Greenback, a US Expat tax service, has opened their 2017 survey of Americans abroad. Full disclosure, I am one of their clients. I like this survey which is short and asks the important questions: What do you think of citizenship-based taxation and FATCA? Do you feel that you are well-represented in Washington, D.C.? How likely are you to renounce? Did you vote in the last presidential election?
At the end of survey you can give them your name and contact information if you wish. It's not required.
The results are published once the survey is closed. I participated and I hope you will, too.
Just follow this link:
Greenback 2017 Opinion Survey
Saturday, April 15, 2017
Friday, April 14, 2017
The Sakura in Osaka
The local weather has really wreaked havoc with the annual cherry blossom season. We had one beautiful day at the very beginning when the trees were just beginning to bloom and we went to a picnic at Osaka castle where I got sunburned and everyone else got very drunk. Since then it's been hit and miss. Nonetheless, the younger Frenchling and I took a long walk along the Okawa river (Sakuranomiya Park) and then cut over to the Osaka castle park to see what we could see even though it was cloudy and cold. In spite of the weather, the trees, the water, the parks, and the castle were still a magnificent sight. Here are a few pictures. Enjoy.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Return to the Ancestral Homeland
There are books that make me want to ask for my dissertation back so I can cite them and add to my bibliography. Redefining Japaneseness: Japanese Americans in the Ancestral Homeland by Jane Yamashiro is one I really regret not having read before I submitted.
This work is based on a study and fieldwork on Americans of Japanese origin who came to Japan to live and work. In this very clear, very well-written book, Yamashiro has some fascinating insights about their experiences. There are a few areas where I would respectfully disagree with her, but overall her arguments and conclusions are cogent and worth reading by anyone interested in migration.
Yamashiro declines to use terms like return migration or diaspora in favor of her own term: ancestral homeland migration. She makes a very good case that her term is more accurate and more useful in the context of her research on Japanese-Americans in Japan. Return migration is inaccurate, she says, because the Japanese have been migrating to the US for centuries and it's their children, grand-children or even great-grand-children who move to Japan. How can they "return" to a place they have never been before, to a land that is often only a distant memory passed down through family members? As for the term diaspora, she argues that this assumes an orientation toward that distant homeland that many second, third or fourth generation children of immigrants just don't have. Ancestral homeland migration, she argues, is a better fit because it doesn't use the language of "return" and it doesn't imply that there is any sort of active transnational connection between them and the land of their ancestors.
I found this argument to be very persuasive and I like the term. "Ancestor" implies distance while "homeland" acknowledges the connection to the destination country. "Migration" (without the "return") completes it because they are indeed on the move. Furthermore, I can see how is an elegant and appropriate way of describing, say, a Polish-Canadian's or Irish-American's move to Poland or Ireland. The connection may be distant but it is there.
Yamashiro also investigates something that we do not think about enough when we look at migration: the role of regions and sub-regions within a larger nation-state. Migrants do not just come from France, Canada, Brazil, they came at specific times from specific regions, towns, or cities. In Choquette's work on the French who came to Canada, she found that many came from urban areas which is surprising since they moved toward a rural life in Canada.
Yamashiro looked at where Japanese-Americans grew up in the United States and found a clear division between those who were from the continental US and those who came from Hawai'i. In the continental US (even areas in the West that were destinations for Japanese immigrants) Japanese-Americans are a minority. Some of her informants grew up in places where they were the only Asian family in the neighborhood. Not so in Hawai'i where Asians are not a minority and the Japanese-American community has influence and socioeconomic status.
These things have an impact on integration in Japan, Yamashiro argues. The ability to "pass" as Japanese in Japan is a kind of privilege that European or African Americans in Japan do not have. In my own research this was cited consistently by my Japanese-American participants as a reason they felt comfortable and integrated in Japan. They were presumed to be Japanese as they walked down the street in Tokyo or rode the metro to work. However, when they interact with Japanese, their Japanese phenotype clashes with their accent and their non-native level of language ability and cultural knowledge.
What is most fascinating are the strategies her Japan-American study participants used to get around their unveiling as "stealth migrants." Those from the continental US would make it clear that they were Americans with native-level English. Those from Hawai'i emphasized their regional identity over the national (US) one. Hawai'i has a very favorable image in Japan and it is a common tourist destination for Japanese tourists and emigrants. This is a very deft use of race, nationality, reginal identity, and language to create a favorable space within Japanese society. And it is one that they are uniquely qualified to use.
My quibbles with Yamashiro's work are minor but I will mention two areas where I have a different view.
I felt that she made assumptions about "white privilege" and a preference for whiteness in Japan that have been challenged. The idea that some migrants are automatically privileged because they are "white" is something that may have been true at one point in Japan, but is it still true? I see a lot of evidence that this is not necessarily true now. I would have liked to have seen a more nuanced presentation of this race-based "privilege" that points to research that contests these assumptions. Also, the idea that a preference for white skin in Japan is linked to Europeans and white North Americans has been challenged by Hiroshi Wagatsuma (1967) who showed that this preference goes back to the Nara period (8th century) and predates the presence of Europeans in Japan by centuries.
The other assumption that deserves a closer look is the notion of English Language Teaching (ELT) as a white-collar "privileged" profession. One has only to look at the research and the media reports in Japan to begin questioning that assumption. I would argue that it was, indeed, a profession with status at a certain point in time in Japan. The picture is very different today.
But those are relatively minor quibbles. None of these assumptions are directly linked to her main arguments which are, in my view, thoughtful and persuasive. The short review I have written here does not begin to do justice to the entire work. I highly recommend you read it for yourself.
This work is based on a study and fieldwork on Americans of Japanese origin who came to Japan to live and work. In this very clear, very well-written book, Yamashiro has some fascinating insights about their experiences. There are a few areas where I would respectfully disagree with her, but overall her arguments and conclusions are cogent and worth reading by anyone interested in migration.
Yamashiro declines to use terms like return migration or diaspora in favor of her own term: ancestral homeland migration. She makes a very good case that her term is more accurate and more useful in the context of her research on Japanese-Americans in Japan. Return migration is inaccurate, she says, because the Japanese have been migrating to the US for centuries and it's their children, grand-children or even great-grand-children who move to Japan. How can they "return" to a place they have never been before, to a land that is often only a distant memory passed down through family members? As for the term diaspora, she argues that this assumes an orientation toward that distant homeland that many second, third or fourth generation children of immigrants just don't have. Ancestral homeland migration, she argues, is a better fit because it doesn't use the language of "return" and it doesn't imply that there is any sort of active transnational connection between them and the land of their ancestors.
I found this argument to be very persuasive and I like the term. "Ancestor" implies distance while "homeland" acknowledges the connection to the destination country. "Migration" (without the "return") completes it because they are indeed on the move. Furthermore, I can see how is an elegant and appropriate way of describing, say, a Polish-Canadian's or Irish-American's move to Poland or Ireland. The connection may be distant but it is there.
Yamashiro also investigates something that we do not think about enough when we look at migration: the role of regions and sub-regions within a larger nation-state. Migrants do not just come from France, Canada, Brazil, they came at specific times from specific regions, towns, or cities. In Choquette's work on the French who came to Canada, she found that many came from urban areas which is surprising since they moved toward a rural life in Canada.
Yamashiro looked at where Japanese-Americans grew up in the United States and found a clear division between those who were from the continental US and those who came from Hawai'i. In the continental US (even areas in the West that were destinations for Japanese immigrants) Japanese-Americans are a minority. Some of her informants grew up in places where they were the only Asian family in the neighborhood. Not so in Hawai'i where Asians are not a minority and the Japanese-American community has influence and socioeconomic status.
These things have an impact on integration in Japan, Yamashiro argues. The ability to "pass" as Japanese in Japan is a kind of privilege that European or African Americans in Japan do not have. In my own research this was cited consistently by my Japanese-American participants as a reason they felt comfortable and integrated in Japan. They were presumed to be Japanese as they walked down the street in Tokyo or rode the metro to work. However, when they interact with Japanese, their Japanese phenotype clashes with their accent and their non-native level of language ability and cultural knowledge.
What is most fascinating are the strategies her Japan-American study participants used to get around their unveiling as "stealth migrants." Those from the continental US would make it clear that they were Americans with native-level English. Those from Hawai'i emphasized their regional identity over the national (US) one. Hawai'i has a very favorable image in Japan and it is a common tourist destination for Japanese tourists and emigrants. This is a very deft use of race, nationality, reginal identity, and language to create a favorable space within Japanese society. And it is one that they are uniquely qualified to use.
My quibbles with Yamashiro's work are minor but I will mention two areas where I have a different view.
I felt that she made assumptions about "white privilege" and a preference for whiteness in Japan that have been challenged. The idea that some migrants are automatically privileged because they are "white" is something that may have been true at one point in Japan, but is it still true? I see a lot of evidence that this is not necessarily true now. I would have liked to have seen a more nuanced presentation of this race-based "privilege" that points to research that contests these assumptions. Also, the idea that a preference for white skin in Japan is linked to Europeans and white North Americans has been challenged by Hiroshi Wagatsuma (1967) who showed that this preference goes back to the Nara period (8th century) and predates the presence of Europeans in Japan by centuries.
The other assumption that deserves a closer look is the notion of English Language Teaching (ELT) as a white-collar "privileged" profession. One has only to look at the research and the media reports in Japan to begin questioning that assumption. I would argue that it was, indeed, a profession with status at a certain point in time in Japan. The picture is very different today.
But those are relatively minor quibbles. None of these assumptions are directly linked to her main arguments which are, in my view, thoughtful and persuasive. The short review I have written here does not begin to do justice to the entire work. I highly recommend you read it for yourself.
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Why Do You Stay?
Yet another email that asks, "Why do they [migrants/expats] stay?" That's a deceptively simple question that never has an answer. Twenty years ago, I had a few answers that I dutifully and even happily pulled out whenever the question arose. Today, I have a completely different set of answers because I'm 50, not 20. I changed, the US changed, France changed. For that matter the world changed. Go figure.
There are answers and there are rationalizations. We are all frogs in a pot and someone else is controlling the heat. But we can jump out and go elsewhere. Maybe. Never underestimate the power of inertia. Nearly 97% of the people on this planet never pack up and leave their country of origin. Is it because they are happy? Or is it because they are risk averse? One way to answer the question, "Why do you stay?" is to turn it around and ask the native-born-never lived anywhere else, "Well, why are you still here since you don't seem all that happy ?" Is that a fair question? You bet it is. If someone is going to ask me why I stay abroad, then why they stayed put is fair game.
But recently I've started asking another question because I've met more and more people who move and move again (those Serial Migrants Ossman studies). These are not the assigned expatriates (people who are sent by a company and rotated to subsidiaries around the world) but true nomads that move from one place to another, settle for a time, and then decide to try something else, somewhere else. Some even become citizens before they leave because, you never know, they might want to come back and who needs the immigration hassles?
The native-born citizens and other immigrants react very negatively to this. Why come to a country, settle, and then leave? Is there something wrong with our country or is there something wrong with you? We still have this model in our head of immigration where the immigrant arrives, puts him or herself on the path to citizenship and then happily stays in his adopted country until the end of his days. That's what immigrants are supposed to do, right?
It's never been that simple. Entire papers and whole books have been devoted to the topic of return migration. A substantial number of immigrants to the US in the early 20th century stayed long enough to become citizens before they packed up and went back to the home country or to a third country. Immigrant does not equal "I plan to stay here forever." Here are a few examples that I've encountered:
It's the same question asked by the stay-at-home citizens but it's coming from a very different place. They aren't arguing that we should go home and there is something wrong with us because left our home countries; they are saying that we should get out more. The adopted country is not all there is.
So why are we still here?
Damn good question.
And for an interesting and eloquent look at how people make move or stay decisions over the course of a lifetime, have a look at this post by Iris Kapil over at her blog Iris Sans Frontieres:
Transitioning into old age from a life lived across cultures — Part IV
There are answers and there are rationalizations. We are all frogs in a pot and someone else is controlling the heat. But we can jump out and go elsewhere. Maybe. Never underestimate the power of inertia. Nearly 97% of the people on this planet never pack up and leave their country of origin. Is it because they are happy? Or is it because they are risk averse? One way to answer the question, "Why do you stay?" is to turn it around and ask the native-born-never lived anywhere else, "Well, why are you still here since you don't seem all that happy ?" Is that a fair question? You bet it is. If someone is going to ask me why I stay abroad, then why they stayed put is fair game.
But recently I've started asking another question because I've met more and more people who move and move again (those Serial Migrants Ossman studies). These are not the assigned expatriates (people who are sent by a company and rotated to subsidiaries around the world) but true nomads that move from one place to another, settle for a time, and then decide to try something else, somewhere else. Some even become citizens before they leave because, you never know, they might want to come back and who needs the immigration hassles?
The native-born citizens and other immigrants react very negatively to this. Why come to a country, settle, and then leave? Is there something wrong with our country or is there something wrong with you? We still have this model in our head of immigration where the immigrant arrives, puts him or herself on the path to citizenship and then happily stays in his adopted country until the end of his days. That's what immigrants are supposed to do, right?
It's never been that simple. Entire papers and whole books have been devoted to the topic of return migration. A substantial number of immigrants to the US in the early 20th century stayed long enough to become citizens before they packed up and went back to the home country or to a third country. Immigrant does not equal "I plan to stay here forever." Here are a few examples that I've encountered:
- A refugee family who escaped the Soviet Union and landed in the US. They stayed just long enough to get US citizenship for the entire family and then they left a year later to live in Europe where they stayed.
- A young couple with different nationalities living in Northern Europe. Prior to that they had lived in Asia for years. When I talked with them, they were exploring their options and were thinking Eastern Europe, Middle East...
- Retirement migrants who immigrated once in their lives and when their working days were over, found a third country (or went back to their country of origin) to retire in. The adopted country was a great place but wasn't necessarily their ideal place to grow old in
- A young woman who goes from one global city to the next because after 5 or 10 years she gets bored. She wants the thrill of discovering a new place and she wants to be around people like her: people who have lived and worked in many countries, not just one or two. As for the immigrants and stay-at-home citizens in the countries she's lived in, she finds them equally uninteresting. (And, yes, that shocked the hell out of me. I sure never thought of it that way.)
It's the same question asked by the stay-at-home citizens but it's coming from a very different place. They aren't arguing that we should go home and there is something wrong with us because left our home countries; they are saying that we should get out more. The adopted country is not all there is.
So why are we still here?
Damn good question.
And for an interesting and eloquent look at how people make move or stay decisions over the course of a lifetime, have a look at this post by Iris Kapil over at her blog Iris Sans Frontieres:
Transitioning into old age from a life lived across cultures — Part IV
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Flophouse American Diaspora Reading List (Updated)
“Sometimes we feel we straddle two cultures; at other times, that we fall between two stools.”
Salman Rushdie, Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-1991
The Soldier Vote: War, Politics, and the Ballot in America (2016) by Donald Inbody. The American military is a category of Americans abroad that is very visible and yet I think there are as many stereotypes about soldiers abroad as there are about American civilians abroad. For example, there is the idea that they all head home at some point. I've met military veterans living in Japan and France. Kaiser interviewed some of them in Paris. Phyllis Michaux, one of the founding mothers of AAWE, was a veteran of World War II. Another stereotype is that the military abroad votes Republican and this balances out the civilian vote abroad which is assumed to be more Democrat. Inbody has done some great research on this. He traces the history of the "soldier vote" - a topic far more controversial than you might think - and he looks at the data and challenges the idea that a vote from a soldier is automatically a vote for a Republican. The book is expensive, but worth it.
Importing Diversity: Inside Japan's JET Program (2000) by David L. McConnell. I had never heard of JET (Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme) before I came to Japan for the second time. Since then I have met quite a few people who came to Japan through this program and stayed. In 1987 the Japanese government began recruiting university graduates in English-speaking countries primarily to work as Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs). Today it is still a popular program and brings a few thousand people from 40 countries every year, most of them from the US and Canada and other Anglophone countries. McConnell takes a very critical view of this program: why it was created and who benefits from it. One way I have looked at it is as a temporary "guest worker" program that fills a need in Japan but is clearly meant to be temporary skilled labor migration. JETs are expected to go home at some point and they don't always cooperate.
Unofficial Ambassadors: American Military Families Overseas and the Cold War, 1946-1965 (2007) by Donna Alvah. American civilians abroad tend to ignore the presence and experiences of American military families abroad. There are many stereotypes of these families that show them living in American ghettos and never getting out and having contact with host country. That may be true in some countries but certainly not all. Where there wasn't enough base housing these families had no choice but to live "on the economy" in local towns. In this period the US military in Europe and Asia encouraged the spouses (mostly wives) to become unofficial American Ambassadors which meant learning the language and culture. These women started friendship clubs and tried to create places where host country nationals and American military families could informally interact and learn something about each other. Alvah does a superb job of describing the lives of these families, and reveals the contradictions behind these attempts to partially integrate into the host country in the service of their country.
Arabists: The Romance of an American Elite (1995) by Robert D. Kaplan. Kaplan is one of my favorites. I don't always agree with him but he writes beautifully and he does his research. This books has excellent portraits of the American communities in places like Lebanon in the 19th and early 20th century. They were not just missionaries, they were educators, explorers and advocates. Kaplan draws a line between that American expatriate "localitis" which was passed down to their intellectual heirs in the late 20th century, and the diplomatic debacle behind the first Iraq war.
Revoking Citizenship: Expatriation in America from the Colonial Era to the War on Terror (2015) by Ben Herzog. Not as good a book as Sovereign Citizen by Patrick Weil, but still a fine read. The US has a fine tradition of making and unmaking citizens. Who was not worthy to remain an American citizen? In one era it was race, in another it was having the wrong ideology, and in our time it is support for terrorist organizations. Herzog quotes extensively from Peter Spiro's work and argues that it is the duals who are the most vulnerable today because, he posits, we are living in a period where dual citizenship is merely tolerated, not accepted.
American Africans in Ghana: Black Expatriates in the Civil Rights Era (2008) by Kevin K. Gaines. In 1957 the British Gold Coast colony in sub-Saharan Africa became the independent state of Ghana. A number of Americans of African descent left the US at the time to live, work, or simply lend their support to the new state. People like Maya Angelou, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Richard Wright. The Civil Rights Movement in the US had an international dimension and many activists saw their fight for rights in the United States as part of the larger context of African national independence movements. An amazing story with a not so happy ending - a military coup took down the regime in 1966.
The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic (2013) by Patrick Weil. Really superb book. Excellent research into the un-making of American citizens in the 20th century.
The Other Side of the Fence: American Migrants in Mexico (2010) by Sheila Croucher. A book that came out of a study that Ms. Croucher conducted on US citizens residing in Mexico. This is not a definitive book about Americans in Mexico in the first decade of the 21st century. It's a sketch that leaves out a lot and once we have that firmly in our minds, we can look more closely at some of her arguments and the questions she asks about the meaning of this group in the larger picture of regional migration on the North American continent. Flophouse review here.
Round-Trip to America: The Immigrants Return to Europe (1996) by Mark Wyman. Fascinating look at the immigrants who came to America and then turned around and went back home. How many? Hard to know but in the brief period where the US government tried to track it (1908-1923) the inflow to America was nearly 10 million and the outflow was 3.5 million of which 88% were Europeans. Wyman notes that these remigrants represented an important connection to the United States and were viewed as "americani" and "Yanks" when they resettled in their countries of origin. Worth reading to remind us all that migration is not an aller simple.
The Other Americans in Paris: Businessmen, Countesses, Wayward Youth, 1880-1941 (2014) by Nancy L. Green. I was really looking forward to this one and it did not disappoint (gave it four stars on Goodreads). The American community/colony in Paris has always been far more diverse than one might think: businessmen (and women), lawyers, doctors, dentists as well as students and artists and writers. Green does an excellent job of broadening our perspective about this community which has existed since before the American Revolution. I highly recommend this book and all of Nancy Green's work.
Civic Myths: A Law-And-Literature Approach to Citizenship (2007) by Brook Thomas. There is citizenship as the law of the land which defines who is legally "in" (or "out") but there is also the social context around it which influences how we feel about that citizenship. Thomas shows how the "good citizen" or the "immigrant citizen" were portrayed in popular American literature. The most interesting for me was his discussion about the very famous essay The Man Without a Country which may still be influencing how Americans feel about expatriation (renouncing or losing US citizenship).
Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity (1985) by Peter H. Schuck and Rogers Smith. My review is here. This is a book that argues against the rather broad application of US jus soli citizenship laws. I think it reads very differently for an American living outside the US who is aware that these laws have created something that is being referred to now as an "Accidental American."
What Soldiers Do: Sex and the American GI in World War II France (2013) by Mary Louise Roberts. Well-researched and has so much information in it that I was in awe as I was reading it. However, I'm not so sure about the conclusions she drew from that research. I think I need to read it again before I can give it a fair review. If you have read it, let me know in the comments section what you thought.
Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization by Peter Spiro (2008). This one is already on the Flophouse Diaspora and International Migration Reading List but it definitely should go here as well. What has happened, in his view, to US citizenship in a globalized world? I am planning on re-reading it with my American abroad eye taking into account what has happened in the world to US citizenship since 2010.
Expatriation, Expatriates, and Expats: The American Transformation of a Concept by Nancy L. Green. This article (available on-line) was published in 2009 in the The American Historical Review. Great essay about American expatriation in the legal and cultural senses. How did the right to expatriate (the right to leave) go from a mechanism for "nation-building" to one of excluding Americans from the nation?
Americans Abroad: A Comparative Study of Emigrants from the United States by A. Dashefsky et al. Published in 1992 this is a study of Americans migrants in Australia and Israel (Canada is briefly mentioned as well). It asks provocative questions about motives for leaving, adaptation in these countries, and why the migrants stayed, returned to the US, or decided to move on to a third country. In the final chapter are some interesting conclusions and proposals for policies around this emigration one of which is: "Deter efforts to force migrants to change citizenship or otherwise make a permanent, formal commitment to one society or another."
The Unknown Ambassadors: A Saga of Citizenship by Phyllis Michaux.
Diaspora Politics: At Home Abroad by Gabriel Sheffer. This is a general book about diaspora politics but I include it here for two reasons: 1. It will put the efforts for recognition in the three previous books on this list in a much larger context. There are patterns, general strategies that all diasporas use or try to use as they attempt to manage the relationship with the homeland over different issues and 2. He examines the question of whether or not the American communities abroad (some of which have a history that goes back to the American Revolution in the 18th century) constitute a true diaspora.
A Gathering of Fugitives: American Political Expatriates in Mexico 1948-1965 (2002) by Diana Anhalt. a fascinating portrait of American political expatriates, a "small group of controversial Americans who found refuge in Mexico during the late 40's and throughout the '50's..." Flophouse review here.
Learning to Bow: An American Teacher in a Japanese School/Inside the Heart of Japan (2004) by Bruce Feiler. Feiler spent a year teaching English at a junior high school in Japan. I think (correct me if I am wrong) he was a JET. Very entertaining read.
Tales of Mogadiscio by Iris Kapil
Salman Rushdie, Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-1991
Time for an update of the Flophouse American Diaspora Reading List - the best books and articles I've read recently about American citizens and communities abroad. New books are in green. As always, please feel free to add to the list.
This list has two sections: General books/articles - the larger view. Some talk about specific issues (like citizenship), others are studies, portraits or serious research about Americans abroad; Expat autobiographies - Accounts of Americans in different countries. These are not books that tell a potential American migrant how to live abroad. These are personal accounts that talk about what happens to American identity when it gets transplanted somewhere else for a year or two, or for a lifetime.
General books/Articles:
The Soldier Vote: War, Politics, and the Ballot in America (2016) by Donald Inbody. The American military is a category of Americans abroad that is very visible and yet I think there are as many stereotypes about soldiers abroad as there are about American civilians abroad. For example, there is the idea that they all head home at some point. I've met military veterans living in Japan and France. Kaiser interviewed some of them in Paris. Phyllis Michaux, one of the founding mothers of AAWE, was a veteran of World War II. Another stereotype is that the military abroad votes Republican and this balances out the civilian vote abroad which is assumed to be more Democrat. Inbody has done some great research on this. He traces the history of the "soldier vote" - a topic far more controversial than you might think - and he looks at the data and challenges the idea that a vote from a soldier is automatically a vote for a Republican. The book is expensive, but worth it.
Importing Diversity: Inside Japan's JET Program (2000) by David L. McConnell. I had never heard of JET (Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme) before I came to Japan for the second time. Since then I have met quite a few people who came to Japan through this program and stayed. In 1987 the Japanese government began recruiting university graduates in English-speaking countries primarily to work as Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs). Today it is still a popular program and brings a few thousand people from 40 countries every year, most of them from the US and Canada and other Anglophone countries. McConnell takes a very critical view of this program: why it was created and who benefits from it. One way I have looked at it is as a temporary "guest worker" program that fills a need in Japan but is clearly meant to be temporary skilled labor migration. JETs are expected to go home at some point and they don't always cooperate.
Unofficial Ambassadors: American Military Families Overseas and the Cold War, 1946-1965 (2007) by Donna Alvah. American civilians abroad tend to ignore the presence and experiences of American military families abroad. There are many stereotypes of these families that show them living in American ghettos and never getting out and having contact with host country. That may be true in some countries but certainly not all. Where there wasn't enough base housing these families had no choice but to live "on the economy" in local towns. In this period the US military in Europe and Asia encouraged the spouses (mostly wives) to become unofficial American Ambassadors which meant learning the language and culture. These women started friendship clubs and tried to create places where host country nationals and American military families could informally interact and learn something about each other. Alvah does a superb job of describing the lives of these families, and reveals the contradictions behind these attempts to partially integrate into the host country in the service of their country.
Arabists: The Romance of an American Elite (1995) by Robert D. Kaplan. Kaplan is one of my favorites. I don't always agree with him but he writes beautifully and he does his research. This books has excellent portraits of the American communities in places like Lebanon in the 19th and early 20th century. They were not just missionaries, they were educators, explorers and advocates. Kaplan draws a line between that American expatriate "localitis" which was passed down to their intellectual heirs in the late 20th century, and the diplomatic debacle behind the first Iraq war.
Revoking Citizenship: Expatriation in America from the Colonial Era to the War on Terror (2015) by Ben Herzog. Not as good a book as Sovereign Citizen by Patrick Weil, but still a fine read. The US has a fine tradition of making and unmaking citizens. Who was not worthy to remain an American citizen? In one era it was race, in another it was having the wrong ideology, and in our time it is support for terrorist organizations. Herzog quotes extensively from Peter Spiro's work and argues that it is the duals who are the most vulnerable today because, he posits, we are living in a period where dual citizenship is merely tolerated, not accepted.
American Africans in Ghana: Black Expatriates in the Civil Rights Era (2008) by Kevin K. Gaines. In 1957 the British Gold Coast colony in sub-Saharan Africa became the independent state of Ghana. A number of Americans of African descent left the US at the time to live, work, or simply lend their support to the new state. People like Maya Angelou, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Richard Wright. The Civil Rights Movement in the US had an international dimension and many activists saw their fight for rights in the United States as part of the larger context of African national independence movements. An amazing story with a not so happy ending - a military coup took down the regime in 1966.
The Sovereign Citizen: Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic (2013) by Patrick Weil. Really superb book. Excellent research into the un-making of American citizens in the 20th century.
The Other Side of the Fence: American Migrants in Mexico (2010) by Sheila Croucher. A book that came out of a study that Ms. Croucher conducted on US citizens residing in Mexico. This is not a definitive book about Americans in Mexico in the first decade of the 21st century. It's a sketch that leaves out a lot and once we have that firmly in our minds, we can look more closely at some of her arguments and the questions she asks about the meaning of this group in the larger picture of regional migration on the North American continent. Flophouse review here.
Round-Trip to America: The Immigrants Return to Europe (1996) by Mark Wyman. Fascinating look at the immigrants who came to America and then turned around and went back home. How many? Hard to know but in the brief period where the US government tried to track it (1908-1923) the inflow to America was nearly 10 million and the outflow was 3.5 million of which 88% were Europeans. Wyman notes that these remigrants represented an important connection to the United States and were viewed as "americani" and "Yanks" when they resettled in their countries of origin. Worth reading to remind us all that migration is not an aller simple.
The Other Americans in Paris: Businessmen, Countesses, Wayward Youth, 1880-1941 (2014) by Nancy L. Green. I was really looking forward to this one and it did not disappoint (gave it four stars on Goodreads). The American community/colony in Paris has always been far more diverse than one might think: businessmen (and women), lawyers, doctors, dentists as well as students and artists and writers. Green does an excellent job of broadening our perspective about this community which has existed since before the American Revolution. I highly recommend this book and all of Nancy Green's work.
Civic Myths: A Law-And-Literature Approach to Citizenship (2007) by Brook Thomas. There is citizenship as the law of the land which defines who is legally "in" (or "out") but there is also the social context around it which influences how we feel about that citizenship. Thomas shows how the "good citizen" or the "immigrant citizen" were portrayed in popular American literature. The most interesting for me was his discussion about the very famous essay The Man Without a Country which may still be influencing how Americans feel about expatriation (renouncing or losing US citizenship).
Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity (1985) by Peter H. Schuck and Rogers Smith. My review is here. This is a book that argues against the rather broad application of US jus soli citizenship laws. I think it reads very differently for an American living outside the US who is aware that these laws have created something that is being referred to now as an "Accidental American."
What Soldiers Do: Sex and the American GI in World War II France (2013) by Mary Louise Roberts. Well-researched and has so much information in it that I was in awe as I was reading it. However, I'm not so sure about the conclusions she drew from that research. I think I need to read it again before I can give it a fair review. If you have read it, let me know in the comments section what you thought.
Migrants or Expatriates? Americans in Europe by Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels. This one came in 2014 and is THE book to read if you are interested in knowing something concrete about just who those absent Americans (7 million or so of them) are: socioeconomic status, political affiliations, host country, integration, identity and so much more. Short Flophouse review here and an interview she gave about the book here.
The Citizenship Revolution: Politics and the Creation of the American Union, 1774-1804 by Douglas Bradburn. This came out in 2009 and it examines the development of US citizenship in the post-Revolutionary War period. Fighting over citizenship in this newly independent state was influenced by what was going on in Europe (the French Revolution), the arrival of yet more immigrants and the naturalization question, and expatriation (how to give up US citizenship). For the last look no further then the fascinating case of one Gideon Henfield, an American who, when accused of privateering, invoked his "right to expatriate" and informed the court that he was no longer an American, but a Frenchman. He was acquitted in 1793 and allowed to leave and go about his business.
Expatriation, Expatriates, and Expats: The American Transformation of a Concept by Nancy L. Green. This article (available on-line) was published in 2009 in the The American Historical Review. Great essay about American expatriation in the legal and cultural senses. How did the right to expatriate (the right to leave) go from a mechanism for "nation-building" to one of excluding Americans from the nation?
Americans Abroad: A Comparative Study of Emigrants from the United States by A. Dashefsky et al. Published in 1992 this is a study of Americans migrants in Australia and Israel (Canada is briefly mentioned as well). It asks provocative questions about motives for leaving, adaptation in these countries, and why the migrants stayed, returned to the US, or decided to move on to a third country. In the final chapter are some interesting conclusions and proposals for policies around this emigration one of which is: "Deter efforts to force migrants to change citizenship or otherwise make a permanent, formal commitment to one society or another."
Leaving America: The New Expatriate Generation by John Wennersten.
Published in 2007, a very interesting book that re-examines the "American Dream" in the light of American emigration. Talks about Americans in Canada, Israel, Australia and New Zealand. It's one of the few I've found that includes African-American emigration and women migrants. Some good statistics (or at least estimates) at the end of the book.
The Unknown Ambassadors: A Saga of Citizenship by Phyllis Michaux.
Published in 1996, this is the story of how Americans abroad organized around issues of particular importance to Americans living outside the US: citizenship for the children of Americans who were born abroad, voting rights, and many other issues like Medicare from the 1970's to the 1990's. This is the diaspora going to the homeland government for recognition as a distinct group with particular interests. It's a battle that is still ongoing but this book is important because it's the only one I know of that gives the the history and the context behind today's efforts.
"Gilded Prostitution": Status, Money, And Transatlantic Marriages, 1870-1914 by Maureen E. Montgomery. The title is a bit off-putting but if you are an American woman married to a foreign national this is a good one. The marriages examined here are between elites (U.S. and U.K.) over a century ago and yet some of the negative (and positive) attitudes about women who marry foreigners and leave America are all too familiar. Under it all, of course, were questions of citizenship (should women lose their citizenship because they marry "out") and taxation where money followed these women abroad.
Americans Abroad, How Can We Count Them? This book which came out in 2010 is the transcript of a hearing held in 2001 by the U.S. Congress House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, Sub-committee on the Census, on the feasibility of including Americans civilians abroad in the census. This is the diaspora meeting the homeland government directly and the interplay between homeland interests and the interests of Americans abroad is fascinating. In particular the testimony of the representative from the U.S. State Department shines a light on the relationship between the US Embassies/Consulates and the American communities in the host countries.
"Gilded Prostitution": Status, Money, And Transatlantic Marriages, 1870-1914 by Maureen E. Montgomery. The title is a bit off-putting but if you are an American woman married to a foreign national this is a good one. The marriages examined here are between elites (U.S. and U.K.) over a century ago and yet some of the negative (and positive) attitudes about women who marry foreigners and leave America are all too familiar. Under it all, of course, were questions of citizenship (should women lose their citizenship because they marry "out") and taxation where money followed these women abroad.
Americans Abroad, How Can We Count Them? This book which came out in 2010 is the transcript of a hearing held in 2001 by the U.S. Congress House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, Sub-committee on the Census, on the feasibility of including Americans civilians abroad in the census. This is the diaspora meeting the homeland government directly and the interplay between homeland interests and the interests of Americans abroad is fascinating. In particular the testimony of the representative from the U.S. State Department shines a light on the relationship between the US Embassies/Consulates and the American communities in the host countries.
A Gathering of Fugitives: American Political Expatriates in Mexico 1948-1965 (2002) by Diana Anhalt. a fascinating portrait of American political expatriates, a "small group of controversial Americans who found refuge in Mexico during the late 40's and throughout the '50's..." Flophouse review here.
Innocents Abroad: Americans Teachers in the American Century by Jonathan Zimmerman.
This book focuses on one of the largest and most visible group of Americans who live and work abroad: teachers. Zimmerman talks about the distinct differences between those who went abroad in the first half of the 20th century and those who left in the latter half. Though the social, historical and political frameworks changed over time, he notes that there has always been a diversity of opinion and a debate about just what these Americans were doing (or supposed to be doing) abroad. There are things in here that will make Americans wince - not just how some Americans viewed the countries where they worked (especially those that were a part of the American empire like Puerto Rico or the Philippines) in the first part of the 20th century, but also how this continued with a different twist in the second half of the century.
Beyond Borders: Portraits Of American Women From Around The World by My-Linh Kunst
A beautiful book about American women abroad - the photography is stunning. These are ordinary women who have done (and are still doing) extraordinary things outside the US: Jean Darling (Ireland), Yuzana Khin (Thailand), Gillian McGuire (Italy), Kim Powell, (France), Lucy Laederich (France), Marcia Brittain (Uruguay), and Jane Cabanyes (Spain) to name just a few. The book came out of a FAWCO (Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas) project and is the work of two members: My-Linh Kunst (photography) and Charlotte Fox Zabusky. A longer Flophouse review of the book can be found here.
The Transplanted Woman by Gabrielle Varro
Gabrielle Varro is a CNRS researcher in anthropology and sociology who has studied bi-lingualism, immigration and the sociology of mixed-marriages. This book came out of a study that she conducted with AAWE of French-American marriages and families over generations. Some of it is about the dynamics of cross-cultural marriages but it also looks at American identity as it is transmitted through the American wives of French men. A Flophouse discussion of Varro's work can be found here.
**************************************
Autobiographies:
The Dead Ladies Project: Exiles, Expats and Ex-Countries (2015) by Jessa Crispin. Another American who left the US as a tourist with a project after the Great Recession, and from what I can tell she is still abroad and living in Europe (Berlin) - the quintessential "Accidental Migrant." She's a fine writer and I enjoyed the book very much. I wish, however, she had done a bit more research into the expat/migrant community in Berlin before passing judgment on them: "...the artistically spent, those trapped in the waning of careers, of inspiration, of family relations, and of ambition." David Griffiths and Stella Maile, for example, have done research on Britons in Berlin in the context of "Lifestyle Migration" - a term I loathe and yet the shoe fits in Crispin's case.
Unsavory Elements: Stories of Foreigners on the Loose in China (2013) by Tom Carter. The contributors here are a mix of American and other nationalities and their stories make for an excellent read. Surprise! Foreigners in China (or anywhere) do not always behave well (employment problems, prison, drugs and alcohol, prostitution) and it's a relief to hear people admit that in some very well-written short stories. The editor of this collection, Tom Carter, is an American writer and photographer who has lived in China for about 10 years. He wrote the introduction and the last story in this book, Unsavory Elements, and the latter triggered a controversy: Carter and friends found an rather interesting diversion for a Canadian friend who was leaving China "having utterly failed here" - a trip to a Chinese brothel. The tone of the piece is light-hearted and makes fun of everyone involved and that did not sit well with some who found the entire business extremely offensive. I'll let you read it and decide for yourself what you think of it.
At Home in Japan: A Foreign Woman's Journey of Discovery (2010) by Rebecca Otowa. I was not impressed by the first half of the book and almost put it down. But I persevered and the second part was all that I could hope for. Flophouse review here.
Foreigner in My Own Backyard (2014) by Travis Casey. I found this when when I was looking for a copy of Bill Bryson's book. The author is an American who has been living in the UK for 20 years (he's a dual US/UK citizen) and who has had to come back to the US for a short time to care for family. These are his first impressions of life back in the homeland. It's funny (and sad sometimes). Some of his stories show just how ambivalent Americans in the US are about Americans who leave. If you are an American abroad and have ever toyed with the idea of going "home" for an extended visit, I think you will enjoy this one.
Unsavory Elements: Stories of Foreigners on the Loose in China (2013) by Tom Carter. The contributors here are a mix of American and other nationalities and their stories make for an excellent read. Surprise! Foreigners in China (or anywhere) do not always behave well (employment problems, prison, drugs and alcohol, prostitution) and it's a relief to hear people admit that in some very well-written short stories. The editor of this collection, Tom Carter, is an American writer and photographer who has lived in China for about 10 years. He wrote the introduction and the last story in this book, Unsavory Elements, and the latter triggered a controversy: Carter and friends found an rather interesting diversion for a Canadian friend who was leaving China "having utterly failed here" - a trip to a Chinese brothel. The tone of the piece is light-hearted and makes fun of everyone involved and that did not sit well with some who found the entire business extremely offensive. I'll let you read it and decide for yourself what you think of it.
At Home in Japan: A Foreign Woman's Journey of Discovery (2010) by Rebecca Otowa. I was not impressed by the first half of the book and almost put it down. But I persevered and the second part was all that I could hope for. Flophouse review here.
Foreigner in My Own Backyard (2014) by Travis Casey. I found this when when I was looking for a copy of Bill Bryson's book. The author is an American who has been living in the UK for 20 years (he's a dual US/UK citizen) and who has had to come back to the US for a short time to care for family. These are his first impressions of life back in the homeland. It's funny (and sad sometimes). Some of his stories show just how ambivalent Americans in the US are about Americans who leave. If you are an American abroad and have ever toyed with the idea of going "home" for an extended visit, I think you will enjoy this one.
The American (2007) by Franz-Olivier Giesbert. A rather dark book but with a unique perspective. The author is an Accidental American in France who wrote about his relationship with his American father. Flophouse review here.
Second Skin (2012) by Diana Anhalt. Some stunning poetry from the author of A Gathering of Fugitives. She writes about her host country (Mexico), languages (English/Spanish) and much more. One of my favorite lines from her work:
"Today I speak Spanish to survive,
but I write in English for its punch,
for the way it slices through excess, draws blood,
attracts sharks. (They know this voice and come to me.)"
All about the trauma of losing identity and forming a new one in a new language and country. Very honest account of how she felt during the process. A longer Flophouse review of the book is here.
Waltzing at the Doomsday Ball: The best of Joe Bageant edited by Ken Smith
The musings of a "redneck socialist" which are mostly about homeland politics but there are some excellent essays in this book about his time in Belize. His political views are pretty clear: "Capitalism is dead," he said, "but we still dance with the corpse." Really engaging writer and his expat perspective is one you don't come across everyday. Just have a look at his bio.
Tales of Mogadiscio by Iris Kapil
This is a series of essays written by an American woman in a cross-cultural marriage (her husband is Indian and they got married in the 1950's). She was a serial expat but this book is about the two years the family spent "on the economy" in the capital city of Somalia in the 1960's. Beautiful descriptions of what that city was like before the country descended into chaos and became the epitome of a "failed state." Kapil has a fine blog called Iris sans frontières.
Monday, April 10, 2017
Hierarchies in Foreign Communities
When I was still drinking like a fish and smoking like a chimney, I played this little game with myself. I'd look around me and found people who drank a lot more than I did and I said to myself: "See? I'm not so bad. That guy (or gal) over there is a real alcoholic. Me? I'm just a professional lady who wears a suit, makeup, and high heels to work who has this little drinking problem which she is completely in control of, thank you very much."
Today, I laugh myself sick when I remember that. Looking beyond the denial was this hierarchy I invented where those who didn't drink much were at the bottom (zero fun) and those who had been outed as alcoholics (too much fun). I put myself in the happy middle of this hierarchy where I could sneer at the people above and below me. Not only was that not nice but the joke (eventually) was on me.
The search for status and the creation of hierarchies are not just confined to the alcoholics like me. We all seem to be in this constant state of positioning ourselves relative to others. Sometimes we do it in a very sly fashion: we talk about ourselves and imply that we are superior to another group without actually coming out and saying it because that would be so ill-bred of us.
Hierarchies are everywhere. Humans invent them, maintain them and position themselves within them. I take great pleasure in reading people who expose all this, and I greatly admire those who do so with a sense of humor.
For this reason I greatly enjoyed The Helpful Guide to Who Looks Down on Whom in the Japan Foreign Community. It's not only funny but you could do the same thing with migrant/expatriate communities everywhere. Hell, I don't think it would take more than an hour for me and some friends to do the same for the foreign community in France. And the funniest part of all this is that we rarely position ourselves relative to the majority - the native-born citizens of the country in which we live. I think many of us would rather not know where we are in that one lest our delusions of love, appreciation and privilege be smashed forever.
Enjoy the read. I'm off this morning to see the last of cherry blossoms.
Today, I laugh myself sick when I remember that. Looking beyond the denial was this hierarchy I invented where those who didn't drink much were at the bottom (zero fun) and those who had been outed as alcoholics (too much fun). I put myself in the happy middle of this hierarchy where I could sneer at the people above and below me. Not only was that not nice but the joke (eventually) was on me.
The search for status and the creation of hierarchies are not just confined to the alcoholics like me. We all seem to be in this constant state of positioning ourselves relative to others. Sometimes we do it in a very sly fashion: we talk about ourselves and imply that we are superior to another group without actually coming out and saying it because that would be so ill-bred of us.
Hierarchies are everywhere. Humans invent them, maintain them and position themselves within them. I take great pleasure in reading people who expose all this, and I greatly admire those who do so with a sense of humor.
For this reason I greatly enjoyed The Helpful Guide to Who Looks Down on Whom in the Japan Foreign Community. It's not only funny but you could do the same thing with migrant/expatriate communities everywhere. Hell, I don't think it would take more than an hour for me and some friends to do the same for the foreign community in France. And the funniest part of all this is that we rarely position ourselves relative to the majority - the native-born citizens of the country in which we live. I think many of us would rather not know where we are in that one lest our delusions of love, appreciation and privilege be smashed forever.
Enjoy the read. I'm off this morning to see the last of cherry blossoms.
Sunday, April 9, 2017
Not Everyone Wants to Be a Citizen (Updated)
Today's post is one that I have already updated twice. The more people I talk to, the more I learn. In my research, I found more reasons why people don't want to become citizens of the countries where they have lived for many years. These conversations further challenge two assumptions in many articles about citizenship and dual nationality: 1. Everyone wants to become a citizen and 2. becoming a citizen is always in the best interests of all migrants.
Not every migrant hits a distant shore with the intention of seeking full citizenship. This may be because he or she does not plan to stay very long (though he might change his mind over time) or because he or she sees that it is clearly not in his best interests. Yes, you heard me - becoming a citizen of a nation-state is not necessarily a good deal for everyone.
Today, let's take off the rose-colored glasses and examine a few reasons why many prefer to be legal residents (they may just seek the Right to Reside) and may never choose to become citizens in their host countries:
The Rights of a Citizen are not Attractive: Many migrants are not interested in voting or running for office and some do not intend to reside permanently in that country. Many migrants are not planning to bring over their families and they have no desire to work in sectors restricted to citizens like the defense industry or to become a "fonctionnaire." In some places migrants see that full citizenship does not guarantee them the same level of rights as other citizens. Within the spectrum of citizens from birthright to naturalized, they see clearly that some are more privileged than others. Why would they want to go through the hassle just to become a "second-class citizen" with fewer de facto rights than the native born?
The Duties of a Citizen are Unacceptable: Military service in that country, for example, or taxation. The U.S. taxes ALL its citizens at home and abroad regardless of where they are living. Why would a bright young highly-qualified global migrant take that deal? Let's say he moves to the U.S. to work for a few years, becomes a citizen, and then is offered a wonderful opportunity in Asia. Since he is a U.S. citizen, the US government taxation and reporting requirements will follow him to China and he will spend much time and energy staying compliant. If marrying the United States means having the American Internal Revenue Service as a mother-in-law for life, then, frankly, for many migrants that is a ball and chain they do not need or want.
Loss of Other Citizenship(s): For some it is possible that they will lose or put at risk the citizenship of their country or countries of origin. Most states now accept dual nationality but not all and some migrants do not want to deprive their future children of the right to be born citizens of the country of their parents and grand-parents. It becomes even more of a loss when the individual already has two or even three citizenships. If giving up one is hard, imagine multiple trips to multiple consulates in order to renounce. This can be particularly hard for those who have a very desirable citizenship that is harder to get and opens doors in many countries like EU citizenship.
Loss of Spouse: All migrants live in a web of relationships and there are other people who have interests he/she can not ignore. A spouse may want the migrant to maintain that citizenship in the hopes of one day moving to the other country under favorable family reunification laws. Or the spouse may have entered the marriage with the idea that their children would be dual nationals by birth. When a migrant wants to become a citizen in a country that does not allow him or her to keep the former citizenship(s), the spouse may be vehemently opposed to it because he/she sees that it is not in his/her interest or in the interests of their future children. Delicate negotiations ahead and the citizen spouse has real power and influence here.
Loss of Protection: Citizens have the right to ask for the aid and protection of their states of citizenship. In the case of dual nationals the principle of "dominant nationality" may be applied and they may no longer be able to ask for help of the country of which which they are a citizen but not a resident. So a French/American in the U.S would in theory not be able to ask France to help him in the event he falls afoul of U.S. law.
Political Ambitions: Just because some democratic nation-states allow dual nationality does not mean that the public accepts it. If a migrant would like one day to run for office in his home country or serve in a high position in the government, his other nationality may be a problem. Even where it is allowed by law, there is a real possibility that he won't be selected or elected by the home country constituents if he voluntarily naturalized on another country.
Loss of property and inheritance rights: Apparently this used to be true of certain countries. It is still, theoretically, possible. Imagine a migrant has an inheritance or property dispute in the home country. The sheer effort that will be required to defend his rights (not to mention the look on the judge's face when he/she find out that the migrants lives in and is now a citizen of another country) will be substantial which gives a distinct "home court advantage" to his adversaries.
Family Responsibilities: Many migrants have aging or ill parents in the home country. If taking on another citizenship means that they cannot easily go back to the home country to care for them, that's a problem for the migrant, for his family and even for the country they live in. Who will take care of them if the migrant cannot return?
Social Pressure: The people in the home country may be genuinely offended that a migrant is considering becoming the citizen of another country and they let them know it. Even where the law permits dual nationality, public feeling is against it.
Not every migrant hits a distant shore with the intention of seeking full citizenship. This may be because he or she does not plan to stay very long (though he might change his mind over time) or because he or she sees that it is clearly not in his best interests. Yes, you heard me - becoming a citizen of a nation-state is not necessarily a good deal for everyone.
Today, let's take off the rose-colored glasses and examine a few reasons why many prefer to be legal residents (they may just seek the Right to Reside) and may never choose to become citizens in their host countries:
The Rights of a Citizen are not Attractive: Many migrants are not interested in voting or running for office and some do not intend to reside permanently in that country. Many migrants are not planning to bring over their families and they have no desire to work in sectors restricted to citizens like the defense industry or to become a "fonctionnaire." In some places migrants see that full citizenship does not guarantee them the same level of rights as other citizens. Within the spectrum of citizens from birthright to naturalized, they see clearly that some are more privileged than others. Why would they want to go through the hassle just to become a "second-class citizen" with fewer de facto rights than the native born?
The Duties of a Citizen are Unacceptable: Military service in that country, for example, or taxation. The U.S. taxes ALL its citizens at home and abroad regardless of where they are living. Why would a bright young highly-qualified global migrant take that deal? Let's say he moves to the U.S. to work for a few years, becomes a citizen, and then is offered a wonderful opportunity in Asia. Since he is a U.S. citizen, the US government taxation and reporting requirements will follow him to China and he will spend much time and energy staying compliant. If marrying the United States means having the American Internal Revenue Service as a mother-in-law for life, then, frankly, for many migrants that is a ball and chain they do not need or want.
Loss of Other Citizenship(s): For some it is possible that they will lose or put at risk the citizenship of their country or countries of origin. Most states now accept dual nationality but not all and some migrants do not want to deprive their future children of the right to be born citizens of the country of their parents and grand-parents. It becomes even more of a loss when the individual already has two or even three citizenships. If giving up one is hard, imagine multiple trips to multiple consulates in order to renounce. This can be particularly hard for those who have a very desirable citizenship that is harder to get and opens doors in many countries like EU citizenship.
Loss of Spouse: All migrants live in a web of relationships and there are other people who have interests he/she can not ignore. A spouse may want the migrant to maintain that citizenship in the hopes of one day moving to the other country under favorable family reunification laws. Or the spouse may have entered the marriage with the idea that their children would be dual nationals by birth. When a migrant wants to become a citizen in a country that does not allow him or her to keep the former citizenship(s), the spouse may be vehemently opposed to it because he/she sees that it is not in his/her interest or in the interests of their future children. Delicate negotiations ahead and the citizen spouse has real power and influence here.
Loss of Protection: Citizens have the right to ask for the aid and protection of their states of citizenship. In the case of dual nationals the principle of "dominant nationality" may be applied and they may no longer be able to ask for help of the country of which which they are a citizen but not a resident. So a French/American in the U.S would in theory not be able to ask France to help him in the event he falls afoul of U.S. law.
Political Ambitions: Just because some democratic nation-states allow dual nationality does not mean that the public accepts it. If a migrant would like one day to run for office in his home country or serve in a high position in the government, his other nationality may be a problem. Even where it is allowed by law, there is a real possibility that he won't be selected or elected by the home country constituents if he voluntarily naturalized on another country.
Loss of property and inheritance rights: Apparently this used to be true of certain countries. It is still, theoretically, possible. Imagine a migrant has an inheritance or property dispute in the home country. The sheer effort that will be required to defend his rights (not to mention the look on the judge's face when he/she find out that the migrants lives in and is now a citizen of another country) will be substantial which gives a distinct "home court advantage" to his adversaries.
Family Responsibilities: Many migrants have aging or ill parents in the home country. If taking on another citizenship means that they cannot easily go back to the home country to care for them, that's a problem for the migrant, for his family and even for the country they live in. Who will take care of them if the migrant cannot return?
Social Pressure: The people in the home country may be genuinely offended that a migrant is considering becoming the citizen of another country and they let them know it. Even where the law permits dual nationality, public feeling is against it.
Security: It's not terribly fair but, let's face it, people have opinions (and lots of stereotypes) about citizens of other countries. In some parts of the world a citizen from a particular country may be the object of suspicion, or he may even be confronted by people's anger about the policies and actions of his country of citizenship. The protection offered by the country of citizenship outside of the national territory is very limited. Even the U.S. has limited resources and influence when it comes to its citizens abroad and Americans should know that evacuation services provided by the U.S. government are offered for a fee. (This is not true of all countries.) Taking on a citizenship that could cause controversy, make a person less safe in some parts of the world, and that doesn't even offer basic protection and assistance as part of the basic citizenship package may not be a good deal if one travels a lot or intends to live in another country.
Integration Seems impossible: Some migrants do not have the sense that the citizens around them like immigrants much (regardless of whether they are undocumented, legal residents or citizens). and the society is either ambivalent or actively hostile to their presence. The political climate makes the migrant uneasy. Some may feel that, no matter what they do, they will never be accepted by, and will always face discrimination from the citizens of the host country even if they become citizens themselves.
Citizenship is Nothing Special: the citizens of the receiving country do not seem proud of their country or of their citizenship. They don't see it as having value. When asked, they are unsure as to why anyone would bother. Most citizens themselves don't vote or participate in any meaningful way in the political arena. Many citizens talk openly of emigrating and renunciations of that citizenship are common or rising.
Just as no state can make citizenship laws in a vacuum, no individual makes a decision to ask for citizenship without doing some very deep thinking within his own particular context. Even where both countries accept dual nationality and the process is relatively simple, the choice to ask for citizenship is a complicated moral, emotional, and financial calculation where the individual must weigh all the factors for and against before making a decision. If it is the desire of a nation-state to add to its citizenry, then it must take into account as many of these factors as possible.
Integration Seems impossible: Some migrants do not have the sense that the citizens around them like immigrants much (regardless of whether they are undocumented, legal residents or citizens). and the society is either ambivalent or actively hostile to their presence. The political climate makes the migrant uneasy. Some may feel that, no matter what they do, they will never be accepted by, and will always face discrimination from the citizens of the host country even if they become citizens themselves.
Citizenship is Nothing Special: the citizens of the receiving country do not seem proud of their country or of their citizenship. They don't see it as having value. When asked, they are unsure as to why anyone would bother. Most citizens themselves don't vote or participate in any meaningful way in the political arena. Many citizens talk openly of emigrating and renunciations of that citizenship are common or rising.
Just as no state can make citizenship laws in a vacuum, no individual makes a decision to ask for citizenship without doing some very deep thinking within his own particular context. Even where both countries accept dual nationality and the process is relatively simple, the choice to ask for citizenship is a complicated moral, emotional, and financial calculation where the individual must weigh all the factors for and against before making a decision. If it is the desire of a nation-state to add to its citizenry, then it must take into account as many of these factors as possible.
Failure to do so means more undocumented aliens, more legal residents, and fewer citizens.
Is that necessarily a bad thing?
I'll let you be the judge of that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)