A very good video So Where's Home? by Adrian Bautista. It's about American Third Culture Kids and identity in their own words.
Third Culture Kids, a term coined by Sociologist Ruth Hill Useem, refers to anyone who spent his or her formative years in a country/culture (sometimes more than one) other than that of his parents.
It's an interesting category because these kids are not intentional migrants or expatriates. Nobody gets to choose where he or she is born and children are seldom consulted when the parents made decisions about where to live and work.
The concept of moving the family abroad is something that is likely to meet with general approval. Broadening every one's horizons! Learning a second language like a native! Multiculturalism and global citizenship education galore!
My experience has been that it starts with more or less every one's approval but when it's years of living outside the parent's home country, a certain ambivalence sets in.
A French child, for example, who was not born in France (or who left at a young age) and has lived in Canada, the US, and Japan, but never actually in France. What are people in the Hexagon to make of that? Legally, the child is a French citizen and has a French passport (and perhaps a few others) but France's influence on the making of that child and his identity is, well, rather limited to vacations, what the parents transmit and whether or not they send that child to a French or a local school. Learning about Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité from parents, teachers and books while sitting smack in the middle of another world that doesn't share those values, changes them in subtle ways.
The same is true for American children. To my knowledge my Frenchlings have never recited the American Pledge of Allegiance. Now that I think about it, I have to wonder if they even know what that is.
And that leaves those in the home country scratching their heads trying to figure out just how much of a genuine attachment these kids have to "home". From what I've seen, there is an attempt to push them into a box that says "French" or "American" and then close the lid and pretend that all those other formative experiences don't matter or aren't relevant in the current context.
That generates real frustration and sometimes resentment on the part of both Third Culture Kids and Adults: Who are you to tell me that I can only be this thing and nothing else?
It's important here to make the distinction between citizenship which is controlled by the home and host countries and identity which isn't. No government and no people on this planet can control how people feel, and efforts to make a perfect match between identity and citizenship will always fail.
So Where's Home? A Film About Third Culture Kid Identity from Adrian Bautista on Vimeo.
Showing posts with label diasporas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diasporas. Show all posts
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Friday, December 20, 2013
Ignoring Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations - The US Does It Again
This is not about guilt or innocence. This is about not respecting an international agreement that gives foreign nationals some basic rights when they get in trouble in another country.
It's called the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the most important article in it pertaining to individuals is Article 36 which says:
1. Consular officers are free to communicate with their nationals and vice versa in a foreign country.
If you are a German visiting Canada, you have the right to talk to your consulate and the German consulate has the right to talk to you without interference from the Canadian government.
2. When a foreign national is arrested or detained, the local authorities in that country will notify his consulate that he is in their custody. That foreign national also has the right to communicate with his consulate and any messages he wants to send must be forwarded "without delay" to his consulate.
A Frenchman arrested in the UK has the right to send a message to the French consulate and the UK authorities are required to pass the message along. The UK also has an obligation to inform the French consulate that they have one of their nationals in custody.
3. The consulate has visitation rights. If one of their nationals is in prison or in police custody they have the right to visit her, talk to her and arrange for representation.
If a Japanese in France goes to jail, he has the right to be visited by someone from the Japanese consulate and the consulate can help him get a lawyer.
Finally, when the foreign national is arrested the local government is required to inform the detained foreign national of the above rights.
This is basic stuff, folks, and frankly, it's not much protection if you get into trouble while traveling or living in another country. The consulate can't get you a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, they can't stop a trial from taking place, and they can't prevent you from going to jail if you are convicted. But it's something. Generally, it is respected because, hey, no country wants to see its nationals abused while abroad. It makes the sending state look weak for one thing - if a state cannot protect its people, what good is it?
Americans might be surprised to learn that there is one modern democratic nation-state, the United States, that not only does not respect this Convention but its own citizens - American citizens - are not necessarily covered under it. This is the "protection" that we are ostensibly paying for through our tax dollars.
Surprised? Me, too.
Some examples: in 1999 Germany brought a case(LeGrand) against the U.S. for breaches of this convention before the International Court of Justice. The U.S. responded and admitted it was at fault:
There have been other cases but they all seem to follow a pattern: local US law enforcement ignores the convention, the foreign country finds out and tries to do something, the US courts and state-level government says "to hell with that," and the US Federal government ends up apologizing. Apply, lather, rinse, repeat.
And if you think "to hell with that" is too strong, consider this: in 2008 the United States Supreme court ruled that the convention is not binding because the US Congress has not passed domestic legislation to implement it. To date Congress has still not done that with the Vienna Convention which means that it isn't enforceable in the United States and by extension it calls into question the right of Americans travelling or living in foreign countries to the consular protection of their government.
And here we go again in 2013. The state of Texas is about to execute a Mr. Tamayo. There doesn't seem to be any argument over the facts - this Mexican national was not informed of his rights under the Vienna Convention. Furthermore, the ICJ told the US to review the convictions of Mexican nationals in the US following the Avena case which nearly 10 years later, nobody has bothered to do.
All this does not seem to trouble the sleep of homeland American citizens. It should.
First of all it sends a very interesting message to foreign nationals living in or visiting the United States. Their rights under this international agreement that the US signed will not necessarily be respected. It says that the US doesn't take that convention seriously. Something everyone outside the US should think about before buying a plane ticket to Austin, Texas or Tampa, Florida.
And second, it sends a message to other countries where American citizens visit or live. If the US doesn't take this convention seriously then why should they? Do Americans really want to live in a world where they go off for a nice vacation or take a job abroad, end up in some sort of trouble (yes, it happens) and the local authorities refuse to allow them to contact the local US Embassy? The United States of America has its own "hostages to fortune" - about 6 million Americans citizens living outside the U.S. - and quite a few of them live in Mexico.
And I can hear the chorus starting up: "Do the crime, do the time" and "Why don't these people come back to the US where it's "safe"' (And I could barely type the last words of that sentence with a straight face.) I repeat, it is not about guilt or innocence which is a matter for the local courts to decide. The Vienna Convention is just about access, communication, and representation.
The U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is well aware of the international repercussions and the potential blowback on American citizens abroad. He has written to the state of Texas asking them to tread carefully as this may impact the State Department's ability to help Americans in other countries. “Our consular visits help ensure U.S. citizens detained overseas have access to food and appropriate medical care, if needed, as well as access to legal representation." This article Who Ya Gonna Call? The Consular Notification Compliance Act by Emily Sharpe is a good summary of just how delicate this matter is and how important it is for Congress to lay this latter to rest once and for all.
Will Texas listen?
I doubt it.
Will the U.S. Congress rectify the situation by passing the necessary legislation to implement the Vienna Convention?
Not any time soon.
Which means, as a practical matter, every American who qualifies should think hard about getting a second passport - it may be the only reliable consular protection you will get if you travel, work or live outside the U.S.
(The Association of Americans Resident Overseas (AARO) has a short and sweet position paper on this matter which ALL Americans abroad should read.)
It's called the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the most important article in it pertaining to individuals is Article 36 which says:
1. Consular officers are free to communicate with their nationals and vice versa in a foreign country.
If you are a German visiting Canada, you have the right to talk to your consulate and the German consulate has the right to talk to you without interference from the Canadian government.
2. When a foreign national is arrested or detained, the local authorities in that country will notify his consulate that he is in their custody. That foreign national also has the right to communicate with his consulate and any messages he wants to send must be forwarded "without delay" to his consulate.
A Frenchman arrested in the UK has the right to send a message to the French consulate and the UK authorities are required to pass the message along. The UK also has an obligation to inform the French consulate that they have one of their nationals in custody.
3. The consulate has visitation rights. If one of their nationals is in prison or in police custody they have the right to visit her, talk to her and arrange for representation.
If a Japanese in France goes to jail, he has the right to be visited by someone from the Japanese consulate and the consulate can help him get a lawyer.
Finally, when the foreign national is arrested the local government is required to inform the detained foreign national of the above rights.
This is basic stuff, folks, and frankly, it's not much protection if you get into trouble while traveling or living in another country. The consulate can't get you a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, they can't stop a trial from taking place, and they can't prevent you from going to jail if you are convicted. But it's something. Generally, it is respected because, hey, no country wants to see its nationals abused while abroad. It makes the sending state look weak for one thing - if a state cannot protect its people, what good is it?
Americans might be surprised to learn that there is one modern democratic nation-state, the United States, that not only does not respect this Convention but its own citizens - American citizens - are not necessarily covered under it. This is the "protection" that we are ostensibly paying for through our tax dollars.
Surprised? Me, too.
Some examples: in 1999 Germany brought a case(LeGrand) against the U.S. for breaches of this convention before the International Court of Justice. The U.S. responded and admitted it was at fault:
"Through this inquiry, the United States confirmed that the competent authorities of the State of Arizona did not inform Walter and Karl LaGrand "without delay" that they could request that a German consular post be notified of their arrest and detention, as required by Article 31(1)(b) of the Convention. The United States of America bears responsibility for such non-performance of U.S. obligations under the Convention by Arizona. Accordingly, the United States acknowledges that, as a result of the failure to inform Walter and Karl LaGrand of their right to consular notification, there was a breach of a legal duty owed by the United States to the Federal Republic of Germany under the Vienna Convention."In 2003 Mexico brought a suit before the ICJ - Avena and Other Mexican Nationals - on behalf of 51 of their nationals for breaches of Article 36 and the ICJ ruled in Mexico's favor in 2004.
There have been other cases but they all seem to follow a pattern: local US law enforcement ignores the convention, the foreign country finds out and tries to do something, the US courts and state-level government says "to hell with that," and the US Federal government ends up apologizing. Apply, lather, rinse, repeat.
And if you think "to hell with that" is too strong, consider this: in 2008 the United States Supreme court ruled that the convention is not binding because the US Congress has not passed domestic legislation to implement it. To date Congress has still not done that with the Vienna Convention which means that it isn't enforceable in the United States and by extension it calls into question the right of Americans travelling or living in foreign countries to the consular protection of their government.
And here we go again in 2013. The state of Texas is about to execute a Mr. Tamayo. There doesn't seem to be any argument over the facts - this Mexican national was not informed of his rights under the Vienna Convention. Furthermore, the ICJ told the US to review the convictions of Mexican nationals in the US following the Avena case which nearly 10 years later, nobody has bothered to do.
All this does not seem to trouble the sleep of homeland American citizens. It should.
First of all it sends a very interesting message to foreign nationals living in or visiting the United States. Their rights under this international agreement that the US signed will not necessarily be respected. It says that the US doesn't take that convention seriously. Something everyone outside the US should think about before buying a plane ticket to Austin, Texas or Tampa, Florida.
And second, it sends a message to other countries where American citizens visit or live. If the US doesn't take this convention seriously then why should they? Do Americans really want to live in a world where they go off for a nice vacation or take a job abroad, end up in some sort of trouble (yes, it happens) and the local authorities refuse to allow them to contact the local US Embassy? The United States of America has its own "hostages to fortune" - about 6 million Americans citizens living outside the U.S. - and quite a few of them live in Mexico.
And I can hear the chorus starting up: "Do the crime, do the time" and "Why don't these people come back to the US where it's "safe"' (And I could barely type the last words of that sentence with a straight face.) I repeat, it is not about guilt or innocence which is a matter for the local courts to decide. The Vienna Convention is just about access, communication, and representation.
The U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is well aware of the international repercussions and the potential blowback on American citizens abroad. He has written to the state of Texas asking them to tread carefully as this may impact the State Department's ability to help Americans in other countries. “Our consular visits help ensure U.S. citizens detained overseas have access to food and appropriate medical care, if needed, as well as access to legal representation." This article Who Ya Gonna Call? The Consular Notification Compliance Act by Emily Sharpe is a good summary of just how delicate this matter is and how important it is for Congress to lay this latter to rest once and for all.
Will Texas listen?
I doubt it.
Will the U.S. Congress rectify the situation by passing the necessary legislation to implement the Vienna Convention?
Not any time soon.
Which means, as a practical matter, every American who qualifies should think hard about getting a second passport - it may be the only reliable consular protection you will get if you travel, work or live outside the U.S.
(The Association of Americans Resident Overseas (AARO) has a short and sweet position paper on this matter which ALL Americans abroad should read.)
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Finally A Few Good Books about the American Diaspora
There is precious little research into the 6 million U.S. citizens and their progeny living outside of the United States of America. Americans abroad are not part of the US census so they are not counted as part of the U.S. population. We have no direct representation in American politics and are often overlooked by American lawmakers even though many of us do vote. Few people in the homeland know who we are and what we are up to (and let's be honest some of us like it that way).
What I have learned in my twenty years abroad is that we are delightfully diverse. Americans abroad reflect the homeland population - they come in all colors and creeds and work in a variety of occupations. In my time I've had the honor of meeting: retired military, professors, English teachers, writers, musicians, journalists, psychologists, laborers, small business owners, and IT professionals in Europe, Asia and North America. I can only guess at what I would find in Australia or South America but I bet you would find the same mix there too.
Back in 2011 I started asking myself if American abroad constituted a diaspora or not and I wrote this post An American Diaspora? Two years later I am even more convinced that there is one that has been quietly sleeping abroad outside of the consciousness of the American homeland.
Today that diaspora is waking up and organizing because of the challenges we are facing today with FATCA and citizenship-based taxation (and not just those things - there is a long list of issues we care about and we are learning to be vigilant when it comes to the homeland government and its wacky ideas).
I don't think it is a coincidence that we are now becoming the object of some serious research. Two books are coming out at the end of this year that I plan on reading as soon as they hit the shelves (or are available for download).
Migrants or Expatriates?: Americans in Europe (Migration, Diasporas and Citizenship) by Dr. Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels. Many of us participated on her on-line survey and some of her findings have already been published. According to Amazon this book will be out on January 24, 2014.
The Citizenship of Americans Living Abroad: Democracy and Those Who Leave by Dr. Katya Long.
Americans Abroad, How Can We Count Them? I found this one purely by chance and I've a copy to be delivered to my mother's house here in Seattle. This book which came out in 2010 to little fanfare is a discussion about how to count Americans abroad by the U.S. Congress House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, Sub-committee on the Census. I am hoping for insight into why exactly the U.S. government makes no attempt to count (or contact) its "Domestic Abroad."
Americans Abroad: A Comparative Study of Emigrants from the United States by A. Dashefsky et al.
What I have learned in my twenty years abroad is that we are delightfully diverse. Americans abroad reflect the homeland population - they come in all colors and creeds and work in a variety of occupations. In my time I've had the honor of meeting: retired military, professors, English teachers, writers, musicians, journalists, psychologists, laborers, small business owners, and IT professionals in Europe, Asia and North America. I can only guess at what I would find in Australia or South America but I bet you would find the same mix there too.
Back in 2011 I started asking myself if American abroad constituted a diaspora or not and I wrote this post An American Diaspora? Two years later I am even more convinced that there is one that has been quietly sleeping abroad outside of the consciousness of the American homeland.
Today that diaspora is waking up and organizing because of the challenges we are facing today with FATCA and citizenship-based taxation (and not just those things - there is a long list of issues we care about and we are learning to be vigilant when it comes to the homeland government and its wacky ideas).
I don't think it is a coincidence that we are now becoming the object of some serious research. Two books are coming out at the end of this year that I plan on reading as soon as they hit the shelves (or are available for download).
The Citizenship of Americans Living Abroad: Democracy and Those Who Leave by Dr. Katya Long.
I have no other information about this one but it looks fascinating and I am eager to get a copy when it comes out on January 15, 2014.
And finally this is a good place to mention once again a study that was published back in 1992. The authors spoke with Americans in Australia and Israel and did a comparative analysis. They asked and got answers to questions like: Why did they leave? Did they intend to stay when they arrived? Did they plan on coming back to the U.S. ?
Americans Abroad: A Comparative Study of Emigrants from the United States by A. Dashefsky et al.
Bonne lecture!
Friday, November 2, 2012
That American Library in Paris
Last time I had a membership we were living just across the river near Trocadero and the Frenchlings were still in elementary school. We had a family membership and I used to force them to walk over with me to attend English-language story time in the children's section. (My children who are very happy to be bi-lingual today have amnesia about how much they hated speaking English back then.)
The American Library in Paris was founded in 1920 just after World War I with the books that libraries in the U.S. sent over for the soldiers to read - about 1.5 million of them.
Since then the library has had quite a history. While I was on the premises I picked up an information sheet called "A Short History of the Library. " Here are a few interesting events from the past:
1923 - Library launches a review called Ex Libris. Early contributors were Ernest Hemingway and Gertrude Stein.
1933 - Literary evenings are launched at the library. Guest authors are Colette, Andre Gide and Ford Madox Ford.
1941 - The library director is sent home to the U.S. for her safety but library board member Countess Clara de Chambrun arranges for the library to remain open under the occupation. Library staff operates an underground lending service for Jewish members.
1953 - Two investigators for Senator McCarthy in a mission to root out communist literature are turned away from the library by the Director.
Why was I inspired to renew my membership? It was a combination of the limitations of my Kindle and our upcoming move to Porchefontaine. I love my Kindle but not all the books I want to read exist in electronic format and perhaps never will. I still purchase quite a few regular (made out of dead trees) books and that has become a problem now that we are moving. Our new house is much smaller than our old apartment and I have over 200 books that I must either give away or throw away. I think it makes a great deal more sense for me to subscribe to the library for the books I want for research instead of purchasing copies that I risk having to throw out later.
I had not planned on using my subscription that day but I unexpectedly had a few minutes to cruise the new book collection and the catalog. To my delight, they had a copy of a book I've wanted to read for some time: Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany by Rogers Brubaker. A Kindle edition is now available (it wasn't last time I looked) but for around 20 USD. I also picked up William Pfaff's The Irony of Manifest Destiny and Peter Sahlin's Unnaturally French.
I had forgotten how lovely it was to be in a library: the smell of books, the quiet and the bounty spread before in a visual feast that Amazon just can't match. Feeling a little like drug addict in a crackhouse, I forced myself to stop at 3 books (all I could carry really) and walked out of the library flush and happy.
I will be back.
As I trekked back up the street to the RER station for the ride home I came across this building which I have certainly passed by before but it was only the day I visited the library that I really saw it. It's one of the most stunning buildings I've seen in Paris.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Diaspora Taxes: The Exit Tax
Exit taxes have a terrible reputation. It's almost impossible to have a discussion about them without having someone bring up the practices of past totalitarian regimes like the USSR or Nazi Germany who taxed Jews before they left their territories. Not exactly the kind of company that modern states wish to be associated with and if you ask a citizen of such a state today whether or not he thinks an tax/penalty/fee in order to leave a country is a good idea, it's pretty likely that he will answer, "Of course not." There is something very fundamental about the freedom to move where one likes in order to seek other opportunities (provided that the destination country is agreeable) and most people think that states should not be permitted to hold their citizens or visitors captive.
This is, by the way, a very modern idea. For much of recent history people were essentially prisoners in their countries of origin. In 19th century Prussia no one (not even foreigners) was allowed to leave the country without authorization. It took the French revolution to remove a 1669 edict of the king that forbid the French from leaving France. In 1720 the parliament of Great Britain banned seamen, artisans and other workers from emigrating to the American colonies. This was revoked apparently only in 1824. Even the U.S. right after the Civil War saw attempts to control the movement of black workers out of southern states via a system of pass controls (papers that showed their employment status) which made it harder for them to circulate within the U.S. The next time you hear a native citizen beating his chest and proclaiming, "My ancestors have been here for X generations!" just bear in mind that his forefathers weren't necessarily there because they wanted to be. They stayed because they weren't allowed to leave.
Fast forward to the 20th century and two documents: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Article 13 of the first says:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 12 of the second document, the ICCPR, has similar language but does allow certain restrictions:
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
The rights and restrictions were clarified in the Siracusa Principles (1984) and in General Comment No. 27 (1999). Where there are restrictions a state must show that they fall within one of the categories (line 3) and that they are proportionate: "They must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve the desired result; and they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected."
So, yes, under certain circumstances states do retain limited rights to prevent people from emigrating. Some have gone so far as to argue that such restrictions should be placed, for example, on health professionals leaving developing countries for Europe or the U.S. These countries are, after all, in a "state of emergency." The question of whether or not states can, under international law and under certain circumstances, levy a penalty, a fee or a tax on people who wish to emigrate is not clear to me. If anyone has better research, please feel free to point me in the right direction. One country that is under fire for violations of the ICCPR, is Eritrea. They have been censured for preventing people from leaving the country by making passports very expensive or by requiring exit visas in order to leave the territory for whatever reason. This report by the U.S. State Department says that, "Some citizens were given exit visas only after posting bonds of approximately 150,000 nakfa ($10,000) or more." Eritrean citizens already abroad who came home for a visit had to prove that they had paid the diaspora tax of 2% in order to be able to leave the country again. Reading the media reports, the general consensus of the international community seems to have been that these methods were gross and grotesque violations of basic human rights.
And yet, fees or penalties or taxes on outbound human traffic from one state to another are alive and well in the 21st century. A surprising number of states do, in fact, have some sort of mechanism for shaking down people who leave a territory. The simplest and most common is the Departure Tax (also called Airport Exit Tax). Most countries in Europe have them. Canada and Australia too. Sometimes these are simply rolled into the price of the plane ticket. In other countries, it is payable in cash and you get a little sticker or stamp saying it was paid. As annoying as these may be, they are clearly not attempts to stop people from leaving. If you can afford the price of a ticket to Australia then surely you can afford to pay 55 AUD to leave. In general when we say "exit tax" we are not talking about these kinds of fees which have nothing to do with emigration. So let's define the term more precisely.
An exit tax is a tax that is levied against an individual or a corporation who wishes to transfer residency or citizenship from one country to another. It is a tax on emigration and/or expatriation. How does it work and what is its purpose?:
How common is this? Fairly common for corporations in Europe. In fact the Euro-zone is something of a hotbed of political/legal action in this area. Lots of European companies want (and theoretically have) "Freedom of Establishment" - the right to move as they like within the EU. One case that is most often cited in this regard is the National Grid Indus decision by the European Court of Justice in 2011. In the year 2000 the Dutch company National Grid Indus moved their management to the U.K and that triggered a Dutch exit tax. The ECJ ruled that NGI had the right to make the move, that the exit tax was not applicable in their case because they still remained a Dutch company but, as KMPG explains here:
If compensation of benefits is the primary goal, that has some very interesting implications for all emigrants. How can a state quantify those benefits? Should every individual leaving a country reimburse it for the cost of public education (primary through university) or police and fire protection for the period he was resident? Should a person be taxed if he takes his or her children (thus depriving the nation of future taxpayers) to another country? Is that parent engaged in the abusive practice of "eroding the tax base?"
The last is, I admit, a very extreme example but I stand by my suspicion that allowing states to determine just compensation for benefits received and holding people hostage until they pay up is a form of indentured servitude and a potential nightmare for would-be emigrants. What a mighty sword to put in states' hands to use in the battle to control international migration.
Enough said. I would love to hear your take on it.
This is, by the way, a very modern idea. For much of recent history people were essentially prisoners in their countries of origin. In 19th century Prussia no one (not even foreigners) was allowed to leave the country without authorization. It took the French revolution to remove a 1669 edict of the king that forbid the French from leaving France. In 1720 the parliament of Great Britain banned seamen, artisans and other workers from emigrating to the American colonies. This was revoked apparently only in 1824. Even the U.S. right after the Civil War saw attempts to control the movement of black workers out of southern states via a system of pass controls (papers that showed their employment status) which made it harder for them to circulate within the U.S. The next time you hear a native citizen beating his chest and proclaiming, "My ancestors have been here for X generations!" just bear in mind that his forefathers weren't necessarily there because they wanted to be. They stayed because they weren't allowed to leave.
Fast forward to the 20th century and two documents: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Article 13 of the first says:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 12 of the second document, the ICCPR, has similar language but does allow certain restrictions:
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
The rights and restrictions were clarified in the Siracusa Principles (1984) and in General Comment No. 27 (1999). Where there are restrictions a state must show that they fall within one of the categories (line 3) and that they are proportionate: "They must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve the desired result; and they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected."
So, yes, under certain circumstances states do retain limited rights to prevent people from emigrating. Some have gone so far as to argue that such restrictions should be placed, for example, on health professionals leaving developing countries for Europe or the U.S. These countries are, after all, in a "state of emergency." The question of whether or not states can, under international law and under certain circumstances, levy a penalty, a fee or a tax on people who wish to emigrate is not clear to me. If anyone has better research, please feel free to point me in the right direction. One country that is under fire for violations of the ICCPR, is Eritrea. They have been censured for preventing people from leaving the country by making passports very expensive or by requiring exit visas in order to leave the territory for whatever reason. This report by the U.S. State Department says that, "Some citizens were given exit visas only after posting bonds of approximately 150,000 nakfa ($10,000) or more." Eritrean citizens already abroad who came home for a visit had to prove that they had paid the diaspora tax of 2% in order to be able to leave the country again. Reading the media reports, the general consensus of the international community seems to have been that these methods were gross and grotesque violations of basic human rights.
And yet, fees or penalties or taxes on outbound human traffic from one state to another are alive and well in the 21st century. A surprising number of states do, in fact, have some sort of mechanism for shaking down people who leave a territory. The simplest and most common is the Departure Tax (also called Airport Exit Tax). Most countries in Europe have them. Canada and Australia too. Sometimes these are simply rolled into the price of the plane ticket. In other countries, it is payable in cash and you get a little sticker or stamp saying it was paid. As annoying as these may be, they are clearly not attempts to stop people from leaving. If you can afford the price of a ticket to Australia then surely you can afford to pay 55 AUD to leave. In general when we say "exit tax" we are not talking about these kinds of fees which have nothing to do with emigration. So let's define the term more precisely.
An exit tax is a tax that is levied against an individual or a corporation who wishes to transfer residency or citizenship from one country to another. It is a tax on emigration and/or expatriation. How does it work and what is its purpose?:
In general, ET [Exit Taxation] aims at levying the potential or latent gains (also called “hidden reserves”) related with the assets that an individual, a company or a PE located in a given country, economically (eg., through allocation to a foreign PE of a trademark or a shareholding), or physically transfer to another tax jurisdiction. A first feature of ET is, thus, related with the fact that it is imposed when no asset disposal takes place, and no revenue is generated.What might that mean for an individual? Let's say an individual wishes to move from Country A to Country B more or less permanently. Country B will become their new "tax home." Country A will take note and will act as if that person sold all of his/her assets the day before the person officially leaves. Nothing is actually sold but Country A will act as if it was and levy a tax. This is called Mark to Market and Phil Hodgen has a very good explanation here of how this works. No actual revenue is generated for the individual (the "sale" is virtual) and that person may very well be in 100% compliance with Country A's tax laws. So this is extra tax on top of taxes that have already been paid on those assets and it's the act of leaving that triggers it.
How common is this? Fairly common for corporations in Europe. In fact the Euro-zone is something of a hotbed of political/legal action in this area. Lots of European companies want (and theoretically have) "Freedom of Establishment" - the right to move as they like within the EU. One case that is most often cited in this regard is the National Grid Indus decision by the European Court of Justice in 2011. In the year 2000 the Dutch company National Grid Indus moved their management to the U.K and that triggered a Dutch exit tax. The ECJ ruled that NGI had the right to make the move, that the exit tax was not applicable in their case because they still remained a Dutch company but, as KMPG explains here:
The ECJ also concluded that imposing an exit tax may be justified by the need to ensure a balanced allocation of taxing rights between Member States. However, the ECJ noted that the proportionality of the Dutch exit tax should be reviewed in order to determine the compatibility of such a measure with EU law. In order to do so, a distinction must be drawn between the moment when the tax liability is determined and the moment when it is settled.The ECJ basically said that exit taxes for corporations are OK within the EU. However, the tax has to be proportionate (not too much of a burden) and corporations must be allowed to defer payment.
What about individuals (also called "natural persons")? Again, it is more common than you might think. This Country Tax System Matrix lists the following countries as having some sort of exit tax for individuals who leave the territory or renounce citizenship: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg (inheritance tax), The Netherlands, and The United States. I cannot vouch for the validity of this information since this is not at all my area of expertise. There are surely more - this list does not cover all of the 190+ countries in the world. It also only contains information up to 2010 and does not include the new French Exit Tax which went into effect in 2012. But it does show that exit taxes for individuals are not at all uncommon and it should be noted that within the EU the principle of exit taxation for individuals has been held to be legitimate provided that there is no immediate tax charge and that the sums are not abusive or disproportionate.
What is interesting is that 1. most citizens are unaware that their countries do levy such taxes and 2. they tend to target high-net-worth individuals so when citizens are made aware of them their robust support for the "freedom to leave" is overcome by their desire to make the rich pay for abandoning them.
A desire for revenge is not only a very ugly emotion, it is not usually a good legal or philosophical basis for taxing people. It's also very rare to see a politician or a "homelander" admit to a desire to stop or slow down the free emigration of individuals and corporations. There is an underlying respect for the idea of freedom of movement that most people feel in their bones. Not even the most rabid anti-emigration native would come out and say openly that that ability of people to move to another country (provided they are welcome in a receiving state) should be restricted. The debate tends to revolve more around the idea of compensation. The focus is on what the state of origin loses when these people and their companies leave: tax revenue, jobs, professional qualifications honed at a local university, entrepreneurial talent. When it comes to company migration, this dissertation by a Portuguese lawyer summed up this position quite nicely in the conclusion:
Despite the serious doubts expressed in the previous paragraph about whether ET [Exit Taxation] can really be justified in an EU setting, namely on the basis of BATP, we have to concede that company migration may be a domain considerably prone to abuse and also that some form of compensation of benefits provided by the origin state - or better put, a reward for the contribution of the origin state to the profitability of the migrant company up to exit - should be put in place. This would not amount to accepting a restriction without justification but rather recognizing that such compensation is justified as a way to uphold the legitimate right of a state to quell tax base erosion schemes.Similar arguments are made about human capital but it's a bit harder to get people to accept them because we are talking about human beings ( a group that we all belong to). Penalizing someone monetarily for the act of leaving one's country of origin (or residency) is not terribly consistent with the ICCPR or the UN Declaration of Human Rights. And the fact that someone is rich (which is a very relative term) should not ever ever mean that they are deprived of their human rights.
If compensation of benefits is the primary goal, that has some very interesting implications for all emigrants. How can a state quantify those benefits? Should every individual leaving a country reimburse it for the cost of public education (primary through university) or police and fire protection for the period he was resident? Should a person be taxed if he takes his or her children (thus depriving the nation of future taxpayers) to another country? Is that parent engaged in the abusive practice of "eroding the tax base?"
The last is, I admit, a very extreme example but I stand by my suspicion that allowing states to determine just compensation for benefits received and holding people hostage until they pay up is a form of indentured servitude and a potential nightmare for would-be emigrants. What a mighty sword to put in states' hands to use in the battle to control international migration.
Enough said. I would love to hear your take on it.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Calling on All Americans Voting from Abroad
Voting from abroad is always quite a challenge for Americans. I've lived nearly half my lifetime outside the United States and I've never quite figured out the exact rules for overseas voters.
Happily, I no longer have to because the Overseas Vote Foundation is here to help. They are a non-partisan, non-political organization that exists for the sole reason to help American living abroad vote in U.S. elections. On their website is all the information you need if you are an American citizen living temporarily or indefinitely abroad. There is even a wizard to guide you through the process to get registered and obtain a ballot for the 2012 elections.
And if that weren't enough they have also produced this video which up on the site and Youtube to guide you (many thanks to the person who posted the link on the SFN site).
There are at least 6 million of us and I firmly believe that the very best way to send a message to Washington that we exist and pay attention to homeland matters is to VOTE.
Perhaps this will wake a few of those politicians up to the power of the American diaspora. :-)
Happily, I no longer have to because the Overseas Vote Foundation is here to help. They are a non-partisan, non-political organization that exists for the sole reason to help American living abroad vote in U.S. elections. On their website is all the information you need if you are an American citizen living temporarily or indefinitely abroad. There is even a wizard to guide you through the process to get registered and obtain a ballot for the 2012 elections.
And if that weren't enough they have also produced this video which up on the site and Youtube to guide you (many thanks to the person who posted the link on the SFN site).
There are at least 6 million of us and I firmly believe that the very best way to send a message to Washington that we exist and pay attention to homeland matters is to VOTE.
Perhaps this will wake a few of those politicians up to the power of the American diaspora. :-)
Friday, March 16, 2012
Citizenship 101 for Americans
This week I had the immense pleasure of going into town and having lunch with a very handsome and thoroughly charming American man near Saint Sulpice. Like me he is married to a French national and has lived here in France for many years. As you can imagine we had a lot to talk about but there was one topic in particular that had us both chortling over our meal: how little Americans know about how American citizenship really works. Over the years we have both heard some truly amazing statements and interrogations from people in the homeland about our status. Americans don't seem to have a very good grip on what their citizenship really means: how it is acquired, kept or lost, the duties and responsibilities attached to that citizenship and what it means in the world outside the U.S.
All joking aside, I find that a bit frightening. Citizenship is an individual status - something that is between an individual (you) and a country and it will impact all aspects of your life. Not understanding that relationship is downright dangerous and can get you into all kinds of trouble or, conversely, confer certain benefits that you may not be aware of.
Here are a few of the things I've heard or been asked about over the years about the status of American citizens abroad. Some of these questions may seem very silly to some of you but I assure you the people who asked were genuinely interested (or genuinely hostile) and were very surprised by my answers. I'll give the question/statement first and then my answer with links to sites where you can explore further. As always, feel free to comment or challenge what I say:
Are all people born in the U.S. citizens of the United States?: Yes, for the most part. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says that anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen. This has been very broadly interpreted to mean everyone including babies whose mothers are tourists, businesswomen, students, undocumented workers and so on. So, for example, a Frenchwoman on a business trip who goes into premature labor and has a baby in Boston has just given birth to a dual U.S./French citizen. This is irrespective of the wishes of the mother or father (even the other country's government has nothing to say about it). Quite often the parents are completely unaware that the child is, in fact, an American citizen. We call these children "Accidental" or "Involuntary" American citizens.
Nevertheless they are full U.S. citizens and have equal status with Americans in the homeland: they have the right to return to the U.S. to live and work, they can vote in U.S. elections, they are required to have a U.S. passport to enter the U.S. and they are subject to all the tax and reporting requirements of the U.S. government. Very often the only way these people find out they are U.S. citizens is when they grow up and travel to the U.S. on business or as tourists. They are stopped at the border, questioned closely when the immigration officer notes their place of birth on their passport and then informed that they are, in fact, U.S. citizens. This often comes as a huge (and often unpleasant) surprise to them. The only people born in the U.S. who are not U.S. citizens are those who have renounced that citizenship formally at a U.S. consulate abroad and can present a CLN (Certificate of Loss of Nationality) if they are challenged.
You have to be born in the U.S. to be a U.S. citizen: False. American citizenship is transmitted though both jus soli (birth on U.S. soil) and jus sanguinis (blood). A child born in China of an American mother who lived in the U.S. at some point prior to the birth and a Chinese father is an American citizen by blood even if that child never sets foot on U.S. soil.
People born in the U.S.who have never lived or worked there lose U.S. citizenship if they don't "activate" their American citizenship once they reach their majority: False. The U.S. has no automatic "opt out" mechanism for U.S. citizenship at the age of 18. If a French child born in the U.S. but living in France does nothing once he/she reaches the age of majority then he/she is still an American citizen. The only way to stop being one is to go down in person to the U.S. Embassy and renounce. This process includes paperwork, interviews and in most cases a fee of 450 USD. Failure to do this means that person is an American for life.
Americans who live outside the U.S. for X number of years lose U.S. citizenship: False. American citizenship does not come with an expiration date and is not tied to residency in the U.S. An American citizen can leave the U.S. at any age, never come back to the U.S. to live and will still be an American citizen until he/she dies.
American citizens abroad can't vote: False. This is a situation so strange that it is practically a comedy. All American citizens have the right to vote but it is tied to that U.S. state where he or she last resided or had a U.S. address. So, for example, a U.S. citizen born in California who last resided in the state of Washington and who then moved abroad and hasn't lived in the U.S. in 30 years will vote in Washington State elections. Specifically that person is eligible to vote for Washington state representatives to the U.S. Congress (senators and representatives) and for President. In other states it appears that overseas Americans are also allowed to vote in the local elections as well as the federal ones. There are even 18 states that allow people who have never lived or worked in the U.S. to register to vote where their parents were registered to vote.
American citizens who marry foreign nationals and live in the foreign spouse's country lose American citizenship: False and this one always makes me laugh because it is almost always thrown at American women who marry foreign men (rarely of American men who marry foreign women). It used to be true in the early 20th century but those laws were challenged and dropped because, among other things, they were highly discriminatory toward women. So, no, gentlemen, an American woman who marries a Frenchman (however mad that may make you) will still be an American for life unless she renounces.
American citizens who become citizens of another country automatically lose American citizenship: False. An American who voluntarily naturalizes in another country is only committing a potentially expatriating act (one of 7 in fact). However it is only an expatriating act (one that causes that person to lose citizenship) if it is committed with the intent of giving up U.S. citizenship. So, an American who becomes a citizen of Brazil, for example, will not lose American citizenship unless she intends to give up her American citizenship. If that is not her intent, then she keeps her U.S. citizenship and becomes a dual.
American citizens abroad have to obey U.S. laws even if they are living in a foreign country: True. This is one that always amazes people because, after all, if someone is doing something legal in a foreign country that is illegal in the U.S. how in the world can the U.S. claim that U.S. law still applies? Well, folks, in some cases it does though prosecutions are few. Some U.S. laws are extra-territorial and American citizens, wherever they happen to be, are subject to them even if they are dual citizens. Still don't believe me? Here is a direct quotation from the U.S. State Department website:
American citizens abroad receive special services and protection from the U.S. government: This one is a heartbreaker because the answer is "no" for the most part. There are no special services for long-term Americans abroad other than document services (passports and other official documents required by the host country) and some limited help when it comes to U.S. taxes. Consular protection is limited to making sure that the family is notified if an American citizen ends up in jail or is in trouble. They can also visit that citizen in jail and make sure that the conditions are correct. That is about it and I want to emphasize that this is not at all the fault of the Embassy/Consulate personnel who are very nice, very efficient folks. In my experience they always try to help but there just isn't a whole lot they can do for an American on foreign soil and they can do almost nothing for a dual. A U.S. passport is not necessarily much help either - it doesn't buy special treatment or a "get out of jail free" card. When a U.S. national is in another country and that country decides that person has done something wrong that person is in their jurisdiction and will suffer the consequences. I know people who have been in that situation and, yes, those U.S. citizens went straight to a foreign jail.
As for those very particular circumstances where American citizens need evacuation from dangerous situations, the reality is that this is a service for which those citizens will be billed. Yes, you heard me right, and you can find this information on the U.S. Department of State website where it clearly states:
Another very long post. I'll stop there. Please feel free to comment or add your own questions and answers. I deliberately did not touch on the U.S. tax/reporting situation but I'm sure some of you will be more than happy to talk about it. :-)
All joking aside, I find that a bit frightening. Citizenship is an individual status - something that is between an individual (you) and a country and it will impact all aspects of your life. Not understanding that relationship is downright dangerous and can get you into all kinds of trouble or, conversely, confer certain benefits that you may not be aware of.
Here are a few of the things I've heard or been asked about over the years about the status of American citizens abroad. Some of these questions may seem very silly to some of you but I assure you the people who asked were genuinely interested (or genuinely hostile) and were very surprised by my answers. I'll give the question/statement first and then my answer with links to sites where you can explore further. As always, feel free to comment or challenge what I say:
Are all people born in the U.S. citizens of the United States?: Yes, for the most part. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says that anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen. This has been very broadly interpreted to mean everyone including babies whose mothers are tourists, businesswomen, students, undocumented workers and so on. So, for example, a Frenchwoman on a business trip who goes into premature labor and has a baby in Boston has just given birth to a dual U.S./French citizen. This is irrespective of the wishes of the mother or father (even the other country's government has nothing to say about it). Quite often the parents are completely unaware that the child is, in fact, an American citizen. We call these children "Accidental" or "Involuntary" American citizens.
Nevertheless they are full U.S. citizens and have equal status with Americans in the homeland: they have the right to return to the U.S. to live and work, they can vote in U.S. elections, they are required to have a U.S. passport to enter the U.S. and they are subject to all the tax and reporting requirements of the U.S. government. Very often the only way these people find out they are U.S. citizens is when they grow up and travel to the U.S. on business or as tourists. They are stopped at the border, questioned closely when the immigration officer notes their place of birth on their passport and then informed that they are, in fact, U.S. citizens. This often comes as a huge (and often unpleasant) surprise to them. The only people born in the U.S. who are not U.S. citizens are those who have renounced that citizenship formally at a U.S. consulate abroad and can present a CLN (Certificate of Loss of Nationality) if they are challenged.
You have to be born in the U.S. to be a U.S. citizen: False. American citizenship is transmitted though both jus soli (birth on U.S. soil) and jus sanguinis (blood). A child born in China of an American mother who lived in the U.S. at some point prior to the birth and a Chinese father is an American citizen by blood even if that child never sets foot on U.S. soil.
People born in the U.S.who have never lived or worked there lose U.S. citizenship if they don't "activate" their American citizenship once they reach their majority: False. The U.S. has no automatic "opt out" mechanism for U.S. citizenship at the age of 18. If a French child born in the U.S. but living in France does nothing once he/she reaches the age of majority then he/she is still an American citizen. The only way to stop being one is to go down in person to the U.S. Embassy and renounce. This process includes paperwork, interviews and in most cases a fee of 450 USD. Failure to do this means that person is an American for life.
Americans who live outside the U.S. for X number of years lose U.S. citizenship: False. American citizenship does not come with an expiration date and is not tied to residency in the U.S. An American citizen can leave the U.S. at any age, never come back to the U.S. to live and will still be an American citizen until he/she dies.
American citizens abroad can't vote: False. This is a situation so strange that it is practically a comedy. All American citizens have the right to vote but it is tied to that U.S. state where he or she last resided or had a U.S. address. So, for example, a U.S. citizen born in California who last resided in the state of Washington and who then moved abroad and hasn't lived in the U.S. in 30 years will vote in Washington State elections. Specifically that person is eligible to vote for Washington state representatives to the U.S. Congress (senators and representatives) and for President. In other states it appears that overseas Americans are also allowed to vote in the local elections as well as the federal ones. There are even 18 states that allow people who have never lived or worked in the U.S. to register to vote where their parents were registered to vote.
American citizens who marry foreign nationals and live in the foreign spouse's country lose American citizenship: False and this one always makes me laugh because it is almost always thrown at American women who marry foreign men (rarely of American men who marry foreign women). It used to be true in the early 20th century but those laws were challenged and dropped because, among other things, they were highly discriminatory toward women. So, no, gentlemen, an American woman who marries a Frenchman (however mad that may make you) will still be an American for life unless she renounces.
American citizens who become citizens of another country automatically lose American citizenship: False. An American who voluntarily naturalizes in another country is only committing a potentially expatriating act (one of 7 in fact). However it is only an expatriating act (one that causes that person to lose citizenship) if it is committed with the intent of giving up U.S. citizenship. So, an American who becomes a citizen of Brazil, for example, will not lose American citizenship unless she intends to give up her American citizenship. If that is not her intent, then she keeps her U.S. citizenship and becomes a dual.
American citizens abroad have to obey U.S. laws even if they are living in a foreign country: True. This is one that always amazes people because, after all, if someone is doing something legal in a foreign country that is illegal in the U.S. how in the world can the U.S. claim that U.S. law still applies? Well, folks, in some cases it does though prosecutions are few. Some U.S. laws are extra-territorial and American citizens, wherever they happen to be, are subject to them even if they are dual citizens. Still don't believe me? Here is a direct quotation from the U.S. State Department website:
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.
American citizens abroad receive special services and protection from the U.S. government: This one is a heartbreaker because the answer is "no" for the most part. There are no special services for long-term Americans abroad other than document services (passports and other official documents required by the host country) and some limited help when it comes to U.S. taxes. Consular protection is limited to making sure that the family is notified if an American citizen ends up in jail or is in trouble. They can also visit that citizen in jail and make sure that the conditions are correct. That is about it and I want to emphasize that this is not at all the fault of the Embassy/Consulate personnel who are very nice, very efficient folks. In my experience they always try to help but there just isn't a whole lot they can do for an American on foreign soil and they can do almost nothing for a dual. A U.S. passport is not necessarily much help either - it doesn't buy special treatment or a "get out of jail free" card. When a U.S. national is in another country and that country decides that person has done something wrong that person is in their jurisdiction and will suffer the consequences. I know people who have been in that situation and, yes, those U.S. citizens went straight to a foreign jail.
As for those very particular circumstances where American citizens need evacuation from dangerous situations, the reality is that this is a service for which those citizens will be billed. Yes, you heard me right, and you can find this information on the U.S. Department of State website where it clearly states:
Departure assistance is expensive. U.S. law 22 U.S.C. 2671(b) (2) (A) requires that any departure assistance be provided “on a reimbursable basis to the maximum extent practicable.” This means that evacuation costs are ultimately your responsibility; you will be asked to sign a form promising to repay the U.S. government. We charge you the equivalent of a full coach fare on commercial air at the time that commercial options cease to be a viable option. You will be taken to a nearby safe location, where the traveler will need to make his or her own onward travel arrangements. If you are destitute, and private resources are not available to cover the cost of onward travel, you may be eligible for emergency financial assistance.I had a friend who was in a bad situation here in France. She had medical problems, an abusive spouse and was completely destitute (her French spouse took all the assets). She went to the U.S. embassy here and they were very very sympathetic but the only thing they could do for her was provide her with a short-term loan for a plane ticket. Since there was no one to help her once she got home (and she had visions of ending up sick on the streets of her home city in the U.S.) she thanked them and then threw herself on the mercy of the French who did care for her and helped her to sort out her situation. She is now a French citizen and a very loyal and grateful one.
Another very long post. I'll stop there. Please feel free to comment or add your own questions and answers. I deliberately did not touch on the U.S. tax/reporting situation but I'm sure some of you will be more than happy to talk about it. :-)
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Diasporas: India and her PIOs
In 1957, Prime Minister Nehru of India said:
Fast forward to 2003 and the very first Pravasi Bharatiya Divas, the "Day of the Indians Abroad" and the recognition by Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani of the Vishwa Bharati (Global India), the "embodiment of India in the world". Interesting enough many of the diasporans who attended this first ever celebration of the achievement of Indians abroad were not Indian nationals. The tent, so to speak, had been broadened to include the PIO's, people who had roots in India but who were also citizens of other states. The Indian government was proclaiming that it not only had an interest in these people but it claimed them for India regardless of their other affiliations.
What happened in those 50 years to change the Indian government's attitude toward "Overseas Indians" is the subject of Latha Varadarajan's book, The Domestic Abroad. It's a fascinating tale and, as the member of another national diaspora struggling to achieve recognition, I read it with great attention. The institutionalization of relations between the homeland and its diaspora is not obvious and depends greatly on history and an ever-changing political and economic context.
Before independence the Indian diaspora was useful in the sense that it was another resource to be used to win Indian sovereignty but its existence became rather troublesome very quickly once this was achieved. At that time sovereignty was the primary concern and that meant control over a specific territory with distinct boundaries in which the state represents a nation. Indian control over Indian territory was still quite new and perhaps a bit uncertain. The diaspora did not fit well into this discourse. Not only were these people not directly under the control of the Indian government, or physically present to build the new Indian nation-state, they were also the object of rather vicious discrimination in some of their host countries. Was India obliged to intervene on their behalf? A very hard question for a new state. Hence, Nehru's rather cold but clear statement about how exactly the Indian government viewed its citizens abroad.
According to Varadarajan, change came slowly. In part it was Indian emigration that changed the picture. in the 1970's and 80's the flow of highly-skilled people out of India to places like the U.K. and the U.S. became a flood. Another kind of migration, that of unskilled labor, was moving to the Middle East. The first group was composed of highly-skilled professionals and the government worried about the "brain drain." The second group was actually encouraged to leave in the hope that they would find employment in the Middle East and send back remittances to India thus solving two problems at once: unemployment in the homeland and increased foreign capital coming in which was desperately needed.
Another factor that was important were the different economic crisis that the Indian government faced over the years (currency devaluations, foreign exchange crisis and so on). There was a gradual opening of the economy in response to IMF and World Bank pressure. It was in this context that the Indian government started looking toward its diaspora for relief. In 1982 the government announced a "Non-resident Indian portfolio investment scheme" which was very controversial. Not all Indians in the homeland were willing to accept PIOs as being "not so foreign" and thus legitimate investors in Indian enterprises. On the other hand, many of these Indian abroad had made substantial fortunes in their host countries and it seemed reasonable, and to everyone's benefit, to tap into this. Varadarajan claims that it was at this time that attitudes really began to change, "The interchangeable usage of categories like 'Nonresident Indian' and 'Person of Indian Origin' is important because it enabled the blurring of distinctions based on rules of citizenship....making possible the constitution of the India diaspora as a unified social group, with a deep and abiding connection to the Indian nation-state." From "foreign" to "not so foreign' to "one of us" requires a series of mental leaps on the part of the government and the Indian people. Leaps that would be inconceivable, in my opinion, to Americans in the homeland today when they look at their diaspora which is purely "temporary" of course - a neat bit of fiction that is used to justify the very "hands-off' position of the US government today.
The end of the 20th and the start of the 21st centuries ushered in some very concrete steps to institutionalize this relationship between the Indian homeland and the 20 million strong diaspora: dual citizenship, the "Day of the Indian Abroad," a Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, and other initiatives.
But what of the PIO's themselves in all this? If I have one criticism of Varadarajan's book, it would be this: it treats the Indians abroad as passive actors with all the action being on the side of the Indian government. What was, in fact, the reaction of the Indian diaspora in 1957 to Nehru's words? How did Indians abroad react to government policies in the years between independence and India's rise in the early part of the 21st century? Did they ever organize? Did they form diaspora organizations to lobby the homeland? How did they react to the change in mentality - going from being perceived as a source of trouble to a source of investment? And most important, is the Indian government's portrayal of them today as "a group that had a deep and abiding connection to the motherland" an accurate assessment of their feelings? Hard to know but if anyone has any sources, I would be very interested.
I, of course, read Varadarajan's story of the Indian diaspora through the prism of my own experience as a member of another country's diaspora (or proto-diaspora if Sheffer is to be believed). Clearly the United States is in a great deal of trouble today with very serious social and economic problems. Having portrayed the American diaspora as a source of vast untapped wealth held by disloyal people, the US government is attempting to appropriate some of their property and income earned in their host countries in order to make a dent in the huge budget deficit and support investment in jobs and infrastructure in the home country. I have referred to this as the "Diaspora Tax War of 2012" and I think that does accurately describe the situation. The actions of the American government are openly belligerent and hostile with no attempt whatsoever to negotiate or to appeal to the loyalties of the 6 million Americans living outside of U.S. territory. It is nothing less than a war against its own people and will not, in my opinion, end well for anyone.
I would invite them to consider the actions of other governments - India is hardly alone in softening its stance toward its people abroad. Mexico, France, China and many other countries have come to terms with their diasporas and expanded their definition of "us" to include those who choose to reside elsewhere. As a result their nations have expanded, they have more power and influence in the world, they have citizens who are and remain loyal to their countries of origin and, I would contend, they have strengthened their nation-states, not weakened them. In a globalized world with ever increasing international migration, this is not only prudent and intelligent policy, it is a winning strategy for the homeland and its diaspora alike.
Is it truly beyond the imagination of the American nation-state to envision a world where the boundaries of the United States of America expand to include "People of American Origin" as citizen-ambassadors, unofficial diplomats, and economic actors all working on behalf of the homeland? A source of rich diversity, a projection of "soft" American power far beyond its present boundaries, and a well of willing investment in the home country to create jobs and pull the nation up and out of its current woes?
I live in hope.
We have left it up to the Indians abroad whether they continue to remain Indian nationals or to adopt the nationality of whatever country they live in. It is entirely for them to decide. If they remain Indian nationals, then all they can claim abroad is favourable alien treatment. If they adopt the nationality of the country they live in, they should associate themselves as closely as possible with the interest of the people of the country they have adopted...A very clear statement indeed. Having helped India achieve independence 10 years prior to this, the Indian diaspora (the "Indians abroad", a group of which Ghandi himself was a member at one time) was then informed that their nation was not overly interested in them and was not at all prepared to give them any recognition whatsoever, much less any help. At that time there were around 4 million PIOs, "People of Indian Origin", scattered all over the globe but living most in former British colonies.
Fast forward to 2003 and the very first Pravasi Bharatiya Divas, the "Day of the Indians Abroad" and the recognition by Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani of the Vishwa Bharati (Global India), the "embodiment of India in the world". Interesting enough many of the diasporans who attended this first ever celebration of the achievement of Indians abroad were not Indian nationals. The tent, so to speak, had been broadened to include the PIO's, people who had roots in India but who were also citizens of other states. The Indian government was proclaiming that it not only had an interest in these people but it claimed them for India regardless of their other affiliations.
What happened in those 50 years to change the Indian government's attitude toward "Overseas Indians" is the subject of Latha Varadarajan's book, The Domestic Abroad. It's a fascinating tale and, as the member of another national diaspora struggling to achieve recognition, I read it with great attention. The institutionalization of relations between the homeland and its diaspora is not obvious and depends greatly on history and an ever-changing political and economic context.
Before independence the Indian diaspora was useful in the sense that it was another resource to be used to win Indian sovereignty but its existence became rather troublesome very quickly once this was achieved. At that time sovereignty was the primary concern and that meant control over a specific territory with distinct boundaries in which the state represents a nation. Indian control over Indian territory was still quite new and perhaps a bit uncertain. The diaspora did not fit well into this discourse. Not only were these people not directly under the control of the Indian government, or physically present to build the new Indian nation-state, they were also the object of rather vicious discrimination in some of their host countries. Was India obliged to intervene on their behalf? A very hard question for a new state. Hence, Nehru's rather cold but clear statement about how exactly the Indian government viewed its citizens abroad.
According to Varadarajan, change came slowly. In part it was Indian emigration that changed the picture. in the 1970's and 80's the flow of highly-skilled people out of India to places like the U.K. and the U.S. became a flood. Another kind of migration, that of unskilled labor, was moving to the Middle East. The first group was composed of highly-skilled professionals and the government worried about the "brain drain." The second group was actually encouraged to leave in the hope that they would find employment in the Middle East and send back remittances to India thus solving two problems at once: unemployment in the homeland and increased foreign capital coming in which was desperately needed.
Another factor that was important were the different economic crisis that the Indian government faced over the years (currency devaluations, foreign exchange crisis and so on). There was a gradual opening of the economy in response to IMF and World Bank pressure. It was in this context that the Indian government started looking toward its diaspora for relief. In 1982 the government announced a "Non-resident Indian portfolio investment scheme" which was very controversial. Not all Indians in the homeland were willing to accept PIOs as being "not so foreign" and thus legitimate investors in Indian enterprises. On the other hand, many of these Indian abroad had made substantial fortunes in their host countries and it seemed reasonable, and to everyone's benefit, to tap into this. Varadarajan claims that it was at this time that attitudes really began to change, "The interchangeable usage of categories like 'Nonresident Indian' and 'Person of Indian Origin' is important because it enabled the blurring of distinctions based on rules of citizenship....making possible the constitution of the India diaspora as a unified social group, with a deep and abiding connection to the Indian nation-state." From "foreign" to "not so foreign' to "one of us" requires a series of mental leaps on the part of the government and the Indian people. Leaps that would be inconceivable, in my opinion, to Americans in the homeland today when they look at their diaspora which is purely "temporary" of course - a neat bit of fiction that is used to justify the very "hands-off' position of the US government today.
The end of the 20th and the start of the 21st centuries ushered in some very concrete steps to institutionalize this relationship between the Indian homeland and the 20 million strong diaspora: dual citizenship, the "Day of the Indian Abroad," a Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, and other initiatives.
But what of the PIO's themselves in all this? If I have one criticism of Varadarajan's book, it would be this: it treats the Indians abroad as passive actors with all the action being on the side of the Indian government. What was, in fact, the reaction of the Indian diaspora in 1957 to Nehru's words? How did Indians abroad react to government policies in the years between independence and India's rise in the early part of the 21st century? Did they ever organize? Did they form diaspora organizations to lobby the homeland? How did they react to the change in mentality - going from being perceived as a source of trouble to a source of investment? And most important, is the Indian government's portrayal of them today as "a group that had a deep and abiding connection to the motherland" an accurate assessment of their feelings? Hard to know but if anyone has any sources, I would be very interested.
I, of course, read Varadarajan's story of the Indian diaspora through the prism of my own experience as a member of another country's diaspora (or proto-diaspora if Sheffer is to be believed). Clearly the United States is in a great deal of trouble today with very serious social and economic problems. Having portrayed the American diaspora as a source of vast untapped wealth held by disloyal people, the US government is attempting to appropriate some of their property and income earned in their host countries in order to make a dent in the huge budget deficit and support investment in jobs and infrastructure in the home country. I have referred to this as the "Diaspora Tax War of 2012" and I think that does accurately describe the situation. The actions of the American government are openly belligerent and hostile with no attempt whatsoever to negotiate or to appeal to the loyalties of the 6 million Americans living outside of U.S. territory. It is nothing less than a war against its own people and will not, in my opinion, end well for anyone.
I would invite them to consider the actions of other governments - India is hardly alone in softening its stance toward its people abroad. Mexico, France, China and many other countries have come to terms with their diasporas and expanded their definition of "us" to include those who choose to reside elsewhere. As a result their nations have expanded, they have more power and influence in the world, they have citizens who are and remain loyal to their countries of origin and, I would contend, they have strengthened their nation-states, not weakened them. In a globalized world with ever increasing international migration, this is not only prudent and intelligent policy, it is a winning strategy for the homeland and its diaspora alike.
Is it truly beyond the imagination of the American nation-state to envision a world where the boundaries of the United States of America expand to include "People of American Origin" as citizen-ambassadors, unofficial diplomats, and economic actors all working on behalf of the homeland? A source of rich diversity, a projection of "soft" American power far beyond its present boundaries, and a well of willing investment in the home country to create jobs and pull the nation up and out of its current woes?
I live in hope.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Representation for Overseas Citizens - It Just Got Better for French Expats
I'm not sure if French citizens abroad are aware of this but, from my standpoint, they benefit from extraordinary support from their home country - support that this American abroad can only regard with envy.
France-Amérique : Quel est le rôle du secrétaire d'Etat aux Français de l'étranger ?
For starters there is the something called the DFAE (direction des Français à l’étranger et de l’administration consulaire). This service has over 500 people in France dedicated to expatriate issues and concerns as well as 2,700 people abroad. Their mission?
La DFAE se distingue des autres services du ministère en ce sens qu’elle traite pour l’essentiel de cas individuels, d’affaires concernant les personnes privées. Lorsqu’elle négocie une convention ou un accord, celui-ci porte toujours sur des sujets intéressant les particuliers. C’est ce qui fait la spécificité du métier consulaire et le distingue du métier diplomatique, les deux étant et devant rester intimement liés. L’activité de la direction des Français à l’étranger et de l’administration consulaire, très diverse, touche à quasiment tous les domaines de la vie, de l’acte de naissance au certificat de décès.
(The DFAE distinguishes itself from other ministries in the sense that it mostly manages individual cases, matters concerning private citizens. Whenever a treaty or convention is negotiated [with other countries] it always has an impact on topics of interest to private citizens. This is what makes the consular mission different from the diplomatic one though the two remain closely linked. The activities of the DFAE are diverse and touch all aspects of a citizen's life, from birth to death....)
And then there is the Secrétaire d’État aux Français de l’étranger (Secretary of State to the French Abroad). Yes, there is actually a government minister whose sole purpose is to travel and actually talk to French expatriates and hear their concerns. Hughes Serraf's rather tongue-in-cheek comments notwithstanding, at least he exists. The Secretary of State to the French Abroad, Edouard Courtial, visited the United States back in November of 2011 and this is what he had to say in an interview with France-Amérique :
France-Amérique : Quel est le rôle du secrétaire d'Etat aux Français de l'étranger ?
(What is the role of the Secretary of State to the French Abroad?)
Edouard Courtial : Ce poste, qui a été créé en juin dernier, est une réponse à l'évolution de la population française à l'étranger, qui a augmenté de 50 % en dix ans. Et elle continue d'augmenter de 4 % par an. Il fallait donc une adaptation institutionnelle à cette tendance.
Edouard Courtial : Ce poste, qui a été créé en juin dernier, est une réponse à l'évolution de la population française à l'étranger, qui a augmenté de 50 % en dix ans. Et elle continue d'augmenter de 4 % par an. Il fallait donc une adaptation institutionnelle à cette tendance.
(This post was created last June and was a response to the evolution of the French population abroad which has grown 50% in ten years. It is continuing to grow 4% every year. It was necessary that our institutions adapt to this phenomenon.)
France-Amérique : Pourquoi avez-vous décidé de vous rendre aux Etats-Unis ?
(Why did you decide to come to the United States?)
Edouard Courtial : Pour mieux comprendre les gens, il faut aller sur le terrain. Je n'ai pas besoin de théoriciens dans mon bureau à Paris qui m'expliquent les problèmes des expatriés. Cela fait 45 jours que je suis à ce poste et je suis déjà allé en Corée du Sud, en Chine, en Espagne, en Allemagne, en Haïti ou encore au Japon. Il était normal que je vienne en Amérique du Nord. Je n'apporterai des réponses qu'en écoutant les questions adressées directement par des expatriés.
France-Amérique : Pourquoi avez-vous décidé de vous rendre aux Etats-Unis ?
(Why did you decide to come to the United States?)
Edouard Courtial : Pour mieux comprendre les gens, il faut aller sur le terrain. Je n'ai pas besoin de théoriciens dans mon bureau à Paris qui m'expliquent les problèmes des expatriés. Cela fait 45 jours que je suis à ce poste et je suis déjà allé en Corée du Sud, en Chine, en Espagne, en Allemagne, en Haïti ou encore au Japon. Il était normal que je vienne en Amérique du Nord. Je n'apporterai des réponses qu'en écoutant les questions adressées directement par des expatriés.
(To better understand the people, it was necessary to go to them. I don't need theoreticians in my office in Paris explaining the problems of expatriates to me. After 45 days in this position I have visited South Korea, China, Spain, Germany, Haiti and Japan. So it was quite normal that I now visit the United States. I will only be able to provide answers back home if I listen to questions asked directly by expatriates.)
After reading this I had a question for Mr. Courtial - would he be willing to take on another job? Say, representing American expatriates in France before the U.S. government?
And finally, Article 24 of the 1958 Constitution establishes the right of the French living outside of France to have direct representatives in the French Senate. On the Senate website http://www.expatries.senat.fr/ I count no fewer than 12 Senators representing 1.5 million Frenchmen and women outside of France.
And if all that wasn't enough to make me green with envy, believe it or not, it just got even better for the French diaspora. In addition to the existing representation in the French Senate, this year (for the first time) French expatriates will also be electing 11 députés (representatives) to the National Assembly.
I am in awe. To my French friends who grumble a bit (especially the ones in Japan who were a bit critical of the French Embassy after the earthquake): I am sorry, mes amis, but I will take those complaints in the same spirit as I take all your criticisms of the French healthcare system. These things may not be perfect but at least they exist and, believe me, I am painfully aware of how fortunate you are to have them.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
The 2012 Diaspora Tax Wars
It appears that the U.S. government has finally done something so annoying to the American Diaspora that they are actually organizing and their fury and frustration is something to see.
The issue at hand is FATCA (the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) which would require foreign FFI's (banks mostly) to report the accounts held abroad by U.S. citizens. On the citizen side (folks like me) there is a new form to be filled out to report foreign financial assets over $50,000. This Form 8938 is in addition to (not a replacement of) the already little known and often misunderstood FBAR (Foreign Bank Account Report). Between FBAR and FATCA the reporting requirements are onerous and the penalties draconian. Non-compliance can result in a foreign entity's assets in the U.S. being seized and for American citizens they run the risk of having their life savings wiped out if they are audited and found wanting by one of the local IRS agencies abroad in Frankfurt, London, Paris or Beijing (yes, the American "fisc" is quite the international organization.)
FATCA is a road to hell in the service of at least one good intention. The original purpose seems to have been to expose American citizens living in the U.S. who might be hiding taxable assets abroad. Somehow in the making of this law it escaped the notice of Congress that there are around 6 million "regular folks" (Americans who live and work abroad as teachers, managers, nurses, and so on) who are directly and adversely impacted by it. An American living in London does not have bank accounts there to evade U.S. taxes - he or she has them in order to be able do manage such mundane tasks as getting paid and saving for retirement or paying rent and buying food. One very concrete and unfortunate consequence of this law is that European banks are dumping customers with U.S. citizenship as fast as they can. I can only cringe as I imagine the reaction of an overseas Americans to the news that he is no longer a valued customer but an annoyance to be reluctantly, but firmly, cast off lest his bank suffer the unpleasant attentions of the American IRS.
The heartening news is that, for the moment, their host countries seem to be on their side. Canada and the EU have already expressed their "concern" about FATCA (which I think is a diplomatic way of saying "Are you out of your minds?"). Many countries would have to revise their privacy laws to comply and there is no real benefit to them since U.S. banks do not seem inclined (and are under no obligation) to share the names and account numbers of their citizens hiding money in U.S. "low-tax" states.
However, Americans should not count too much on their host countries' support. I think it is very likely that one of the possible results of FATCA is that the U.S. government will make deals with other countries (over the heads of the U.S. states) to make U.S. account information available to foreign tax agencies. This would give foreign governments a stake in the game and a real incentive to pass their own new data collection and tax laws for their own diasporas. I believe it is already illegal for a French to have a foreign bank account abroad if he/she has not reported it to the French government. It might be very interesting (and perhaps quite lucrative) for said government to get their citizens' account information from, say, California...
As the deadline for implementation approaches, American citizens abroad are waking up and they are both fearful and furious. FATCA was the just the trigger and now there is an avalanche of discontent about a whole host of other issues: voting rights, discrimination, double taxation, citizenship rights, lack of representation. To get a feel for some of this anger I invite you to consult this selection of articles and sites:
The issue at hand is FATCA (the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) which would require foreign FFI's (banks mostly) to report the accounts held abroad by U.S. citizens. On the citizen side (folks like me) there is a new form to be filled out to report foreign financial assets over $50,000. This Form 8938 is in addition to (not a replacement of) the already little known and often misunderstood FBAR (Foreign Bank Account Report). Between FBAR and FATCA the reporting requirements are onerous and the penalties draconian. Non-compliance can result in a foreign entity's assets in the U.S. being seized and for American citizens they run the risk of having their life savings wiped out if they are audited and found wanting by one of the local IRS agencies abroad in Frankfurt, London, Paris or Beijing (yes, the American "fisc" is quite the international organization.)
FATCA is a road to hell in the service of at least one good intention. The original purpose seems to have been to expose American citizens living in the U.S. who might be hiding taxable assets abroad. Somehow in the making of this law it escaped the notice of Congress that there are around 6 million "regular folks" (Americans who live and work abroad as teachers, managers, nurses, and so on) who are directly and adversely impacted by it. An American living in London does not have bank accounts there to evade U.S. taxes - he or she has them in order to be able do manage such mundane tasks as getting paid and saving for retirement or paying rent and buying food. One very concrete and unfortunate consequence of this law is that European banks are dumping customers with U.S. citizenship as fast as they can. I can only cringe as I imagine the reaction of an overseas Americans to the news that he is no longer a valued customer but an annoyance to be reluctantly, but firmly, cast off lest his bank suffer the unpleasant attentions of the American IRS.
The heartening news is that, for the moment, their host countries seem to be on their side. Canada and the EU have already expressed their "concern" about FATCA (which I think is a diplomatic way of saying "Are you out of your minds?"). Many countries would have to revise their privacy laws to comply and there is no real benefit to them since U.S. banks do not seem inclined (and are under no obligation) to share the names and account numbers of their citizens hiding money in U.S. "low-tax" states.
However, Americans should not count too much on their host countries' support. I think it is very likely that one of the possible results of FATCA is that the U.S. government will make deals with other countries (over the heads of the U.S. states) to make U.S. account information available to foreign tax agencies. This would give foreign governments a stake in the game and a real incentive to pass their own new data collection and tax laws for their own diasporas. I believe it is already illegal for a French to have a foreign bank account abroad if he/she has not reported it to the French government. It might be very interesting (and perhaps quite lucrative) for said government to get their citizens' account information from, say, California...
As the deadline for implementation approaches, American citizens abroad are waking up and they are both fearful and furious. FATCA was the just the trigger and now there is an avalanche of discontent about a whole host of other issues: voting rights, discrimination, double taxation, citizenship rights, lack of representation. To get a feel for some of this anger I invite you to consult this selection of articles and sites:
- American Citizens Abroad (ACA) They are leading the charge from the heart of Europe with their Repeal FATCA Now! campaign.
- The Isaac Brock Society in Canada. "Liberty and Justice for All U.S. Persons Living in Canada and Abroad."
- Renounce U.S. Citizenship - "Stop Citizenship Based Taxation - Repeal FATCA."
- James Fallows FATCA series in The Atlantic: Fatca: The Menace You'll Hear About in 2012 (with links to articles in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal)
The Fatca Menace! (good selections from the mail he received in response to his first article with concrete examples of the impact to Americans abroad)
The Fatca Chronicles: Tales From China, Canada, and Estonia
Monday, December 12, 2011
Hard Times for the American Diaspora
The relationship between the American Diaspora and the home country is a strange one. There is no official recognition of its existence. The last time any serious effort was made to count the number of Americans living abroad was during the Eisenhower administration. When asked, the U.S. government replies that it simply lacks the means to conduct a census which is a rather odd response when you consider that U.S. government is publicly committed to enforcing taxation of American citizens abroad. If you can't count them and you don't know where they are, how in heaven's name are you going to send them a tax bill? The answer to this, of course, was FATCA which asks the host countries to be enforcers of American law abroad - something that other countries are understandably rather loathe to do. In some sense FATCA is, in my view, an admission of weakness by the U.S. government. It is saying openly that it lacks the means to assert effective sovereignty over its citizens abroad and must call on other states for help.
This is a very sad state of affairs since it assumes ill-will on the part of Americans abroad, it punishes the host countries that welcome American citizens as residents and it is quite likely to reduce foreign investment in the U.S. If including an American as a business partner in a transnational business venture means tons of paperwork, complying with onerous reporting requirements, and risking the seizure of one's assets, that does have a dampening effect on the non-US partners' enthusiasm or doing business with Americans.
I suspect that this will not end well for anyone and I think that is a shame. If I may make a modest proposition? Wouldn't it be better if, instead of trying to punish people, a real effort were made by the U.S. government to negotiate with its diaspora? When the U.S. government takes action that impacts states, it listens to their representatives and is obliged to take their interests and concerns into account. The American diaspora does not have that kind of representation but it should. If the American diaspora was taken into account, it would have a population larger than 25 states - a bit bigger than Kentucky but somewhat smaller than Colorado. There is even a precedent that goes back to 1787 for this kind of representation for people living outside the borders of the United States proper. They are called "delegates." These delegates can vote in the committees of which they are members but they cannot vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.
But to get there from where we are now would require a major shift in mentality. First of all, the United States of America would have to admit (and there seem to be some real psychological barriers to this) that a large number of its citizens do not choose to live in the United States. In all my years I have never met an American who liked hearing this - it makes them very uncomfortable.
It would also mean learning something about the diasporans and putting a human face on them. It's very easy to call U.S. citizens abroad tax cheats and so on until you actually meet a lovely 70ish American lady who has been living in Paris since World War II who is not rich, who still identifies herself firmly as an American and who considers herself to be an unofficial ambassador from her home country to her country of residence.
Another very good example of the diaspora as asset can be found in one of Robert Kaplan's books where he describes how one retired military expatriate American in Thailand acts as a facilitator between the U.S. military and the Thai authorities. Or, for another example, watch Suzanne Moyer's Ted Talk about connecting people in Morocco with people in the States to everyone's benefit.
I would argue that these people are assets, not liabilities, or people to be punished. Their activities are generally helpful, not hurtful, of American interests. It is unfortunate that all the quiet good they do is not better recognized.
Furthermore it is downright painful to listen to some of the rhetoric coming from members of Congress. Americans in general tend to have a very healthy suspicion of government and talk like this can drive them to a state of deep paranoia since it implies that their government sees them as the enemy to be hunted down with the help of their host countries.
It doesn't have to be this way and I honestly don't think that much effort would be required to make it better. How hard would it be really to come up with an outreach program though the U.S. embassies all around the world that would gently remind Americans abroad of their rights (to vote, for example) and their responsibilities as citizens wherever they happen to be living? Or what about an amnesty for those citizens who, after living abroad for many years, had no idea of the laws being passed in Congress that affect them since they have no effective representation that would keep them informed and work on their behalf?
For this to work and for Americans abroad to come forward and participate there needs to be an atmosphere of trust. No sane individual is going to do so if he or she thinks that the U.S. government is going to punish him or her for ignorance and destroy their families. FATCA is simply confirmation for many that this is exactly what will happen.
And that, mes amis, is a very sad state of affairs indeed.
This is a very sad state of affairs since it assumes ill-will on the part of Americans abroad, it punishes the host countries that welcome American citizens as residents and it is quite likely to reduce foreign investment in the U.S. If including an American as a business partner in a transnational business venture means tons of paperwork, complying with onerous reporting requirements, and risking the seizure of one's assets, that does have a dampening effect on the non-US partners' enthusiasm or doing business with Americans.
I suspect that this will not end well for anyone and I think that is a shame. If I may make a modest proposition? Wouldn't it be better if, instead of trying to punish people, a real effort were made by the U.S. government to negotiate with its diaspora? When the U.S. government takes action that impacts states, it listens to their representatives and is obliged to take their interests and concerns into account. The American diaspora does not have that kind of representation but it should. If the American diaspora was taken into account, it would have a population larger than 25 states - a bit bigger than Kentucky but somewhat smaller than Colorado. There is even a precedent that goes back to 1787 for this kind of representation for people living outside the borders of the United States proper. They are called "delegates." These delegates can vote in the committees of which they are members but they cannot vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.
But to get there from where we are now would require a major shift in mentality. First of all, the United States of America would have to admit (and there seem to be some real psychological barriers to this) that a large number of its citizens do not choose to live in the United States. In all my years I have never met an American who liked hearing this - it makes them very uncomfortable.
It would also mean learning something about the diasporans and putting a human face on them. It's very easy to call U.S. citizens abroad tax cheats and so on until you actually meet a lovely 70ish American lady who has been living in Paris since World War II who is not rich, who still identifies herself firmly as an American and who considers herself to be an unofficial ambassador from her home country to her country of residence.
Another very good example of the diaspora as asset can be found in one of Robert Kaplan's books where he describes how one retired military expatriate American in Thailand acts as a facilitator between the U.S. military and the Thai authorities. Or, for another example, watch Suzanne Moyer's Ted Talk about connecting people in Morocco with people in the States to everyone's benefit.
I would argue that these people are assets, not liabilities, or people to be punished. Their activities are generally helpful, not hurtful, of American interests. It is unfortunate that all the quiet good they do is not better recognized.
Furthermore it is downright painful to listen to some of the rhetoric coming from members of Congress. Americans in general tend to have a very healthy suspicion of government and talk like this can drive them to a state of deep paranoia since it implies that their government sees them as the enemy to be hunted down with the help of their host countries.
It doesn't have to be this way and I honestly don't think that much effort would be required to make it better. How hard would it be really to come up with an outreach program though the U.S. embassies all around the world that would gently remind Americans abroad of their rights (to vote, for example) and their responsibilities as citizens wherever they happen to be living? Or what about an amnesty for those citizens who, after living abroad for many years, had no idea of the laws being passed in Congress that affect them since they have no effective representation that would keep them informed and work on their behalf?
For this to work and for Americans abroad to come forward and participate there needs to be an atmosphere of trust. No sane individual is going to do so if he or she thinks that the U.S. government is going to punish him or her for ignorance and destroy their families. FATCA is simply confirmation for many that this is exactly what will happen.
And that, mes amis, is a very sad state of affairs indeed.
Friday, October 14, 2011
U.S./Canada Tax War
For those of you not in the know, the U.S. Government passed a law that would require all foreign banks to report the account information of all account holders with U.S. citizenship-even those who also hold citizenship in their country of residence (dual French/U.S. citizens, for example). All banks everywhere in the world are being told to comply by 2013 or face stiff penalties.
Up until now foreign governments, banks and American citizens abroad have been quietly trying to pursuade the U.S. Government to rethink this. The reporting requirements are quite onerous, banks are not happy about having to ask their clients if they are U.S. citizens, and Americans abroad are starting to become the pariahs of the banking communities in their host countries since the easiest way to avoid the hassle is to close the bank accounts of all Americans at the local bank and wash their hands of the whole business.
Now it seems that the Canadians are firing back. Remember that Canada is a top destination for U.S. emigrants and many Canadian citizens live and work in the U.S.
The first shot was fired by the Canadian Finance Minister who has publicly expressed his concern over the new rules. The second came in the form of an article in a Canadian newspaper by Arthur Cockfield called The Coming Canada-US Tax War.
His proposal is quite simple: if Canadians banks must report on the account information of Americans and duals in Canada then U.S.banks should be required to do the same for all Canadians or duals living in the United States. To be very clear this would mean that U.S. Banks would have to ask for the citizenship information of their U.S. clients and make a report to the Canadian government with the account information of all the Canadian clients they turn up. This would turn the personnel of U.S. banks into citizenship and tax agents of a foreign government - precisely what the U.S. law is requiring. Imagine what would happen if other countries follow suit.
Hard to argue with his logic. The cat is indeed among the pigeons now.
Up until now foreign governments, banks and American citizens abroad have been quietly trying to pursuade the U.S. Government to rethink this. The reporting requirements are quite onerous, banks are not happy about having to ask their clients if they are U.S. citizens, and Americans abroad are starting to become the pariahs of the banking communities in their host countries since the easiest way to avoid the hassle is to close the bank accounts of all Americans at the local bank and wash their hands of the whole business.
Now it seems that the Canadians are firing back. Remember that Canada is a top destination for U.S. emigrants and many Canadian citizens live and work in the U.S.
The first shot was fired by the Canadian Finance Minister who has publicly expressed his concern over the new rules. The second came in the form of an article in a Canadian newspaper by Arthur Cockfield called The Coming Canada-US Tax War.
His proposal is quite simple: if Canadians banks must report on the account information of Americans and duals in Canada then U.S.banks should be required to do the same for all Canadians or duals living in the United States. To be very clear this would mean that U.S. Banks would have to ask for the citizenship information of their U.S. clients and make a report to the Canadian government with the account information of all the Canadian clients they turn up. This would turn the personnel of U.S. banks into citizenship and tax agents of a foreign government - precisely what the U.S. law is requiring. Imagine what would happen if other countries follow suit.
Hard to argue with his logic. The cat is indeed among the pigeons now.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
The American Diaspora in Paris - the Memorial Cloister
When I was living in Suresnes (a small community just outside of Paris) I would wake up in the morning to the sounds of the American national anthem being played somewhere in the hills surrounding the city. At first I thought I was hallucinating - dreaming crazy expatriate dreams of home.
I wasn't. Right smack in the middle of the city on the slopes of Mont Valerian is an American military cemetery and memorial. It's not large - 7.5 acres - but it is meticulously cared for and every so often there are ceremonies honoring the 1,500 American soldiers buried here who died in World War I and 24 unknown dead from World War II. Though I do not normally spend my days communing with the dead, knowing that my compatriots were there gave me a strange sort of comfort when I was bitterly lonely and missing home in my first years here in France.
Passing through the American Cathedral the other day, I discovered another memorial that I did not know existed. If you walk through the main doors of the church and head in the direction of the chapel, I recommend that you take a detour (a left) into the Memorial Cloister.
This corridor was originally a memorial to the American dead from World War I. In 1994 7 plaques were added honoring all the dead and missing (military and civilian) from World War II.
It's quite beautiful and so calm and quiet. If you stand with your back to the wall and look out through the arches you will have a lovely view of the Dean's Garden.
And here are a few more pictures from my last visit just last week.
I wasn't. Right smack in the middle of the city on the slopes of Mont Valerian is an American military cemetery and memorial. It's not large - 7.5 acres - but it is meticulously cared for and every so often there are ceremonies honoring the 1,500 American soldiers buried here who died in World War I and 24 unknown dead from World War II. Though I do not normally spend my days communing with the dead, knowing that my compatriots were there gave me a strange sort of comfort when I was bitterly lonely and missing home in my first years here in France.
This corridor was originally a memorial to the American dead from World War I. In 1994 7 plaques were added honoring all the dead and missing (military and civilian) from World War II.
It's quite beautiful and so calm and quiet. If you stand with your back to the wall and look out through the arches you will have a lovely view of the Dean's Garden.
And here are a few more pictures from my last visit just last week.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
An American Diaspora?
Picking up our discussion of yesterday, let's talk about Americans abroad and whether or not they constitute a true diaspora.
Homeland politics, social problems and other contentious issues melt away and the focus comes back to the things we have in common, not the things that separate us.
Do Americans identify themselves as Americans when they live abroad? Absolutely. I'm sure there are exceptions but my experience has been that no matter how long that citizen has lived outside the U.S., he or she (if asked) still stands up and clearly and publicly says, "Yes, I'm an American." Stories about Americans trying to pass themselves off as Canadian are mostly apocryphal.
There is also most definitely a collective memory and solidarity in the American communities I've seen abroad. This is manifested most clearly in institutions (churches, libraries and schools) and in voluntary organizations. Membership in these entities is strictly a matter of individual choice. Not everyone chooses to join an American Church or to send their children to an American school but these things exist and are there for Americans if they need or want them. Often the local U.S. Embassy is a good place to go for more information. The U.S. Embassy in Paris maintains this fine list of U.S. and French-American Associations.
There are also a few worldwide organizations that link American communities abroad on a larger scale: AAWE (Association of American Wives of Europeans), ACA (American Citizens Abroad),
AARO (Association of American Residents Overseas) and FAWCO (Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas). There are also chapters of the major political parties that target American overseas voters: Democrats and Republicans Abroad.
At times these organizations have been very effective in defending the rights of Americans overseas. See this AARO article for the remarkable story of the other Tea Party movement which, with the support of Senator Barry Goldwater, got the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act through Congress and signed by President Gerald Ford back in 1975.
All of the above, I contend, show that there is a good case to be made for the existence of an American diaspora. Nevertheless, there are still a few good arguments against:
- Many Americans are already members of other diasporas: Since the U.S. is a country of immigration, Americans abroad are also legitimate members of, for example, the Irish, Chinese or Palestinian diasporas. Gabriel Sheffer puts it this way, "Can the Americans, who themselves are of diverse ethnic origins and are citizens of a civic state rather than an ethnic state, be regarded as belonging in the category of ethno-national diasporas, or do they constitute yet another borderline case?"
- Solidarity is limited to Americans in a specific host country: Yes, there are worldwide organizations that try to link Americans worldwide but, unless there is some large issue that comes up affecting Americans abroad in large numbers, Americans in France don't necessarily connect with or feel close to Americans in China or the Philippines.
- Americans don't feel as vulnerable as members of other diasporas: This is relative and there are surely places where Americans do not feel particularly safe. However, where there are large communities (Canada, Mexico, UK, Spain, France, Germany) Americans feel pretty comfortable, protected by both their U.S. passports and by the governments of their host countries. As a result, their presence is quiet. It is practically unheard of, in my experience, to have Americans in France out there protesting changes to French immigration law alongside the Algerians even though these changes do impact their lives in a negative way. I suspect this is true in other places: quiet diplomacy is preferred to open conflict or public negotiation with the host countries.
The first point is easily answered - hybrid identities are becoming more and more common. I do not see a problem with a Japanese-American living in Germany claiming membership in both the Japanese and American diasporas. The last two points I will concede for now because they represent the current state of things.
They do not, however, take into account what the future will bring. We know that there are some issues of primary importance to overseas Americans: taxation, overseas banking laws, citizenship, voting rights which, if the American government were to erode existing rights or to make new laws that directly and negatively impact the lives of all Americans overseas, well, you just might see a tsunami of mighty anger directed at Washington from millions of American voters outside U.S. territory.
There is also the possibility that the political climates of the host countries will change and Americans will start facing discrimination or overt hostility on a wide scale. If that happened in Europe, for example, the American "third-country nationals" might find it desirable to create ties with other diasporas and lobby the European Union for action.
That said, I will meet Sheffer halfway and argue that Americans abroad do constitute a diaspora but it is a dormant one. The structure is there, all the mechanisms for collective action exist and have existed for years, but they are not as effective as they could be because there is no compelling reason for Americans overseas to openly act as a group in the political and social realms of the homeland or host countries.
Yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)