese-Americans in Japan. Return migration is inaccurate, she says, because the Japanese have been migrating to the US for centuries and it's their children, grand-children or even great-grand-children who move to Japan. How can they "return" to a place they have never been before, to a land that is often only a distant memory passed down through family members? As for the term diaspora, she argues that this assumes an orientation toward that distant homeland that many second, third or fourth generation children of immigrants just don't have. Ancestral homeland migration, she argues, is a better fit because it doesn't use the language of "return" and it doesn't imply that there is any sort of active transnational connection between them and the land of their ancestors.
I found this argument to be very persuasive and I like the term. "Ancestor" implies distance while "homeland" acknowledges the connection to the destination country. "Migration" (without the "return") completes it because they are indeed on the move. Furthermore, I can see how is an elegant and appropriate way of describing, say, a Polish-Canadian's or Irish-American's move to Poland or Ireland. The connection may be distant but it is there.
Yamashiro also investigates something that we do not think about enough when we look at migration: the role of regions and sub-regions within a larger nation-state. Migrants do not just come from France, Canada, Brazil, they came at specific times from specific regions, towns, or cities. In Choquette's work on the French who came to Canada, she found that many came from urban areas which is surprising since they moved toward a rural life in Canada.
Yamashiro looked at where Japanese-Americans grew up in the United States and found a clear division between those who were from the continental US and those who came from Hawai'i. In the continental US (even areas in the West that were destinations for Japanese immigrants) Japanese-Americans are a minority. Some of her informants grew up in places where they were the only Asian family in the neighborhood. Not so in Hawai'i where Asians are not a minority and the Japanese-American community has influence and socioeconomic status.
These things have an impact on integration in Japan, Yamashiro argues. The ability to "pass" as Japanese in Japan is a kind of privilege that European or African Americans in Japan do not have. In my own research this was cited consistently by my Japanese-American participants as a reason they felt comfortable and integrated in Japan. They were presumed to be Japanese as they walked down the street in Tokyo or rode the metro to work. However, when they interact with Japanese, their Japanese phenotype clashes with their accent and their non-native level of language ability and cultural knowledge.
What is most fascinating are the strategies her Japan-American study participants used to get around their unveiling as "stealth migrants." Those from the continental US would make it clear that they were Americans with native-level English. Those from Hawai'i emphasized their regional identity over the national (US) one. Hawai'i has a very favorable image in Japan and it is a common tourist destination for Japanese tourists and emigrants. This is a very deft use of race, nationality, reginal identity, and language to create a favorable space within Japanese society. And it is one that they are uniquely qualified to use.
My quibbles with Yamashiro's work are minor but I will mention two areas where I have a different view.
I felt that she made assumptions about "white privilege" and a preference for whiteness in Japan that have been challenged. The idea that some migrants are automatically privileged because they are "white" is something that may have been true at one point in Japan, but is it still true? I see a lot of evidence that this is not necessarily true now. I would have liked to have seen a more nuanced presentation of this race-based "privilege" that points to research that contests these assumptions. Also, the idea that a preference for white skin in Japan is linked to Europeans and white North Americans has been challenged by Hiroshi Wagatsuma (1967) who showed that this preference goes back to the Nara period (8th century) and predates the presence of Europeans in Japan by centuries.
The other assumption that deserves a closer look is the notion of English Language Teaching (ELT) as a white-collar "privileged" profession. One has only to look at the research and the media reports in Japan to begin questioning that assumption. I would argue that it was, indeed, a profession with status at a certain point in time in Japan. The picture is very different today.
But those are relatively minor quibbles. None of these assumptions are directly linked to her main arguments which are, in my view, thoughtful and persuasive. The short review I have written here does not begin to do justice to the entire work. I highly recommend you read it for yourself.
This work is based on a study and fieldwork on Americans of Japanese origin who came to Japan to live and work. In this very clear, very well-written book, Yamashiro has some fascinating insights about their experiences. There are a few areas where I would respectfully disagree with her, but overall her arguments and conclusions are cogent and worth reading by anyone interested in migration.
Yamashiro declines to use terms like return migration or diaspora in favor of her own term: ancestral homeland migration. She makes a very good case that her term is more accurate and more useful in the context of her research on Japanese-Americans in Japan. Return migration is inaccurate, she says, because the Japanese have been migrating to the US for centuries and it's their children, grand-children or even great-grand-children who move to Japan. How can they "return" to a place they have never been before, to a land that is often only a distant memory passed down through family members? As for the term diaspora, she argues that this assumes an orientation toward that distant homeland that many second, third or fourth generation children of immigrants just don't have. Ancestral homeland migration, she argues, is a better fit because it doesn't use the language of "return" and it doesn't imply that there is any sort of active transnational connection between them and the land of their ancestors.
I found this argument to be very persuasive and I like the term. "Ancestor" implies distance while "homeland" acknowledges the connection to the destination country. "Migration" (without the "return") completes it because they are indeed on the move. Furthermore, I can see how is an elegant and appropriate way of describing, say, a Polish-Canadian's or Irish-American's move to Poland or Ireland. The connection may be distant but it is there.
Yamashiro also investigates something that we do not think about enough when we look at migration: the role of regions and sub-regions within a larger nation-state. Migrants do not just come from France, Canada, Brazil, they came at specific times from specific regions, towns, or cities. In Choquette's work on the French who came to Canada, she found that many came from urban areas which is surprising since they moved toward a rural life in Canada.
Yamashiro looked at where Japanese-Americans grew up in the United States and found a clear division between those who were from the continental US and those who came from Hawai'i. In the continental US (even areas in the West that were destinations for Japanese immigrants) Japanese-Americans are a minority. Some of her informants grew up in places where they were the only Asian family in the neighborhood. Not so in Hawai'i where Asians are not a minority and the Japanese-American community has influence and socioeconomic status.
These things have an impact on integration in Japan, Yamashiro argues. The ability to "pass" as Japanese in Japan is a kind of privilege that European or African Americans in Japan do not have. In my own research this was cited consistently by my Japanese-American participants as a reason they felt comfortable and integrated in Japan. They were presumed to be Japanese as they walked down the street in Tokyo or rode the metro to work. However, when they interact with Japanese, their Japanese phenotype clashes with their accent and their non-native level of language ability and cultural knowledge.
What is most fascinating are the strategies her Japan-American study participants used to get around their unveiling as "stealth migrants." Those from the continental US would make it clear that they were Americans with native-level English. Those from Hawai'i emphasized their regional identity over the national (US) one. Hawai'i has a very favorable image in Japan and it is a common tourist destination for Japanese tourists and emigrants. This is a very deft use of race, nationality, reginal identity, and language to create a favorable space within Japanese society. And it is one that they are uniquely qualified to use.
My quibbles with Yamashiro's work are minor but I will mention two areas where I have a different view.
I felt that she made assumptions about "white privilege" and a preference for whiteness in Japan that have been challenged. The idea that some migrants are automatically privileged because they are "white" is something that may have been true at one point in Japan, but is it still true? I see a lot of evidence that this is not necessarily true now. I would have liked to have seen a more nuanced presentation of this race-based "privilege" that points to research that contests these assumptions. Also, the idea that a preference for white skin in Japan is linked to Europeans and white North Americans has been challenged by Hiroshi Wagatsuma (1967) who showed that this preference goes back to the Nara period (8th century) and predates the presence of Europeans in Japan by centuries.
The other assumption that deserves a closer look is the notion of English Language Teaching (ELT) as a white-collar "privileged" profession. One has only to look at the research and the media reports in Japan to begin questioning that assumption. I would argue that it was, indeed, a profession with status at a certain point in time in Japan. The picture is very different today.
But those are relatively minor quibbles. None of these assumptions are directly linked to her main arguments which are, in my view, thoughtful and persuasive. The short review I have written here does not begin to do justice to the entire work. I highly recommend you read it for yourself.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
An American Abroad Looks at the US Presidential Race
Do home country national elections matter to emigrants/expatriates who live outside their countries of citizenship?
Some countries allow their diasporas to vote in national and even local elections. The French abroad, for example, can vote in French elections from their host countries, and Article 24 of the 1958 Constitution establishes the right of the French living outside of France to have direct representatives in the French Senate.
Having the franchise, however, does not guarantee that any national community abroad will exercise it. Mexicans abroad have had the right to vote in Mexico since 2005 and there are millions of Mexican citizens all over the world. But as of 2012 there were only 61,000 absentee ballots requested from over 100 countries.
So it's not enough to simply have the franchise in the home country, migrants/expatriates must also have the means to exercise that right and, I argue, a good reason to do so. Motivation really matters here. If there are no compelling issues that stir interest in a community abroad then they won't bother to register or send in their ballots.
With that in mind, let's look at the US presidential elections. In the latter part of the 20th century Americans abroad gained the right to vote with the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975 and The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) passed in 1986. Since that time the two major political parties in the US have worked to encourage voter participation in the US communities living outside the United States.
But as Dr. Claire Smith showed in her 2010 article for the Overseas Vote Foundation, only 374,955 civilians requested ballots from abroad for the 2008 elections and only 59.2% of those ballots were actually submitted. Problems with the voting process? Absolutely. And yet the number of overseas citizens who tried to vote was not that high to begin with given that there are, according to the US State Department, around 7 million US citizens living abroad.
Why might that change in 2016? I would argue that Americans abroad do have a keen interest in this election - a personal dog in this fight that might encourage Americans abroad to vote in higher number than in the past.
The issues are the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and citizenship-based taxation - a deadly combination that is wreaking havoc in American communities all over the world. FATCA was passed in 2010 and requires banks in the host countries to report the accounts of US citizens and US Persons to the US government which has led banks in the host countries to close the personal accounts (checking, savings and retirement) of many Americans abroad, and declare all Americans persona non grata at their banks.
Citizenship-based taxation, US law that says that the incomes of US citizens/US Persons earned outside the United States are taxable by the United States government, has been around for many years but was not enforced until very recently (about 2008).
Americans abroad are not only furiously angry and deeply bitter about what they see as the hostile acts of their home country government, but some feel they have no choice but to renounce their US citizenship. That is the reason that renunciations of US citizenship have soared in the past few years.
For many, if not most, Americans abroad these are THE issues that trump (no pun intended) everything else. I call it the American Diaspora Tax War because I have never seen so much resentment and, strangely enough, solidarity on the part of Americans abroad. This situation has united angry Americans from many different countries around the world against the anti-emigrant policies of the US government.
This is the prism through which I see the upcoming US presidential elections and I don't think I'm alone here. The question, however, is whether or not the candidates will speak to those issues. To motivate Americans abroad to vote I think it is not enough for these issues to be mentioned as part of an overall party platform; they need to be addressed by the candidates directly.
So far I am not seeing that. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have a lot to say about domestic issues - gun control, the national debt, immigration - but after parsing the Issues sections of their websites, I don't see anything that speaks even indirectly to FATCA and citizenship-based taxation, their impact on Americans abroad, and what they plan to do about them.
The Democrats do at least nod in our direction and acknowledge our existence. Clinton has a special link for Americans abroad who want to contribute to her campaign. Sanders talks about tax reform (the super wealthy, corporations, and the use of tax havens) but seems oblivious to the existence of middle-class Americans living abroad who might need a little tax justice, too. (And I found that to be a real pity because I kind of like Sanders.)
Am I missing something here? You tell me. I invite the advocates of these candidates to come forward and direct me to whatever information is available that clarifies their position on what is happening to Americans abroad right now.
Do I and other Americans abroad care about the issues and the upcoming elections? I can't speak for anyone but myself but my answer is: Of course I do. I have family in the US and things like gun control, healthcare, US immigration and the national debt impact the people I love.
That said, the only issues that have a direct impact on me are: foreign policy (because when that goes badly, Americans abroad are on the front lines) and US government policies toward its diaspora - the 7 million or so Americans living outside the United States.
If I believe that my issues are being ignored, or that candidates might actually make things worse for me and my compatriots abroad, not only will I not vote for those candidates, I probably won't vote at all.
Because the right to vote means nothing if you feel that the candidates aren't listening and that you don't have a voice deemed worthy of being heard.
Some countries allow their diasporas to vote in national and even local elections. The French abroad, for example, can vote in French elections from their host countries, and Article 24 of the 1958 Constitution establishes the right of the French living outside of France to have direct representatives in the French Senate.
Having the franchise, however, does not guarantee that any national community abroad will exercise it. Mexicans abroad have had the right to vote in Mexico since 2005 and there are millions of Mexican citizens all over the world. But as of 2012 there were only 61,000 absentee ballots requested from over 100 countries.
So it's not enough to simply have the franchise in the home country, migrants/expatriates must also have the means to exercise that right and, I argue, a good reason to do so. Motivation really matters here. If there are no compelling issues that stir interest in a community abroad then they won't bother to register or send in their ballots.
With that in mind, let's look at the US presidential elections. In the latter part of the 20th century Americans abroad gained the right to vote with the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975 and The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) passed in 1986. Since that time the two major political parties in the US have worked to encourage voter participation in the US communities living outside the United States.
But as Dr. Claire Smith showed in her 2010 article for the Overseas Vote Foundation, only 374,955 civilians requested ballots from abroad for the 2008 elections and only 59.2% of those ballots were actually submitted. Problems with the voting process? Absolutely. And yet the number of overseas citizens who tried to vote was not that high to begin with given that there are, according to the US State Department, around 7 million US citizens living abroad.
Why might that change in 2016? I would argue that Americans abroad do have a keen interest in this election - a personal dog in this fight that might encourage Americans abroad to vote in higher number than in the past.
The issues are the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and citizenship-based taxation - a deadly combination that is wreaking havoc in American communities all over the world. FATCA was passed in 2010 and requires banks in the host countries to report the accounts of US citizens and US Persons to the US government which has led banks in the host countries to close the personal accounts (checking, savings and retirement) of many Americans abroad, and declare all Americans persona non grata at their banks.
Citizenship-based taxation, US law that says that the incomes of US citizens/US Persons earned outside the United States are taxable by the United States government, has been around for many years but was not enforced until very recently (about 2008).
Americans abroad are not only furiously angry and deeply bitter about what they see as the hostile acts of their home country government, but some feel they have no choice but to renounce their US citizenship. That is the reason that renunciations of US citizenship have soared in the past few years.
For many, if not most, Americans abroad these are THE issues that trump (no pun intended) everything else. I call it the American Diaspora Tax War because I have never seen so much resentment and, strangely enough, solidarity on the part of Americans abroad. This situation has united angry Americans from many different countries around the world against the anti-emigrant policies of the US government.
This is the prism through which I see the upcoming US presidential elections and I don't think I'm alone here. The question, however, is whether or not the candidates will speak to those issues. To motivate Americans abroad to vote I think it is not enough for these issues to be mentioned as part of an overall party platform; they need to be addressed by the candidates directly.
So far I am not seeing that. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have a lot to say about domestic issues - gun control, the national debt, immigration - but after parsing the Issues sections of their websites, I don't see anything that speaks even indirectly to FATCA and citizenship-based taxation, their impact on Americans abroad, and what they plan to do about them.
The Democrats do at least nod in our direction and acknowledge our existence. Clinton has a special link for Americans abroad who want to contribute to her campaign. Sanders talks about tax reform (the super wealthy, corporations, and the use of tax havens) but seems oblivious to the existence of middle-class Americans living abroad who might need a little tax justice, too. (And I found that to be a real pity because I kind of like Sanders.)
Am I missing something here? You tell me. I invite the advocates of these candidates to come forward and direct me to whatever information is available that clarifies their position on what is happening to Americans abroad right now.
Do I and other Americans abroad care about the issues and the upcoming elections? I can't speak for anyone but myself but my answer is: Of course I do. I have family in the US and things like gun control, healthcare, US immigration and the national debt impact the people I love.
That said, the only issues that have a direct impact on me are: foreign policy (because when that goes badly, Americans abroad are on the front lines) and US government policies toward its diaspora - the 7 million or so Americans living outside the United States.
If I believe that my issues are being ignored, or that candidates might actually make things worse for me and my compatriots abroad, not only will I not vote for those candidates, I probably won't vote at all.
Because the right to vote means nothing if you feel that the candidates aren't listening and that you don't have a voice deemed worthy of being heard.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Americans Abroad as Unofficial Ambassadors
When Americans abroad talk to the homeland, we often use term 'Unofficial Ambassador' to convey the idea that while we are living in foreign lands we play an informal but important role representing the United States abroad.
We claim this role repeatedly in part because it does resonate with Americans in the US. As Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels notes in the conclusion of her book about American in Europe, in 2008 both candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, nodded in the direction of Americans abroad saying how important we were as the "first contact other nationalities have with our country." (McCain).
'Unofficial ambassador' is a wonderful term because it's just brimming over with goodwill. When a country wants to maintain peaceful relations and contact with another it sends an ambassador (otherwise it would send troops, right?) It's a terrible term because while it sounds so benevolent, it's precise meaning is elusive. And it might be a dangerous term because there may be a disconnect between what we, the civilian Americans abroad, mean in the context of resolving our grievances, and what the US government and the American people hear.
I raise this question because there is a very good book out there called Unofficial Ambassadors: American Military Families Overseas and the Cold War, 1946-1965 by Donna Alvah. In that era the US military had a very clear vision of what was meant by an 'unofficial ambassador.' This was a role assigned primarily to the wives and children of soldiers living abroad on US bases in countries like Germany or Japan. Alvah herself spent part of her childhood on Okinawa.
How important was this to the US military? Very. "As burgeoning numbers of family members joined servicemen overseas in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, and as the Cold War developed, official prescriptive literature encouraging wives and children to act as 'unofficial ambassadors' in their everyday activities among local people in foreign countries." (Alvah: 39) The role, in a sense, was a military asset because the goal was to have good relations with people in the host countries so that they would have a favorable opinion of Americans, American bases and American military and foreign policy objectives.
In 1960 there were 462,000 dependents of members of the armed forced living outside the United States. That is not just a few women and children, that's a veritable army of 'unofficial ambassadors'.
What were those 'unofficial ambassadors' (mostly wives) expected to do? Alvah says: "the demonstration of courtesy and good will to local people, respect for the customs and obedience to the laws of host nations, the promotion of 'human understanding' and the countering of bad impressions made by other Americans." (Alvah: 74)
Yes, part of the job was to counter the behaviour of 'Ugly Americans' by showing that not all Americans were flashy, crude, and loud. In the Philippines American military wives were told to dress appropriately: "not to wear clothes that were too casual or revealing..." to "cover their heads and shoulders in church... and to "wear modest dresses..." (Alvah: 77). In France, they were told to mimic the style and fashion sense of the local French women. Everywhere those American women went, they were encouraged to volunteer at local organizations or to start clubs and friendship associations. And, above all, they were asked to be respectful and learn the local language, customs and values.
And doesn't this all sounds a bit like an exercise in integration? Yes, but Alvah points out that there was a real contradiction here: American women were being asked to partially integrate into the host country culture with the goal of "creating international alliances that ultimately served the economic and political interests of the United States." (Alvah: 102)
I personally don't see anything nefarious about this (feel free to disagree) but I would like to point out that these 'unofficial ambassadors' worked from the late 1940s to the end of the Cold War with an objective that I doubt very much is shared by civilian Americans abroad in the late 20th/early 21st century. If that is the meaning the US government places on that term - Americans abroad as the "softer" side of foreign policy - than we are not being entirely honest when we use it.
And I note that these informal 'lady ambassadors' in the Cold War era were only very rarely recognized or compensated for their work. Certainly the US military , the US government and perhaps even the American public appreciated their contribution, but that appreciation ended with purely symbolic gestures.
When we claim this title for ourselves, we are asking for a lot more than just a gesture (something that Obama and McCain were more than happy to give us because it cost them nothing); we are claiming that we've earned through service the right to be heard, and to have some of our grievances addressed. That, I think, is a rather unrealistic expectation.
Because, from what I can see, those 'unofficial ambassadors' in times past never got anything more than a "Thank you for your service."
And that, mes amis, would be nice but it's not nearly enough.
We claim this role repeatedly in part because it does resonate with Americans in the US. As Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels notes in the conclusion of her book about American in Europe, in 2008 both candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, nodded in the direction of Americans abroad saying how important we were as the "first contact other nationalities have with our country." (McCain).
'Unofficial ambassador' is a wonderful term because it's just brimming over with goodwill. When a country wants to maintain peaceful relations and contact with another it sends an ambassador (otherwise it would send troops, right?) It's a terrible term because while it sounds so benevolent, it's precise meaning is elusive. And it might be a dangerous term because there may be a disconnect between what we, the civilian Americans abroad, mean in the context of resolving our grievances, and what the US government and the American people hear.
I raise this question because there is a very good book out there called Unofficial Ambassadors: American Military Families Overseas and the Cold War, 1946-1965 by Donna Alvah. In that era the US military had a very clear vision of what was meant by an 'unofficial ambassador.' This was a role assigned primarily to the wives and children of soldiers living abroad on US bases in countries like Germany or Japan. Alvah herself spent part of her childhood on Okinawa.
How important was this to the US military? Very. "As burgeoning numbers of family members joined servicemen overseas in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, and as the Cold War developed, official prescriptive literature encouraging wives and children to act as 'unofficial ambassadors' in their everyday activities among local people in foreign countries." (Alvah: 39) The role, in a sense, was a military asset because the goal was to have good relations with people in the host countries so that they would have a favorable opinion of Americans, American bases and American military and foreign policy objectives.
In 1960 there were 462,000 dependents of members of the armed forced living outside the United States. That is not just a few women and children, that's a veritable army of 'unofficial ambassadors'.
What were those 'unofficial ambassadors' (mostly wives) expected to do? Alvah says: "the demonstration of courtesy and good will to local people, respect for the customs and obedience to the laws of host nations, the promotion of 'human understanding' and the countering of bad impressions made by other Americans." (Alvah: 74)
Yes, part of the job was to counter the behaviour of 'Ugly Americans' by showing that not all Americans were flashy, crude, and loud. In the Philippines American military wives were told to dress appropriately: "not to wear clothes that were too casual or revealing..." to "cover their heads and shoulders in church... and to "wear modest dresses..." (Alvah: 77). In France, they were told to mimic the style and fashion sense of the local French women. Everywhere those American women went, they were encouraged to volunteer at local organizations or to start clubs and friendship associations. And, above all, they were asked to be respectful and learn the local language, customs and values.
And doesn't this all sounds a bit like an exercise in integration? Yes, but Alvah points out that there was a real contradiction here: American women were being asked to partially integrate into the host country culture with the goal of "creating international alliances that ultimately served the economic and political interests of the United States." (Alvah: 102)
I personally don't see anything nefarious about this (feel free to disagree) but I would like to point out that these 'unofficial ambassadors' worked from the late 1940s to the end of the Cold War with an objective that I doubt very much is shared by civilian Americans abroad in the late 20th/early 21st century. If that is the meaning the US government places on that term - Americans abroad as the "softer" side of foreign policy - than we are not being entirely honest when we use it.
And I note that these informal 'lady ambassadors' in the Cold War era were only very rarely recognized or compensated for their work. Certainly the US military , the US government and perhaps even the American public appreciated their contribution, but that appreciation ended with purely symbolic gestures.
When we claim this title for ourselves, we are asking for a lot more than just a gesture (something that Obama and McCain were more than happy to give us because it cost them nothing); we are claiming that we've earned through service the right to be heard, and to have some of our grievances addressed. That, I think, is a rather unrealistic expectation.
Because, from what I can see, those 'unofficial ambassadors' in times past never got anything more than a "Thank you for your service."
And that, mes amis, would be nice but it's not nearly enough.
Friday, July 17, 2015
A Message from the Americans Abroad Caucus
Yesterday, representatives Carolyn B. Maloney (Democrat-New York) and Mike Honda (Democrat-California) issued a press release about their bill calling for the creation of a Commission on Americans Living Abroad.
H.R. 597 which was introduced in 2011/2012 would "establish a commission to study how Federal laws and policies affect United States citizens living in foreign countries." In the 2015 press release they say: "to study the variety of ways federal policy fails those living outside the 50 states." (Italics are mine.)
H.R. 597 which was introduced in 2011/2012 would "establish a commission to study how Federal laws and policies affect United States citizens living in foreign countries." In the 2015 press release they say: "to study the variety of ways federal policy fails those living outside the 50 states." (Italics are mine.)
Note the timing of the press release - just a few days after Republicans Overseas announced that the FATCA/FBAR Complaint and Motion for preliminary injunction has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton on behalf of 8.7 million overseas Americans. Democrats Abroad shot back with their own statement condemning the lawsuit.
You can read all about it at the Isaac Brock Society: The Bopp Suit Has Arrived. You can also read my take on the lawsuit and my notes from Senator Mike Lee and superlawyer James Bopp, Jr.'s Paris visit back in October: A Chance to Turn the Tide.
You can read all about it at the Isaac Brock Society: The Bopp Suit Has Arrived. You can also read my take on the lawsuit and my notes from Senator Mike Lee and superlawyer James Bopp, Jr.'s Paris visit back in October: A Chance to Turn the Tide.
According to Maloney and Honda's press release, this Commission on Americans Living Abroad, a 10-member bipartisan committee, would study and make recommendations on:
- Federal financial reporting requirements for a US citizen living in a foreign country
- Federal policies and requirements that affect an overseas citizen’s access to foreign and domestic financial institutions
- Federal requirements for a spouse, child or another family member of a US citizen living abroad to become a US citizen
- The ability of a US citizen living overseas to vote in Federal, State and local elections in the US, and the process by which they do so
- The process by which a US citizen living abroad interacts with Federal programs like Social Security and Medicare
- Methods to improve collaborations between US citizens abroad and Federal Agencies that oversee programs that serve them
I wrote about this proposed Commission in 2012 : "Representative Carolyn B. Maloney of New York has put forward a very modest proposal for a commission that would start a dialogue between us. It would cost around 3 million dollars a year, a mere drop in the bucket compared to the overall federal budget - though I suppose if we asked a U.S. military contractor to cater it, it might cost quite a bit more than that. ACA and AARO are ready with some well researched material about how citizenship-based taxation and other homeland legislation effects us, and does no good whatsoever for the homeland."
Good to see that it's back.
Friday, June 5, 2015
Flophouse American Diaspora Reading List
“Sometimes we feel we straddle two cultures; at other times, that we fall between two stools.”
The Citizenship of Americans Living Abroad: Democracy and Those Who Leave by Katya C. Long. A Flophouse reader says the Routledge website indicates that this one will be published on November 30th 2015.
Revoking Citizenship: Expatriation in America from the Colonial Era to the War on Terror (2015) by Ben Herzog. Not as good a book as Sovereign Citizen by Patrick Weil, but still a fine read. The US has a fine tradition of making and unmaking citizens. Who was not worthy to remain an American citizen? In one era it was race, in another it was having the wrong ideology, and in our time it is support for terrorist organizations. Herzog quotes extensively from Peter Spiro's work and argues that it is the duals who are the most vulnerable today because, he posits, we are living in a period where dual citizenship is merely tolerated, not accepted.
American Africans in Ghana: Black Expatriates in the Civil Rights Era (2008) by Kevin K. Gaines. In 1957 the British Gold Coast colony in sub-Saharan Africa became the independent state of Ghana. A number of Americans of African descent left the US at the time to live, work, or simply lend their support to the new state. People like Maya Angelou, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Richard Wright. The Civil Rights Movement in the US had an international dimension and many activists saw their fight for rights in the United States as part of the larger context of African national independence movements. An amazing story with a not so happy ending - a military coup took down the regime in 1966.
The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic (2013) by Patrick Weil. Really superb book. Excellent research into the un-making of American citizens in the 20th century.
The Other Side of the Fence: American Migrants in Mexico (2010) by Sheila Croucher. A book that came out of a study that Ms. Croucher conducted on US citizens residing in Mexico. This is not a definitive book about Americans in Mexico in the first decade of the 21st century. It's a sketch that leaves out a lot and once we have that firmly in our minds, we can look more closely at some of her arguments and the questions she asks about the meaning of this group in the larger picture of regional migration on the North American continent. Flophouse review here.
Round-Trip to America: The Immigrants Return to Europe (1996) by Mark Wyman. Fascinating look at the immigrants who came to America and then turned around and went back home. How many? Hard to know but in the brief period where the US government tried to track it (1908-1923) the inflow to America was nearly 10 million and the outflow was 3.5 million of which 88% were Europeans. Wyman notes that these remigrants represented an important connection to the United States and were viewed as "americani" and "Yanks" when they resettled in their countries of origin. Worth reading to remind us all that migration is not an aller simple.
The Other Americans in Paris: Businessmen, Countesses, Wayward Youth, 1880-1941 (2014) by Nancy L. Green. I was really looking forward to this one and it did not disappoint (gave it four stars on Goodreads). The American community/colony in Paris has always been far more diverse than one might think: businessmen (and women), lawyers, doctors, dentists as well as students and artists and writers. Green does an excellent job of broadening our perspective about this community which has existed since before the American Revolution. I highly recommend this book and all of Nancy Green's work.
Civic Myths: A Law-And-Literature Approach to Citizenship (2007) by Brook Thomas. There is citizenship as the law of the land which defines who is legally "in" (or "out") but there is also the social context around it which influences how we feel about that citizenship. Thomas shows how the "good citizen" or the "immigrant citizen" were portrayed in popular American literature. The most interesting for me was his discussion about the very famous essay The Man Without a Country which may still be influencing how Americans feel about expatriation (renouncing or losing US citizenship).
Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity (1985) by Peter H. Schuck and Rogers Smith. My review is here. This is a book that argues against the rather broad application of US jus soli citizenship laws. I think it reads very differently for an American living outside the US who is aware that these laws have created something that is being referred to now as an "Accidental American."
What Soldiers Do: Sex and the American GI in World War II France (2013) by Mary Louise Roberts. Well-researched and has so much information in it that I was in awe as I was reading it. However, I'm not so sure about the conclusions she drew from that research. I think I need to read it again before I can give it a fair review. If you have read it, let me know in the comments section what you thought.
Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization by Peter Spiro (2008). This one is already on the Flophouse Diaspora and International Migration Reading List but it definitely should go here as well. What has happened, in his view, to US citizenship in a globalized world? I am planning on re-reading it with my American abroad eye taking into account what has happened in the world to US citizenship since 2010.
Expatriation, Expatriates, and Expats: The American Transformation of a Concept by Nancy L. Green. This article (available on-line) was published in 2009 in the The American Historical Review. Great essay about American expatriation in the legal and cultural senses. How did the right to expatriate (the right to leave) go from a mechanism for "nation-building" to one of excluding Americans from the nation?
Americans Abroad: A Comparative Study of Emigrants from the United States by A. Dashefsky et al. Published in 1992 this is a study of Americans migrants in Australia and Israel (Canada is briefly mentioned as well). It asks provocative questions about motives for leaving, adaptation in these countries, and why the migrants stayed, returned to the US, or decided to move on to a third country. In the final chapter are some interesting conclusions and proposals for policies around this emigration one of which is: "Deter efforts to force migrants to change citizenship or otherwise make a permanent, formal commitment to one society or another."
The Unknown Ambassadors: A Saga of Citizenship by Phyllis Michaux.
Diaspora Politics: At Home Abroad by Gabriel Sheffer. This is a general book about diaspora politics but I include it here for two reasons: 1. It will put the efforts for recognition in the three previous books on this list in a much larger context. There are patterns, general strategies that all diasporas use or try to use as they attempt to manage the relationship with the homeland over different issues and 2. He examines the question of whether or not the American communities abroad (some of which have a history that goes back to the American Revolution in the 18th century) constitute a true diaspora.
A Gathering of Fugitives: American Political Expatriates in Mexico 1948-1965 (2002) by Diana Anhalt. a fascinating portrait of American political expatriates, a "small group of controversial Americans who found refuge in Mexico during the late 40's and throughout the '50's..." Flophouse review here.
Tales of Mogadiscio by Iris Kapil
Salman Rushdie, Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-1991
Upcoming Titles:
Time for an update of the Flophouse American Diaspora Reading List - the best books and articles I've read recently about American people and communities abroad. New books are in green. As always, please feel free to add to the list.
This list has three sections: Upcoming titles - Books that have not been published yet but that I plan on reading; General books/articles - the larger view. Some talk about specific issues (like citizenship), others are studies, portraits or serious research about Americans abroad; Expat autobiographies - Accounts of Americans in different countries. These are not books that tell a potential American migrant how to live abroad. These are personal accounts that talk about what happens to American identity when it gets transplanted somewhere else for a year or two, or for a lifetime.
The Citizenship of Americans Living Abroad: Democracy and Those Who Leave by Katya C. Long. A Flophouse reader says the Routledge website indicates that this one will be published on November 30th 2015.
*********************************************************
General books:
Arabists: The Romance of an American Elite (1995) by Robert D. Kaplan. Kaplan is one of my favorites. I don't always agree with him but he writes beautifully and he does his research. This books has excellent portraits of the American communities in places like Lebanon in the 19th and early 20th century. They were not just missionaries, they were educators, explorers and advocates. Kaplan draws a line between that American expatriate "localitis" which was passed down to their intellectual heirs in the late 20th century, and the diplomatic debacle behind the first Iraq war.
General books:
Arabists: The Romance of an American Elite (1995) by Robert D. Kaplan. Kaplan is one of my favorites. I don't always agree with him but he writes beautifully and he does his research. This books has excellent portraits of the American communities in places like Lebanon in the 19th and early 20th century. They were not just missionaries, they were educators, explorers and advocates. Kaplan draws a line between that American expatriate "localitis" which was passed down to their intellectual heirs in the late 20th century, and the diplomatic debacle behind the first Iraq war.
Revoking Citizenship: Expatriation in America from the Colonial Era to the War on Terror (2015) by Ben Herzog. Not as good a book as Sovereign Citizen by Patrick Weil, but still a fine read. The US has a fine tradition of making and unmaking citizens. Who was not worthy to remain an American citizen? In one era it was race, in another it was having the wrong ideology, and in our time it is support for terrorist organizations. Herzog quotes extensively from Peter Spiro's work and argues that it is the duals who are the most vulnerable today because, he posits, we are living in a period where dual citizenship is merely tolerated, not accepted.
American Africans in Ghana: Black Expatriates in the Civil Rights Era (2008) by Kevin K. Gaines. In 1957 the British Gold Coast colony in sub-Saharan Africa became the independent state of Ghana. A number of Americans of African descent left the US at the time to live, work, or simply lend their support to the new state. People like Maya Angelou, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Richard Wright. The Civil Rights Movement in the US had an international dimension and many activists saw their fight for rights in the United States as part of the larger context of African national independence movements. An amazing story with a not so happy ending - a military coup took down the regime in 1966.
The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic (2013) by Patrick Weil. Really superb book. Excellent research into the un-making of American citizens in the 20th century.
The Other Side of the Fence: American Migrants in Mexico (2010) by Sheila Croucher. A book that came out of a study that Ms. Croucher conducted on US citizens residing in Mexico. This is not a definitive book about Americans in Mexico in the first decade of the 21st century. It's a sketch that leaves out a lot and once we have that firmly in our minds, we can look more closely at some of her arguments and the questions she asks about the meaning of this group in the larger picture of regional migration on the North American continent. Flophouse review here.
Round-Trip to America: The Immigrants Return to Europe (1996) by Mark Wyman. Fascinating look at the immigrants who came to America and then turned around and went back home. How many? Hard to know but in the brief period where the US government tried to track it (1908-1923) the inflow to America was nearly 10 million and the outflow was 3.5 million of which 88% were Europeans. Wyman notes that these remigrants represented an important connection to the United States and were viewed as "americani" and "Yanks" when they resettled in their countries of origin. Worth reading to remind us all that migration is not an aller simple.
The Other Americans in Paris: Businessmen, Countesses, Wayward Youth, 1880-1941 (2014) by Nancy L. Green. I was really looking forward to this one and it did not disappoint (gave it four stars on Goodreads). The American community/colony in Paris has always been far more diverse than one might think: businessmen (and women), lawyers, doctors, dentists as well as students and artists and writers. Green does an excellent job of broadening our perspective about this community which has existed since before the American Revolution. I highly recommend this book and all of Nancy Green's work.
Civic Myths: A Law-And-Literature Approach to Citizenship (2007) by Brook Thomas. There is citizenship as the law of the land which defines who is legally "in" (or "out") but there is also the social context around it which influences how we feel about that citizenship. Thomas shows how the "good citizen" or the "immigrant citizen" were portrayed in popular American literature. The most interesting for me was his discussion about the very famous essay The Man Without a Country which may still be influencing how Americans feel about expatriation (renouncing or losing US citizenship).
Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity (1985) by Peter H. Schuck and Rogers Smith. My review is here. This is a book that argues against the rather broad application of US jus soli citizenship laws. I think it reads very differently for an American living outside the US who is aware that these laws have created something that is being referred to now as an "Accidental American."
What Soldiers Do: Sex and the American GI in World War II France (2013) by Mary Louise Roberts. Well-researched and has so much information in it that I was in awe as I was reading it. However, I'm not so sure about the conclusions she drew from that research. I think I need to read it again before I can give it a fair review. If you have read it, let me know in the comments section what you thought.
Migrants or Expatriates? Americans in Europe by Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels. This one came in 2014 and is THE book to read if you are interested in knowing something concrete about just who those absent Americans (7 million or so of them) are: socioeconomic status, political affiliations, host country, integration, identity and so much more. Short Flophouse review here and an interview she gave about the book here.
The Citizenship Revolution: Politics and the Creation of the American Union, 1774-1804 by Douglas Bradburn. This came out in 2009 and it examines the development of US citizenship in the post-Revolutionary War period. Fighting over citizenship in this newly independent state was influenced by what was going on in Europe (the French Revolution), the arrival of yet more immigrants and the naturalization question, and expatriation (how to give up US citizenship). For the last look no further then the fascinating case of one Gideon Henfield, an American who, when accused of privateering, invoked his "right to expatriate" and informed the court that he was no longer an American, but a Frenchman. He was acquitted in 1793 and allowed to leave and go about his business.
Expatriation, Expatriates, and Expats: The American Transformation of a Concept by Nancy L. Green. This article (available on-line) was published in 2009 in the The American Historical Review. Great essay about American expatriation in the legal and cultural senses. How did the right to expatriate (the right to leave) go from a mechanism for "nation-building" to one of excluding Americans from the nation?
Americans Abroad: A Comparative Study of Emigrants from the United States by A. Dashefsky et al. Published in 1992 this is a study of Americans migrants in Australia and Israel (Canada is briefly mentioned as well). It asks provocative questions about motives for leaving, adaptation in these countries, and why the migrants stayed, returned to the US, or decided to move on to a third country. In the final chapter are some interesting conclusions and proposals for policies around this emigration one of which is: "Deter efforts to force migrants to change citizenship or otherwise make a permanent, formal commitment to one society or another."
Leaving America: The New Expatriate Generation by John Wennersten.
Published in 2007, a very interesting book that re-examines the "American Dream" in the light of American emigration. Talks about Americans in Canada, Israel, Australia and New Zealand. It's one of the few I've found that includes African-American emigration and women migrants. Some good statistics (or at least estimates) at the end of the book.
The Unknown Ambassadors: A Saga of Citizenship by Phyllis Michaux.
Published in 1996, this is the story of how Americans abroad organized around issues of particular importance to Americans living outside the US: citizenship for the children of Americans who were born abroad, voting rights, and many other issues like Medicare from the 1970's to the 1990's. This is the diaspora going to the homeland government for recognition as a distinct group with particular interests. It's a battle that is still ongoing but this book is important because it's the only one I know of that gives the the history and the context behind today's efforts.
"Gilded Prostitution": Status, Money, And Transatlantic Marriages, 1870-1914 by Maureen E. Montgomery. The title is a bit off-putting but if you are an American woman married to a foreign national this is a good one. The marriages examined here are between elites (U.S. and U.K.) over a century ago and yet some of the negative (and positive) attitudes about women who marry foreigners and leave America are all too familiar. Under it all, of course, were questions of citizenship (should women lose their citizenship because they marry "out") and taxation where money followed these women abroad.
Americans Abroad, How Can We Count Them? This book which came out in 2010 is the transcript of a hearing held in 2001 by the U.S. Congress House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, Sub-committee on the Census, on the feasibility of including Americans civilians abroad in the census. This is the diaspora meeting the homeland government directly and the interplay between homeland interests and the interests of Americans abroad is fascinating. In particular the testimony of the representative from the U.S. State Department shines a light on the relationship between the US Embassies/Consulates and the American communities in the host countries.
"Gilded Prostitution": Status, Money, And Transatlantic Marriages, 1870-1914 by Maureen E. Montgomery. The title is a bit off-putting but if you are an American woman married to a foreign national this is a good one. The marriages examined here are between elites (U.S. and U.K.) over a century ago and yet some of the negative (and positive) attitudes about women who marry foreigners and leave America are all too familiar. Under it all, of course, were questions of citizenship (should women lose their citizenship because they marry "out") and taxation where money followed these women abroad.
Americans Abroad, How Can We Count Them? This book which came out in 2010 is the transcript of a hearing held in 2001 by the U.S. Congress House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, Sub-committee on the Census, on the feasibility of including Americans civilians abroad in the census. This is the diaspora meeting the homeland government directly and the interplay between homeland interests and the interests of Americans abroad is fascinating. In particular the testimony of the representative from the U.S. State Department shines a light on the relationship between the US Embassies/Consulates and the American communities in the host countries.
A Gathering of Fugitives: American Political Expatriates in Mexico 1948-1965 (2002) by Diana Anhalt. a fascinating portrait of American political expatriates, a "small group of controversial Americans who found refuge in Mexico during the late 40's and throughout the '50's..." Flophouse review here.
Innocents Abroad: Americans Teachers in the American Century by Jonathan Zimmerman.
This book focuses on one of the largest and most visible group of Americans who live and work abroad: teachers. Zimmerman talks about the distinct differences between those who went abroad in the first half of the 20th century and those who left in the latter half. Though the social, historical and political frameworks changed over time, he notes that there has always been a diversity of opinion and a debate about just what these Americans were doing (or supposed to be doing) abroad. There are things in here that will make Americans wince - not just how some Americans viewed the countries where they worked (especially those that were a part of the American empire like Puerto Rico or the Philippines) in the first part of the 20th century, but also how this continued with a different twist in the second half of the century.
Beyond Borders: Portraits Of American Women From Around The World by My-Linh Kunst
A beautiful book about American women abroad - the photography is stunning. These are ordinary women who have done (and are still doing) extraordinary things outside the US: Jean Darling (Ireland), Yuzana Khin (Thailand), Gillian McGuire (Italy), Kim Powell, (France), Lucy Laederich (France), Marcia Brittain (Uruguay), and Jane Cabanyes (Spain) to name just a few. The book came out of a FAWCO (Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas) project and is the work of two members: My-Linh Kunst (photography) and Charlotte Fox Zabusky. A longer Flophouse review of the book can be found here.
The Transplanted Woman by Gabrielle Varro
Gabrielle Varro is a CNRS researcher in anthropology and sociology who has studied bi-lingualism, immigration and the sociology of mixed-marriages. This book came out of a study that she conducted with AAWE of French-American marriages and families over generations. Some of it is about the dynamics of cross-cultural marriages but it also looks at American identity as it is transmitted through the American wives of French men. A Flophouse discussion of Varro's work can be found here.
**************************************
Autobiographies:
At Home in Japan: A Foreign Woman's Journey of Discovery (2010) by Rebecca Otowa. I was not impressed by the first half of the book and almost put it down. But I perservered and the second part was all that I could hope for. Flophouse review here.
Foreigner in My Own Backyard (2014) by Travis Casey. I found this when when I was looking for a copy of Bill Bryson's book. The author is an American who has been living in the UK for 20 years (he's a dual US/UK citizen) and who has had to come back to the US for a short time to care for family. These are his first impressions of life back in the homeland. It's funny (and sad sometimes). Some of his stories show just how ambivalent Americans in the US are about Americans who leave. If you are an American abroad and have ever toyed with the idea of going "home" for an extended visit, I think you will enjoy this one.
Foreigner in My Own Backyard (2014) by Travis Casey. I found this when when I was looking for a copy of Bill Bryson's book. The author is an American who has been living in the UK for 20 years (he's a dual US/UK citizen) and who has had to come back to the US for a short time to care for family. These are his first impressions of life back in the homeland. It's funny (and sad sometimes). Some of his stories show just how ambivalent Americans in the US are about Americans who leave. If you are an American abroad and have ever toyed with the idea of going "home" for an extended visit, I think you will enjoy this one.
The American (2007) by Franz-Olivier Giesbert. A rather dark book but with a unique perspective. The author is an Accidental American in France who wrote about his relationship with his American father. Flophouse review here.
Second Skin (2012) by Diana Anhalt. Some stunning poetry from the author of A Gathering of Fugitives. She writes about her host country (Mexico), languages (English/Spanish) and much more. One of my favorite lines from her work:
"Today I speak Spanish to survive,
but I write in English for its punch,
for the way it slices through excess, draws blood,
attracts sharks. (They know this voice and come to me.)"
All about the trauma of losing identity and forming a new one in a new language and country. Very honest account of how she felt during the process. A longer Flophouse review of the book is here.
Waltzing at the Doomsday Ball: The best of Joe Bageant edited by Ken Smith
The musings of a "redneck socialist" which are mostly about homeland politics but there are some excellent essays in this book about his time in Belize. His political views are pretty clear: "Capitalism is dead," he said, "but we still dance with the corpse." Really engaging writer and his expat perspective is one you don't come across everyday. Just have a look at his bio.
Tales of Mogadiscio by Iris Kapil
This is a series of essays written by an American woman in a cross-cultural marriage (her husband is Indian and they got married in the 1950's). She was a serial expat but this book is about the two years the family spent "on the economy" in the capital city of Somalia in the 1960's. Beautiful descriptions of what that city was like before the country descended into chaos and became the epitome of a "failed state." Kapil has a fine blog called Iris sans frontières.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Restoring Lost Citizenship
Very good post up today on the Isaac Brock Society website. Eric, who writes from Asia, calls attention to the case of a South Korean pop star who renounced S. Korean citizenship in 2002. Yoo Seung-jun (these days a resident of China) now wishes to reverse that decision - he wants to renounce his American citizenship and have his South Korean citizenship restored to him. Here is the link to Eric's post:
An exile wants to give up U.S. citizenship and come home to South Korea.
An exile wants to give up U.S. citizenship and come home to South Korea.
Is it possible to regain a citizenship that a person has lost or renounced? The answer is that it depends on the circumstances and the country.
Between 1973 and 1990 about 400 members of the Original African Israelite Nation of Jerusalem official renounced US citizenship. After some members left the group, they asked that their US citizenship be restored. "In 1990, the board dealt with eight cases. It decided to restore citizenship in five cases, and rejected the other three. Later that year, the board revisited those three cases and concluded that the renunciation had been psychologically forced and hence reversed its prior decisions."
So, regaining US citizenship even after a formal renunciation was possible; the State Department had a procedure and a board that reviewed such cases. A reversal was never guaranteed but there was a chance.
It appears that the Board of Appellate Review ceased to exist around 1991 - about the time the State Department changed its policies (following the results of US court cases that set a new standard for "voluntary" and emphasized "intent") about expatriating acts and dual citizenship.
Today in 2015 a renunciant can ask the State Department for an administrative review (see U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7) of that loss of US nationality if any one of the following apply:
Given that standard for "voluntary" and "intent" what are we to make of the cases before us today? US citizens are renouncing in record numbers, but many openly say that they feel forced into doing so. Not, mind you, because of taxes, but because of a tax system with onerous requirements with which it is difficult and expensive to comply.
I am dead certain that there will be requests for restoration of US citizenship in the future from some of today's renunciants. How will the State Department judge those cases? No idea. Will it go to the courts? Absolutely.
A suivre.
Italy, for example, has a pretty straightforward procedure for re-acquisition of citizenship. Italian citizenship is restored in two ways:
"1. Automatically one year from the date in which they established residence on Italian soil, unless they renounce it within that term of time.The conditions (as of 2008) for restoring Vietnamese citizenship are even more interesting:
2. By specific declaration:
- serving in the Italian armed forces;
- by being or having been in the employ of the Italian government, even abroad;
- if a foreign resident, once legal residence in Italy is established, within one year of the declaration for reacquisition submitted to the Italian consular authorities;
- once legal residence in Italy has been established for at least 2 years, and it can be proven that the applicant has left the foreign government employ or military service undertaken despite express prohibition by Italian law."
"1. A person who has lost his/her Vietnamese nationality as prescribed in Article 26 of this Law and applies for restoration of Vietnamese nationality may restore his/her Vietnamese nationality, if he/she falls into any of the following cases:And what about U.S. citizenship? The one where potential renunciants are warned and warned again that their loss of citizenship is "irrevocable"? Well, not quite. Read the fine print in the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 9:
- Having applied for permission to return to Vietnam;
- His/her spouse, a natural parent or a natural offspring is a Vietnamese citizen;
- Having made meritorious contributions to Vietnam’s national construction and defense;
- Being helpful to the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam;
- Conducting investment activities in Vietnam;
2. Persons applying for restoration of Vietnamese nationality may not restore Vietnamese nationality, if such restoration is detrimental to Vietnam’s national interests."
- Having renounced Vietnamese nationality for acquisition of a foreign nationality but failing to obtain permission to acquire the foreign nationality.
"A loss of citizenship is permanent and irrevocable, unless the U.S. Government subsequently overturns the loss for involuntariness or lack of intent." (Italics are mine)According to Ben Herzog in Revoking Citizenship, between 1982 and 1985 the US Board of Appellate Review (the entity responsible for validating or reversing loss of citizenship cases at the time) reversed the loss of US citizenship in 35% of the cases reviewed - even those that involved a individual who had formally renounced US citizenship at a US consulate.
Between 1973 and 1990 about 400 members of the Original African Israelite Nation of Jerusalem official renounced US citizenship. After some members left the group, they asked that their US citizenship be restored. "In 1990, the board dealt with eight cases. It decided to restore citizenship in five cases, and rejected the other three. Later that year, the board revisited those three cases and concluded that the renunciation had been psychologically forced and hence reversed its prior decisions."
So, regaining US citizenship even after a formal renunciation was possible; the State Department had a procedure and a board that reviewed such cases. A reversal was never guaranteed but there was a chance.
It appears that the Board of Appellate Review ceased to exist around 1991 - about the time the State Department changed its policies (following the results of US court cases that set a new standard for "voluntary" and emphasized "intent") about expatriating acts and dual citizenship.
Today in 2015 a renunciant can ask the State Department for an administrative review (see U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7) of that loss of US nationality if any one of the following apply:
"(1) The law under which the holding of loss of nationality was made is later held unconstitutional; for example, a law concerning voting in a foreign election;And if the former US citizen is denied, then he or she can then file a court case asking that State's decision be over-ruled.
(2) A major change in the interpretation of the law on expatriation is made as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision; for example, the decision in Afroyim v. Rusk or Vance v. Terrazas;
(3) A major change is made in the interpretation of the law by the Department or is made by another agency and adopted by the Department. Most of these changes arose under previous statutes and prior to the decision in Afroyim v. Rusk; for example, cases involving naturalization of a minor; and
(4) Substantial new evidence of involuntariness or intent, not previously considered but contemporaneous to the time when the potentially expatriating act was performed, is presented by the individual."
Given that standard for "voluntary" and "intent" what are we to make of the cases before us today? US citizens are renouncing in record numbers, but many openly say that they feel forced into doing so. Not, mind you, because of taxes, but because of a tax system with onerous requirements with which it is difficult and expensive to comply.
I am dead certain that there will be requests for restoration of US citizenship in the future from some of today's renunciants. How will the State Department judge those cases? No idea. Will it go to the courts? Absolutely.
A suivre.
Friday, May 15, 2015
Another Front in the Fight Against FATCA: The Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty
"And it came to passe in those dayes, that there went out a decree from Cesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed..."
Luke 2:1, King James Bible (1611)
Luke 2:1, King James Bible (1611)
The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is, in its own weird way, a kind of census. Among other things, it tells the American government where those it considers to be taxable under US law live and work and raise families.
Having tried and failed miserably at conducting an accurate census of Americans abroad, the American government looked for other ways to find those "US Persons" (a term that includes US residents and Green Card holders, as well as US citizens). Their method was delegation - an admission of failure in a sense - because FATCA requires foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to do what the US government couldn't manage to accomplish on its own: to seek out all US persons in the world (their names, addresses, and account balances).
Those of you who have already been FATCAed, know all too well what that means. Those of you who have not yet signed a W-9 or had your accounts closed, please don't feel left out, your time will come.
Americans abroad organizations like AARO, ACA, Democrats abroad and Republicans Overseas are fighting FATCA and you can read about their efforts here.
But I would be remiss if I did not mention other efforts which are equally important. The one I have been following (and cheering on) is the other lawsuit filed in Canada by the Alliance for the Defense of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS).
This is a grassroots initiative that pushes back against FATCA in Canada. ADCS argues that the Canadian legislation that implements the FATCA intergovernmental agreement with the United States "violates the Canadian Constitution, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the principles of Canadian sovereignty and democracy, and the fundamental rights of all Canadians."
By signing an agreement to turn over the private information of Canadian citizens to a foreign government (the United States) the Canadian government is violating, they say, the rights of those whom the US is unilaterally claiming as taxable US Persons, but who consider themselves to be Canadians first and foremost. They reject utterly the idea that another country can simply demand that Canada provide the private information of individuals who have some connection to the United States, however nebulous it may be.
The plaintiffs in the case are two Canadian women "who have never held a U.S. passport or developed any meaningful relationship with the U.S." but who are, nonetheless, considered to be US citizens by virtue of being born in the US." They never consented to that citizenship and see no reason why it should be foisted on them now just because the US says so.
There are citizens in just about every country in the world right now who are in exactly the same position as the two plaintiffs: people who thought they were "just French" living in France or "just Thai " living in Thailand. Many are finding out that they are indeed US Persons when they receive a note from their local banks informing them that they appear to be US citizens under US law.
I could not think of a worse way (or a worse source) for someone to learn that he or she might be a US citizen. I find this not just shameful on the part of the US, but an extreme and worrisome delegation of sovereign power. Foreign financial institutions should not be in any way arbiters of US citizenship or status, or be tasked with implementing a US extraterritorial national census of any sort for any purpose whatsoever.
Among the different fronts against FATCA, this is a very worthy effort because it asks a nation-state like Canada to take a stand: Are these people claimed by the US really Canadian citizens with all the right enumerated in the Charter? Or has the Canadian government downgraded them to semi-citizenship status based on the claims of a foreign power?
Funded entirely by small donors, ADCS has miraculously raised enough money so far to hire very competent legal counsel, and on August 14, 2014 they filed their suit in Canadian Federal Court. I back them 100% and have contributed even though I am not an "Accidental American" or even a dual.
You can support ADCS by making a donation here. They are excellent transparent communicators and you can follow the progress of the lawsuit on their website, at the Isaac Brock Society, or at Maple Sandbox.
And finally I invite you to watch this superb video which they prepared after testifying last year before the House of Commons Finance Committee.
Monday, May 11, 2015
The Making and Unmaking of a Citizen in Japan
A few weeks ago a blogging confrère left a link to his site Becoming Legally Japanese.
I have had a look since and I recommend the site to you if you have an interest in citizenship law. The site is in English and has good information on how to become a Japanese citizen, and testimonials about why people have taken this step - the latter, of course, being the more interesting question. You can also read this Flophouse post by an American emigrant and long-term resident here in Japan who is also On the Path to Citizenship in Japan.
Citizenship in a democratic nation-state is an odd beast. It retains some characteristics of an older status - that of subject - in that it is a personal status between an individual and a state (or a monarch). But unlike subjecthood, it is (in theory) a status that a person chooses and can be renounced unilaterally. A citizen (in theory) does not need the permission of his state to sever ties with one country and attach himself to another.
The reality is more complex than that. Often, there are conditions to be satisfied before a person can change allegiance. Some sending states require that another citizenship be obtained prior to renouncing. This is meant to prevent people from becoming stateless persons; the ideal being that every individual must be attached to some state, somewhere in the world.
On the other side, the receiving country has more power. There is no absolute right to naturalized citizenship in any nation-state I know of. Governments and their citizenry can and do place conditions that must be met before they allow an individual to become a full citizen. In short, nation-states can be very selective about whom they accept for full membership. In those conditions we find a blueprint of sorts for what that nation-state thinks is the "ideal citizen" and what they believe their citizenship means.
One of the conditions of Japanese citizenship is that the new citizen renounce all other citizenships. The Land of the Rising Sun is well known for its rejection of dual or multiple citizenships. To be Japanese is to have allegiance to one state, Japan, and no other. Since the trend in citizenship law in the world is toward acceptance of multiple citizenship (even Germany has blinked), there is speculation that Japan, too, will change its ways.
Perhaps. And I say this because I am discovering that the current system is far more flexible than people think. There is the law and then there are the "facts on the ground." There are Japanese citizens in France who have become French citizens. The Japanese embassy in Paris is aware of this.
According to my source, they don't seek them out, but they will investigate if it comes to their attention - a Japanese citizen, for example, who has lived a very long time in France and cannot produce a French residency card when he visits the consulate for some reason or another. Since France and Japan do not exchange citizenship databases there is no easy way for the Japanese government to know that a Japanese national has become a citizen of the French Republic, or of any other country for that matter.
Where single citizenship can be enforced is when a person applies to become a naturalized Japanese citizen. The authorities can ask for documentation and proof of renunciation of all other citizenships, but even that isn't a sure thing. The Japanese authorities do make allowances for subjects of countries that do not allow for unilateral renunciation. Also, in some cases they have looked the other way unless the dual citizen is "outed" in some way so that it simply cannot be ignored.
So Japanese citizenship law is clear on the matter of dual citizenship, but the application of the principle is, well, a grey zone.
And that makes this post American had to forfeit naturalized citizenship due to hiding his lack of relinquishment up on Becoming Legally Japanese very interesting. Nation-states make citizens and they can unmake them, too. (For an excellent read about this I recommend Patrick Weil's outstanding The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic.)
What is fascinating about denaturalization (taking away a person's citizenship) is that nothing shows more clearly the difference between birthright and naturalized citizens. In democratic nation-states it is generally very difficult to take away the citizenship of someone who was born with that citizenship. Usually it requires proof of some sort of extreme wrongdoing incompatible with citizenship and even then it's not a simple process. At least, not in our time.
Naturalized citizens, on the other hand, can be unmade more easily and the most common method is to prove that there was some sort of fraud involved. Even Hirsi Ali who was an elected member of the Dutch Parliament was not immune to charges that she obtained her Dutch citizenship fraudulently.
And that was the charge against this American emigrant to Japan who applied for Japanese citizenship, received it and then had it revoked. To make matters worse, the authorities did not reinstate his previous status, that of Permanent Resident; he was downgraded to Long-Term Resident. (See this site for a summary of the difference between the two.)
I will stop here and let you read the story for yourself. I would appreciate comments or corrections from those who know more than I do about Japanese citizenship law. It is an interesting case on so many levels, and I have the feeling that there is more to the story. In particular I was curious about his rationale for not taking the steps to relinquish his US citizenship. Note that both FATCA and the US Exit tax are mentioned in the article.
I have had a look since and I recommend the site to you if you have an interest in citizenship law. The site is in English and has good information on how to become a Japanese citizen, and testimonials about why people have taken this step - the latter, of course, being the more interesting question. You can also read this Flophouse post by an American emigrant and long-term resident here in Japan who is also On the Path to Citizenship in Japan.
Citizenship in a democratic nation-state is an odd beast. It retains some characteristics of an older status - that of subject - in that it is a personal status between an individual and a state (or a monarch). But unlike subjecthood, it is (in theory) a status that a person chooses and can be renounced unilaterally. A citizen (in theory) does not need the permission of his state to sever ties with one country and attach himself to another.
The reality is more complex than that. Often, there are conditions to be satisfied before a person can change allegiance. Some sending states require that another citizenship be obtained prior to renouncing. This is meant to prevent people from becoming stateless persons; the ideal being that every individual must be attached to some state, somewhere in the world.
On the other side, the receiving country has more power. There is no absolute right to naturalized citizenship in any nation-state I know of. Governments and their citizenry can and do place conditions that must be met before they allow an individual to become a full citizen. In short, nation-states can be very selective about whom they accept for full membership. In those conditions we find a blueprint of sorts for what that nation-state thinks is the "ideal citizen" and what they believe their citizenship means.
One of the conditions of Japanese citizenship is that the new citizen renounce all other citizenships. The Land of the Rising Sun is well known for its rejection of dual or multiple citizenships. To be Japanese is to have allegiance to one state, Japan, and no other. Since the trend in citizenship law in the world is toward acceptance of multiple citizenship (even Germany has blinked), there is speculation that Japan, too, will change its ways.
Perhaps. And I say this because I am discovering that the current system is far more flexible than people think. There is the law and then there are the "facts on the ground." There are Japanese citizens in France who have become French citizens. The Japanese embassy in Paris is aware of this.
According to my source, they don't seek them out, but they will investigate if it comes to their attention - a Japanese citizen, for example, who has lived a very long time in France and cannot produce a French residency card when he visits the consulate for some reason or another. Since France and Japan do not exchange citizenship databases there is no easy way for the Japanese government to know that a Japanese national has become a citizen of the French Republic, or of any other country for that matter.
Where single citizenship can be enforced is when a person applies to become a naturalized Japanese citizen. The authorities can ask for documentation and proof of renunciation of all other citizenships, but even that isn't a sure thing. The Japanese authorities do make allowances for subjects of countries that do not allow for unilateral renunciation. Also, in some cases they have looked the other way unless the dual citizen is "outed" in some way so that it simply cannot be ignored.
So Japanese citizenship law is clear on the matter of dual citizenship, but the application of the principle is, well, a grey zone.
And that makes this post American had to forfeit naturalized citizenship due to hiding his lack of relinquishment up on Becoming Legally Japanese very interesting. Nation-states make citizens and they can unmake them, too. (For an excellent read about this I recommend Patrick Weil's outstanding The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic.)
What is fascinating about denaturalization (taking away a person's citizenship) is that nothing shows more clearly the difference between birthright and naturalized citizens. In democratic nation-states it is generally very difficult to take away the citizenship of someone who was born with that citizenship. Usually it requires proof of some sort of extreme wrongdoing incompatible with citizenship and even then it's not a simple process. At least, not in our time.
Naturalized citizens, on the other hand, can be unmade more easily and the most common method is to prove that there was some sort of fraud involved. Even Hirsi Ali who was an elected member of the Dutch Parliament was not immune to charges that she obtained her Dutch citizenship fraudulently.
And that was the charge against this American emigrant to Japan who applied for Japanese citizenship, received it and then had it revoked. To make matters worse, the authorities did not reinstate his previous status, that of Permanent Resident; he was downgraded to Long-Term Resident. (See this site for a summary of the difference between the two.)
I will stop here and let you read the story for yourself. I would appreciate comments or corrections from those who know more than I do about Japanese citizenship law. It is an interesting case on so many levels, and I have the feeling that there is more to the story. In particular I was curious about his rationale for not taking the steps to relinquish his US citizenship. Note that both FATCA and the US Exit tax are mentioned in the article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)