New Flophouse Address:

You will find all the posts, comments, and reading lists (old and some new ones I just published) here:
https://francoamericanflophouse.wordpress.com/

Saturday, May 11, 2013

A Few Ideas for Resolving the American Diaspora Tax War

There is a lively discussion going on over at Mother Jones in response to their article, Rand Paul Wants to Loosen Laws on Offshore Tax Evasion.  The article refers to a bill sponsored by Senator Rand Paul to repeal FATCA.  You can learn more about Paul's effort at Overseas Exile and Repeal FATCA.  The latter is reporting that Paul's bill has been endorsed by the U.S. Credit Union National Association.

In one comment a FATCA supporter asked a very good question, "So if you folks hate FATCA, what is your counter-proposal?"

Aside from the obvious, "We would like you to kill FATCA.  Go Rand Paul!" I thought of a few things that might mitigate some of the worst effects of this law and some of the other reporting requirements.  Feel free to rip them apart.  I'm putting them forward, not because I need to be right, but because we are at risk of falling into a dialogue of the deaf.  Time to do some creative thinking here - it's getting ugly, folks.   So here are a few modest, simple ideas.

1.  Redefine "Foreign Accounts":  Here is the comment I left in response to the Mother Jones article:
At issue here are "foreign" accounts where Americans are alleged to have stashed money in order to escape taxes. But for an American residing in London, that checking/savings account is local. Why can't American tax law reflect that? Why can't we just say that if the account is located in a country where a US citizens lives and/or works, that account is a local, not a foreign, account in the eyes of the US government? This would get rid of many truly useless reporting requirements like the FBAR (which has a very low threshold of 10,000 US or about 7,500 Euros). FATCA could be changed to reflect that as well. Only non-resident accounts of US citizens in the homeland would be subject to reporting. This would mean that the people in the US who have accounts abroad would still have to report them and be subject to reporting but those who are living abroad would be exempt.
I think of this every year as I send my FBAR (Foreign Bank Account Report) off to Treasury. And I just have to laugh because of what possible interest is my daughter's 200 Euro savings account to the US government (unless you want to argue that a 17 year old US citizen living abroad is already suspected of being a tax evader :-). And I laugh even harder when I think that some poor government worker back in the US (paid by the US homeland taxpayer, of course) has to sort through all of this to no purpose whatsoever.
Think about it, folks.  In one bold stroke we would eliminate all that useless and onerous paperwork and save everybody (US citizens and Green Card holders abroad and Americans in the homeland) a chunk of change.  No more FBARs, no more form 8938's for US citizens who are residents or who work abroad.  Since the requirements for Americans living in the US to report their accounts abroad would still stand, this ought to be sufficient to catch those who make their money in the US and "park" it elsewhere to evade taxes.

2.  "No Questions Asked" Renunciation:  As US citizens and Green Card holders have educated themselves (with precious little help from the US government) about the US tax and reporting requirements, many wish to renounce and become citizens of the countries where they live or turn in that Green Card and move on.  As many have discovered, this is easier said than done.  So, why not make it easy?  One trip (instead of several) to the local US Embassy, cut the form down to one page that can be filled out in 5 minutes, no fees, and let the person renounce on the spot if he or she wishes to do so.  The Certificate of Loss of Nationality should also be issued at the same time as the renunciation.  Forget the tax forms - does anyone seriously think that the US government is going to track down the citizen of another country to make him or her pay a non-filing fine?

Again, this would save everyone a lot of money and Life Credit Units.  Fewer useless forms to fill out and less burden on Embassy staff.  For those who argue (and they are legion) that if Americans abroad don't like FATCA or citizenship-based taxation, they should just renounce, this would remove the barriers and everyone (Americans abroad who wish to renounce and those at home who don't think they are "real" Americans anymore) would get what they want.

This would also solve the problem of those "Accidental Americans" - those who may have been accidentally born in the US and left as children or those who were born abroad to a US citizen parent.  If they don't want to be Americans then let them go and wish them well.  A winner all around.

And give up the idea that the US can shake them down (fine the bejesus out of them) before they get their "Get out of jail free" cards.     That is not only stupid but it is a petty act unworthy of any democratic nation-state.

3.  Amnesty and Education:  Most Americans abroad didn't comply with the US tax and reporting requirements because they didn't know about them.  The path to compliance is complex and of what possible use to anyone are years of back tax returns with nothing but zeroes on them?  Or FBAR's with "foreign" (local to us) savings and checking accounts or children's college funds or pensions?  

I know that "amnesty" is a bad word in the U.S. but wouldn't it be simpler and easier to just ask Americans abroad to start filing now?  And that means this year or the next.  Forget the past - it's too complicated to sort out and the US government deserves some of the blame here for 1.  Sitting on the law for years and not trying to enforce it, 2.  Making no attempt to educate Americans citizens living abroad about their reporting obligation and 3. Not providing a clearer path to compliance for those Americans abroad who are willing to do so voluntarily.

Let's start over with a clean slate.  And let's start thinking of ways we could avoid the problem altogether by providing people with information:  What about:
  • A short note explaining the tax and reporting obligations of Americans to be slipped into the passport when any American leaves the country.
  • The same note slipped into a new passport issued to any American abroad or to someone picking up a Green Card at their local US Embassy.
  • Full disclosure of these tax and reporting requirements to be made at all classes preparing immigrants for US citizenship.  And a note to be sent to them before they take the oath to be sure that they understand what the US will be asking of them once they become citizens.
It doesn't have to be a novel - just an outline with links to more information.  It won't reach everyone but I'm looking for progress, not perfection.

And if people don't care for it, well, they would have options like renouncing or not becoming a US citizen or remaining one and working through the political process to get it changed.

Sure, surely, all this is possible?

What do you think, folks?

  

Thursday, May 9, 2013

My Very Own Letter of Note

Late last week I received this letter (yes, a real letter in an envelope with stamps and everything) from my oncologist.

Madame,

Je revois ce jour votre dossier avec le résultat de votre Pet Scan du 17.04.2013 qui est tout à fait rassurant.
Je vous reverrai donc comme convenu en octobre 2013 avec le résultat d'un CA 15.3.

Restant à votre disposition,

Je vous prie de croire, Madame, à l'assurance de mes sentiments devoués.


I won't translate the entire letter but the gist is that the PET scan was clean and I am, for the moment, just fine.  Next appointment is in October.

And that means I won't be spending this summer doing this....


As my strength comes back I'm starting to get the travel bug:   Seattle to see my family, Vancouver, B.C. to see friends, and if I feel OK after that, Montreal, QC.

Still cautiously optimistic but much more hope mixed in with the caution. 

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

A Hippy Childhood

Cruising through a friend's Facebook page the other day, I found a link to an article that brought back all kinds of memories of my early childhood.  It's called 29 Signs You were Raised by Hippies: Your friends think you're liberal? If only they knew how liberal a home you're from.

Not all apply in my case.  To my knowledge a doula did not preside over my birth, my mother and father went for a traditional name (Victoria),  we had a television at home and I was baptized into the Roman Catholic church when I was an infant.  Born in 1965 in Seattle, Washington into what you might called a "mixed" household, my father was a computer programmer for the state Revenue Department in Olympia.  He was, as I recall, a moderate conservative.  His mother was a second generation German Catholic (with, she said, Jewish roots) from Missouri and his father was the product of a Lutheran Norwegian family from the Midwest.

My mother was more local.  She was born in Seattle in a working class neighborhood called White Center to a family with French-Canadian roots and had relatives in farming communities in Eastern Washington, Idaho and Wisconsin.  First a student at the Evergreen State College (an alternative college with no grades and a DIY program ), she later worked for the school and did photography (she is still a gifted photographer).  Our family followed the pattern of the times which meant that my mother had most of the responsibility for me and my brother when we were young.

That meant not so much tie-dyed clothing but lots of t-shirts and jackets with the logo of the college and its mascot, the geoduck.  These was combined with jeans and tennis shoes which made for a very functional ensemble.  I did have fancy girly dresses for special occasions which were hand sewn by my mother who was and is a skilled seamstress.  Growing up there was no, I repeat, no white sugar in the house and no processed foods. Mom made tofu milkshakes for breakfast (yuck) and I remember trying to eat carob (tasted like chalk).  The only food item that I really liked that came from the co-op was kefir.  The very first thing I did when I finally got an allowance was to spend it on candy at a local store.

Yes, I know who Timothy Leary, Jerry Garcia and Buckminster Fuller were and I've seen far too many dusty copies of the Whole Earth Catalog tucked into sagging bookcases - the Kama Sutra too which is a much better read.  I was as familiar with the smell of marijuana as I was with cigarette smoke and I won't tell you at what age I first inhaled the former and tasted my first hash brownie.  To those who argue that pot is a gateway to worse things, my experience was that the whole business simply didn't interest me much as I got older.  Taking drugs as a form of adolescent rebellion simply loses any meaning when the adults in your life have already claimed that territory.  Other ways had to be found.  So, one day I came home and informed my mother that I had joined the Young Americans for Freedom, a very conservative youth organization.  To my disappointment my mother replied with something very mild and along the lines of, "That's nice, dear."  My mother is no fool.

If I may add another item to the list which would bring it up to 30?  Hippy daycare.  At some point in the 1970's when my mother was at Evergreen we were placed in a daycare called Nanny Noodles.  This was an old rickety house on the outskirts of town with a barn and lots of pasture.  On rainy days we spent most of our time in the kitchen which was very messy but warm (I think it had a woodstove) or in the barn.

I do not think that even the most "progressive" or Left-wing of my friends today would have approved and they sure as hell wouldn't think of putting their children in such a place today.  There were no scheduled activities - no attempt whatsoever to socialize or educate us in an explicit way - no language, music or art classes tailored to the under ten set, no nap times or play times or snack times.  For the most part we were left to do what we liked with very little supervision:  play in the barn, play with the goats, run in the fields,  read books, listen to music, coo at the cat that just had kittens and stuff like that.  We were allowed to get very dirty and no one ever chastised us for playing in the mud or running in the fields.  When we were tired we could come in and sleep.  If we were cold we could sit in the kitchen by the stove and one of the ladies would make us something hot to drink.  At least once I was brought along for a real adventure - we hitchhiked into town where one of my caretakers conducted her business and I got an ice cream cone.

By today's standards, it was not particularly hygienic or safe or even licensed as far as I know. But it was a lot of fun and if I had a "happy childhood" (something Americans hold to be important) it was in part because of this place and the ladies who ran it.

Being a kid with a kid-centric view of the universe, I always thought Nanny Noodles existed for my pleasure.   It was also, unbeknownst to me, part of something a bit larger.  In the 1970's some people in the feminist and gay liberation movements lost faith in the larger culture and decided to create their own spaces where they could live separately.  They were called "intentional communities" and some were full-fledged communes and others were just houses owned in common where the residents committed to a certain shared way of living.  Nanny Noodles was one of these houses established by a group of lesbian women.
As part of this, lesbians came to the conclusion that heterosexism would not allow for gay equality, so we had to create women’s space to build up our own equality. And so we did by creating intentional communities across the country. Olympia was one of those areas were people migrated and created collective households. So in this way, this movement for intentional communities went from the national or macro level to local then to the micro level, which is the household unit.
Why did these households spring up in Olympia, Washington, of all places?  "Some people say these collective households sprang up as the alternative sorority and fraternity houses for Evergreen, which opened in the late 1960’s ."  The Evergreen State College was founded as an alternative school and become something of a magnet for people who wanted to live outside the mainstream culture.  I think it also had to do with the mix of rural and urban areas where one could live out in the countryside but still come into town regularly.  And Olympia was certainly at that time way off the beaten path.  Even today students coming to the college from the east who take a train cross-country end up at what passes for a train station out in the middle of nowhere.

I once read that person's life can be read in layers - each period from childhood to adolescence to adulthood to middle and old age is a city that falls into ruins and is built up over and over again.  When we excavate later in life only bits and pieces remain.   It is very tempting to project the present onto the past and say, "I am this today because...." so we must be very careful and not trust our memories too much.

What bits and pieces remain of that hippy childhood in the 40 years that followed?  Does any of it remain in woman that I am today?

Yes.

When my children were little and going to preschool (Maternelle) here in France  I hated everything about it.  I thought it was too regimented, too strict, too organized.  Compared to the benevolent anarchy that reigned at Nanny Noodles, this was a Fascist dictatorship.  My elder Frenchling was once forced to sit at the table after lunchtime because she refused to eat her cheese and one of the caretakers decided she was going to fix that. The caretaker broke before my daughter did and I was secretly proud of her for not giving in.  Going toe to toe with a small child over a bit of cheese struck me as pretty silly and I just couldn't see what all the fuss was about.

In fact an awful lot of the child raising advice that I was urged to take in the Hexagon rubbed me the wrong way.  It felt like "command and control" and every time I saw a father haranguing a child in the grocery story or a mother sending her child off to play with the warning to be sage (good) and not to dirty her dress or my mother-in-law insisting that my children sit at table just so (space for a rat in front and a cat behind),  I would wince.  And I'll admit that I snapped a time or two.  Pure projection of my own North American upbringing which included a strong belief in that "happy childhood."  The French have another way and today I can see some of the merits in it though I don't think I could ever swallow that philosophy wholesale, much less live it.  If I ever have grandchildren, I imagine that I will be just as American in that role as I was as a mother.

Another piece of the ruin that I have kept with me is a lifelong belief in feminism coupled with a deep mistrust of government and the tyrannie de la majorité.     No one at Nanny Noodles ever told me not to soil my dress (I didn't wear them) and I was treated no differently from the boys.  Free to Be You and Me was the album of choice and was played so often on the record player that I still remember some 40 years later the words to many of the songs ("Don't dress your cat in an apron....")  This was reinforced, oddly enough, much later at the Catholic high school I attended which was another "intentional community"  run by and for women.  "God gave you a mind, " a sister said to me one day, "Use it!"

As a child and later as a young woman I was well aware that both communities were at odds with authority and the larger culture.  I may not have known why at the time but I knew something was going on.  It manifested itself in the way the more mainstream people in Olympia looked at us, comments directed at me at school, and the attempts by lawmakers to shut down the college.  I never experienced this directly but there are reports of harassment by the police and outright bigotry on the part of the local citizens:
Once we got to the senior center, we saw that the Senior Center director had stayed late specifically to meet us and tell us we couldn’t meet there because we were beasts and that we didn’t belong in his building. Then he threw us all out. It was one of those horrible experience of straight up, in your face bigotry. So there we were in the street, staring at each other, and when other women arrived, we explained we had been kicked out. While just about everyone had come prepared for a rousing political debate about our differences, we instead found ourselves quietly facing the reality of how much we needed each other. This was an incredibly unifying experience for everybody - - we realized that we were a women’s community and that we needed each other to pull together to survive. 
I do not agree entirely with Ronald Reagan's statement that, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,"  but having seen situations where the local government and populace are either hostile or unhelpful to good people who simply want to be left alone, I retain a deep mistrust of both.  And to hell with the polls and surveys which try to determine the will and feelings of the people.  The "people" can be dead wrong (and foolish and unjust and downright petty and mean).

Having spent two formative periods of my life among the "internal exiles" - those who opted out of the larger community to find spaces where they could live as they pleased - I was well disposed later in life to go into exile myself.  

What I found a few thousand miles away from where I was born and raised was not something better or worse then the place I left behind.  It was just different.  In any case, it was a one way trip.  Not only are none of us getting any younger but the places, people and ideas we remember have moved on in our absence.  They would have done so in any case whether we had stayed or not.  As Christian Wiman pointed out in his eloquent essay, My Bright Abyss,  there is no way to  “return to the faith of your childhood...” You are no longer a child and the faith has changed while you were away.  Nanny Noodles no longer exists as either a daycare or an intentional community and the nuns shut down the high school a few years after I graduated.   The university I attended when I lived in the U.S. has become a labyrinth of new buildings and paths.  Even the region where I grew up has become a "foreign territory" to me to some extent.

The day I realized all of this is the day I cast aside the idea that I was a Sojourner in the Hexagon and redefined my identity as an immigrant Settler.  I suppose that if I live long enough that too will fall into ruins and be built over with yet another layer of something else and that's okay.  My program says, "We will not regret the past nor wish to shut the door on it." Or, to put it another way, Wiman says,  "It follows that if you believe at 50 what you believed at 15, then you have not lived—or have denied the reality of your life."

If I had to sum up the reality of my life today, I'd say this:  I love where I'm from, but I've bloomed where I was planted.  I hope the ladies at Nanny Noodles did too.

Monday, May 6, 2013

More Data about Americans Abroad

Americans abroad are proof that countries of immigration can also be countries of emigration.  Flows in and flows out, mes amis.  This is why the net migration rate is something to watch. 

Emigration from the United States is pretty low.  There are an estimated 6 million Americans living outside the United States which is a drop in the bucket compared to the over 300 million Americans living in the homeland.

Not a lot is known about these 6 million U.S. citizens living outside the U.S. and both the American public and government are rather disinterested in them.  Unless of course they write a book (fairy tales really) about having "escaped" America to Belize or retired to France to rebuild a stone farmhouse.   These stories are always about individuals and their adventures and as such threaten no one.  They certainly do not inspire homelanders to look a bit deeper to see how common or uncommon such stories are.

Americans abroad are not part of the U.S. census so no one really knows how many of them there are.  The U.S. government does not officially track them when they leave the country and there is no requirement that they register with the local U.S. Embassy or give any indication of their whereabouts except on the hated tax forms. Even less interest is shown in their offspring who are, in most cases, also American citizens though they may have never set one foot on American soil and may or may not speak English.

The lack of solid information about Americans abroad means that fantasy is the order of the day.  Some are convinced that they are a bunch of hippy dippy lifestyle migrants (who vote Democrat).  Most are dead certain that they are rich tax evaders.  The only common opinion in this sea of speculation is that there is something a bit fishy about them.

As for the Americans abroad themselves, most simply want to be left alone.  Having removed themselves from the national territory, they want nothing more than to go about their lives.  Most will never write a book or a blog or join one of the many American clubs and communities that can be found all over the world.

Americans abroad and homelanders had for many years an uneasy truce based on willful ignorance on all sides.  Americans in the U.S. didn't really want to know how many people leave America and Americans abroad, in general, didn't want to be found.  This worked quite nicely and served everyone's interests until that day when the U.S. government changed its mind and decided that the American diaspora might be useful after all.  It was not the content of their characters, their role as a promoter of U.S. interests abroad or their inter-cultural and linguistic skills that made them interesting - it was the contents of their bank accounts.

Talk about putting the cart before the horse.  Here is a population that the American public and government know next to nothing about and yet, somehow, these people are supposed to singlehandedly put a large dent in the national debt - something that pleases the homelanders greatly since it kills two birds with one stone:  They believe it will mean no (or fewer) tax hikes for them and they can experience a perverse pleasure in punishing those who had the temerity to leave the United States for distant shores.  It might even serve as a sort of prevention - after all, we wouldn't want other homeland Americans to emulate them.  Like, for example, that large population of the young groaning under the weight of student debt that they have no hope whatsoever of repaying.

Where once we all (Americans abroad and homelanders) had an interest in ignoring each other, today Americans abroad have a very good reason to come out of the shadows:   The lack of information about us is being used against us.

One effort to shed some light on America's "domestic abroad" is a recent study conducted by Dr. Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels of the University of Kent in Brussels.  She has been studying the American diaspora since 2007 and in 2012 she conducted an on-line survey and gathered information from over 800 volunteer participants.  The results of her research will be published in 2013 but she has been releasing some of her data on-line and it makes for fascinating reading.  Here are a few of her findings:

A Diverse Population:  A term like "lifestyle migrant" is not only a poor one but it is grossly inaccurate when it comes to describing Americans abroad.  Some are indeed rich but most are middle or lower-income.  Most work and they represent a variety of professions:  English teachers, interpreters, IT workers, secretaries, small business owners, contract workers...
Americans living overseas are retirees, whose dollars go further in Mexico, Costa Rica or
Thailand than they do in Florida. They are students, they are veterans, they are NGO workers, intra-company transferees. They are spouses of foreigners, and are stay-at-home mothers and fathers. They live and work overseas.
Here is her breakdown by profession/sector:
  • "Ca. 20% are involved in education in some way, either teaching and/or researching in secondary or higher education or teaching English. By comparison, ca. 2% of the US population work in education.
  • Ca. 20% of Americans overseas work in the IT or communications industry. By comparison, ca. 2% of the US population work in the information sector. 
  • Ca. 10% are retired; 
  • Ca. 8-10% are involved in arts or entertainment; 
  • Ca. 5-10% are home-makers; 
  • Ca. 5-10% are students; 
  • Ca. 5% are lawyers; 
  • Ca. 5% are authors or journalists; 
  • Ca. 5% work in the finance or insurance sector, with less than half of one percent overall at the managerial level. By comparison, ca. 5% of the US population work in the finance sector as well. 
  • Others run small “bed and breakfast”-type inns, others work in a variety of professional or technical services, including translation, others are social workers and in many more types of employment. "
Settlers versus Sojourners:   There are those who go abroad short-term to work or travel (sojourners) and there are those who settle in and stay long-term.  Koppenfels says that many Americans abroad are "accidental migrants":
These are US citizens who never meant to leave the United States permanently, but may have gone abroad for a study abroad program, an internship or a six-month backpacking trip, only to meet a partner or receive a job offer, with the result that the initial “temporary” stay has become one of 25 years. Some 40% of Americans living overseas have done so for more than 10 years.
Different Countries, Different Profiles:  Different countries attract different Americans.  Here in Paris, for example, I meet quite a few people in the "creative industry":  musicians, poets, writers, painters and the like.  Many of them are African-Americans and there is a history there that merits far more attention than it gets.    In Tokyo the profile was very different and the Americans I met there were mostly ex-US military.  Koppenfels implies that the same is true of Germany and one would imagine other places where the US military has a strong presence:
...perhaps 15% of Americans living in London are employed by a US-owned company, this percentage drops to just 1 or 2 % in Germany. On the other hand, in Germany, a number of former US military have remained after their last tour of duty, or have returned, often marrying German women, a pattern that is repeated in many countries with a US military presence. Some one-third of Americans in Germany are self-employed, the majority of those working as free-lance translators or English teachers. In short, patterns that are seen in one city or country are, for the most part, not indicative of Americans living overseas as a whole.
Reason for Leaving:  The question of why Americans left the U.S. and why some stay abroad long-term is one that few ask openly.  There are almost no studies about this which says to me that, on some level,  homelanders would really rather not know and Americans abroad would rather not say unless they can answer anonymously.  Oh, homelanders will ask an individual for his or her reasons but the question is rarely seriously studied at a higher level.  The exception to this, of course, is when an interest group in the U.S. wants to make political hay in support of some change they would like to see in the homeland.    Other than that, it is a topic that is whispered about  entre nous. (Another topic that is just as taboo is the number of Americans renouncing.) 

To the first question, "Why did they leave?" Koppenfels has some interesting data (and a hat tip to Roger Conklin who mentioned her findings and inspired me to look for more information):
  • "The largest single group, ca 25%, are individuals who have married a non-US citizen living outside of the United States.
  • Ca. 5-10% are former US military who have either stayed in their last country of posting or returned to a country of former posting.
  • Ca. 15% came to pursue studies/ study abroad/ internship.
  • Ca. 10% applied for and received a job overseas.
  • Ca. 5-10% accompanied a partner/ spouse who was moving for employment, most likely as an intra-company transferee.
  • Ca. 5% left the US on an intra-company transfer.
  • Ca 5% were looking for a more affordable quality of life.
  • Some 3 to 5% were born overseas to US citizens and have either remained overseas or returned to their country of birth.
  • Other US citizens left the US for a variety of reasons, including having been born to non-US citizens only temporarily in the United States, and leaving as infants. "
What is fascinating about this breakdown is what you don't see.  Where is that category "evil rich disloyal tax evader living it up on the Riviera?" that we hear so much about?  

Instead what you see are Americans who are raising families, Americans who work, Americans who served, Americans who study and are curious about the world, and retirees on fixed incomes.  In short, Americans very much like their compatriots back in the homeland.  

And if I may be permitted to vent for one brief moment?  

Shame on those back in the homeland, both the general public and the U.S. government, for treating them like criminals, for not caring for or about them, and for projecting their fantasies onto them of which the most laughable is the idea that these teachers, IT workers, homemakers, former military, students and retirees have enough cash to put a serious dent in the homeland's budget woes.

Dream on, America, dream on.....

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

May Day

Here's hoping that you all are enjoying the holiday. Just about everything here in France is closed and the weather in Versailles is terrible so we plan on spending the day reading and watching movies.

Zero Dark Thirty will be playing this afternoon at the Flophouse Home Theater.  Arun of Arun with a View has a good review here.

My reading has taken an interesting turn in the past few days.  For reasons I no longer recall, I followed a link to another link which talked about Peter Berger, the American sociologist.  I read at least one of his books long ago when I was at university.   He is a rather prolific author and I found several titles that seemed promising.  Yesterday I finished Adventures of an Accidental Sociologist: How to Explain the World without Becoming a Bore.   I'm sorry to say that I was indeed bored by the first half of the book which goes into excruciating detail about his career and the success of his books.  I stuck with it, however, and the second half of the book was much better and some of his more recent work struck a chord with me.  So I downloaded two others:  In Praise of Doubt and A Rumor of Angels.

As always, this morning I walked the garden and was pleased to see that my muguet (Lily of the Valley) is blooming right on time.  It is the custom in France to offer bouquets of muguet to friends and family on the first of May.  At this time last year I was headed for the hospital and right after I was admitted, a nurse stopped by with some in a little plastic cup filled with water.

Where does this custom come from?  It goes back to the 16th century when the King, Charles IX decided to offer bouquets of muguet to the ladies of the court.  In the 20th century the practice became widespread and was linked to May 1, International Worker's Day (which has its origins in the US and France).


I was delighted to see that the previous owner of our house liked muguet too.  It is everywhere in garden - every bed has a few and in the back perennial bed by the stone wall they are so abundant that I am actually contemplating moving a few.  They are beautiful when they bloom but they pass so soon and then take up space that could be devoted to other things.

Il est revenu le temps du muguet
Comme un vieil ami retrouvé
Il est revenu flâner le long des quais
Jusqu'au banc où je t'attendais
Et j'ai vu refleurir
L'éclat de ton sourire
Aujourd'hui plus beau que jamais
Le temps du muguet ne dure jamais....

Francis Lemarque

If dahlias are the drag queens of the garden, muguet is something a bit more discreet - beauty you have to look for and can easily pass over if you aren't paying attention.  The garden needs both.  The right balance is entirely up to you.

Bonne fête du 1er mai à toutes et à tous!

Monday, April 29, 2013

The Right to Invite

A very intriguing post came up on Open Borders last week.  I follow them regularly and comment occasionally because the premise the site is built around, the idea that we should tear down most, if not all the walls, and let people move where they like, is one that we should all take very seriously.
This website is dedicated to making the case for open borders. The term “open borders” is used to describe a world where there is a strong presumption in favor of allowing people to migrate and where this presumption can be overridden or curtailed only under exceptional circumstances. 
To help you reflect the site has gathered together arguments for and against - from the moral and practical standpoints to some of the more theoretical  discussions.

Are Open Borders possible in today's world?  As someone who closely follows the debates around immigration on two continents (North America and Europe) I'd have to say "no".  Way too much fear on the part of both governments and natives.  The idea of control is still the order of the day and the perception is that migration is a leaky faucet that must be first closed tightly with a wrench before it's slowly opened and closed to achieve perfect flows.  What makes many despair  (but gives me a great deal of hope) is that the bureaucracies and politicians who try to manage immigration are really lousy plumbers.  With a mindset that sees chaos (unrestricted illegal immigration) on one side and command and control on the other, states opt for control with the public either cheering them on or complaining bitterly because these measures are never entirely successful.

Nathan Smith recognizes that the world is probably not ready for open borders.  With that in mind he turned his attention toward what he thinks could be achieved.  The post is called Halfway Measures to Open Borders -  concrete proposals that are something short of a perfect world but are incremental and plausible in today's context.  Some are even, I think, already being implemented in some countries.

Take the "right to invite," for example.  Smith rightly points out that specific groups like California farmers in the U.S. already lobby government  for the right to bring guest workers into the country.  Business in France does the same and has even been given its own site, Pour la promotion de l'immigration professionnelle, and government agents available to help them hire migrants.

What if people (not just industry) asked for and got a "right to invite"?  That might be a bridge too far for many but something very close to it already exists in the Canadian Provincial Nominee Program.  This program allows local governments, responding to local requirements, to seek out and invite the migrants they need and want.  As Andrew Griffith points out in the comments section, this system is not perfect but it is a nice compromise and makes perfect sense.  It is almost impossible for a national government to make immigration laws that are a perfect fit for all regions within a country - the needs of cities in France versus those of the countryside or the human capital requirements of states, provinces and city-states in North America.  Making the "right to invite" more local means less bureaucracy, a faster process and a better fit between migrants and the regions that need them.

Another proposal of Smith's is to have more international migration agreements between nations.
For example, what if the US and the EU made an agreement whereby Europeans could migrate to the US and work freely, and Americans could do the same in Europe. I would anticipate large gains on both sides, as Americans would benefit culturally from access to Europe’s treasury of ancient, beautiful cities, while Europeans would benefit economically from access to America’s relatively more prosperous and dynamic economy. 
That would make a lot of sense though I think he underestimates how many Americans are coming to Europe for economic opportunities.  America is indeed relatively prosperous but only for some.  In many cases an American migrant can actually do quite well in the EU.  Even where that is not true the benefit of migrating may be to his or her offspring because public education is better funded and social mobility much higher in EU countries.   Times have indeed changed.  Another idea I've heard is to extend NAFTA to make regional mobility even easier for the citizens of Canada, the US and Mexico.

Such agreements already do exist in the world.  The EU, for example, is one great experiment in open borders with free movement guaranteed (and even encouraged) between the 27 member-states.  Agreements between European countries like Spain and the Ibero-American countries are another.  Quebec has agreements with France and vice versa.  I agree that more agreements would be a good thing and I just have to ask why the U.S. has no such partnerships with other nations.  Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that my U.S. citizenship does not afford me easy access to any other nation or region which, in a globalized world, makes it much less valuable than an EU passport which would give me access to 27+.

In some way, the most favored Americans (or Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders) in a globalized world are those that are the product of very recent immigration.  Either they continue to hold passports from their home countries or they are the recent direct descendants of those who do and so they can benefit from other countries' jus sanguinis citizenship laws to gain access to multiple job markets.  These days the poor individual with only one citizenship will find it much harder.

Something to think about.  Naturally my views on this are colored by the fact that I am a emigrant/immigrant and have experienced firsthand the immigration policies of other countries.  It would be horribly inconsistent, not to mention intellectually dishonest, of me to do other than support 100%  "the people who move around."  I like Open Border's position which calls for a presumption in favor of allowing people to go where they wish and are welcome.  A great deal of time, energy and money could be saved if people were allowed to sort themselves and choose where they wish to live and to which government they prefer to swear allegiance.  We are far from that but Nathan Smith's proposals would bring us a great deal closer.  Just think of them as "training wheels" for the real thing.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Slow Gardening

Perhaps some of you have heard of the "Slow Food" movement.  This was a reaction to the Fast Food culture that many of us in North America grew up with and that is slowly but surely insinuating itself in other part of the world including Europe.

I can certainly get behind most of their ideas but where we part ways is when I perceive that these folks have entirely lost their sense of humor and are taking themselves way too seriously.  They seem to be confusing Food with Religion and think that taking pleasure in eating is secondary to achieving a state of grace. This glorious smackdown between Anthony Bourdain and Alice Waters is a great example of this:



Gardening is another world where you can find these kinds of (dare I say it?) theological arguments.  To be very clear, I don't garden because it's a pleasurable way of doing penance for the sins of modernity;  I don't compost because I'm trying to "Save the Earth" or because it saves the local garbage company a few bucks;  I certainly don't try to keep my garden free of pesticides and chemical fertilizers because I think that the Green Inquisition will come and arrest me for my sins - on the contrary, when push comes to shove, vive the Roundup!

I use these methods because they work and I garden because it make me happy.  Yep, it's all about the fun.  The pleasure principle in its purest form.  I like having my hands in the earth, I like watching things grow, I like sitting on my back porch and watching the sunlight move over the beds and I get an enormous kick when my neighbors lean over the fence and say how much they too are enjoying the results.

I called this post "Slow Gardening" but I think a better title would be "Gardening without Guilt."  Just for fun, here are a few of the principles I follow.  Please feel free to chastise me if you have another view - I'm a big girl, (I can take it):

Take Your Time:  Some people approach gardening in the same way they approach exercise:  infrequent bursts of energy and then lots of guilt because they just can't keep it up.  Piffle!  Do as much as you can, when you can.  If you feel like digging in the dirt, then go dig.  If you are going through a dry spell and don't want to work in the garden at all, think about hiring a garden service to take care of it until you feel more motivated.  The life of a garden is measured in decades (even centuries), not years.  That unpruned hedge will still be there tomorrow and leaving it until you feel like doing something about it is just fine.

When you do decide to start a project, consider doing it in chunks.  It took me days to prune my forsythias.  The process went something like this:  Remove dead wood, have a cup of coffee, remove more dead wood, have second cup of coffee, start removing canes, go inside and check email,  admire work done so far, have third cup of coffee, start removing more canes....

Make Mistakes:  Yep, it's allowed.  None of us has the power to make anything grow - all we can do is try and provide the right environment so that the plant has a chance.  That bed that sounded like a really good idea, turns out to be not quite the thing.  So what?  If the plant isn't happy where it is, move it somewhere else.  If that bed really looks wrong, correct until it does or buy some lawn seed and turn it back into grass.  99.99999% of garden mistakes are correctable - none of us have the tools (napalm or nuclear weapons) to do our little bit of earth in more or less permanently.   So relax.  It's all fixable.

Mourn and Move On:  Stuff dies.  Even the best gardener with a reputation for having la main verte loses sometimes.  Perhaps it wasn't meant to be.  Above all don't beat yourself up over it.  Dig it up, throw it on the compost heap and find something else for the space.  Best to think it over though because if you try the same plant in the same space, it may not fare any better than the previous one.

Going back to the principle "Take Your Time" - don't be too hasty to pull the plant up.  I mentioned a few weeks ago that I had killed my peonies by transplanting them.  My mom sent me and email and suggested that they might just be sulking and that I should wait a few more weeks.  She was right.  All of them are now up.

And I just looked at the clock and I have 20 minutes to get myself over to Chantiers for Sunday Mass.  So I will end this post with the latest Flophouse garden pictures.  Bon Dimanche, everyone!