No Fear

This Canal+ March 22 interview with Fatou Diome is a beautiful response to the proposed policies of the French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen of the Front National.  It is making the rounds of francophones on social media.  I post it today on the Flophouse because it is so eloquent and because she's right and not only about France:  Le Pen and her supporters are afraid, just as some Japanese are afraid of Koreans, some Americans are afraid of Mexicans and so on.  Fear of the Other (and espcially the Other that moves around the world) is everywhere.  Watch the entire interview.  It's brilliant.


Fatou Diome : "Vous avez peur de Marine Le Pen... 投稿者 legrosjournal

FATCA: Post-Hearing Press Conference

No comments from me today.   I am sipping my morning coffee and will let Donna-Lane and others have the floor in this press conference video that took place after the hearing. (Thank you, Donna-Lane for the link on FB.)

FATCA: Daniel and Donna-Lane Go to Washington

"The other day I was speaking of the soldiers in the fight against FATCA and citizenship-based taxation.  Meet Daniel Kuettel and Donna-Lane Nelson who testified two days ago at a Sub-Committee on Government Operations hearing,  Reviewing the Unintended Consequences of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).  They were part of a larger delegation who went to Washington, D.C. to fight on behalf of Americans abroad.

Yes, folks, we finally got a hearing and and were well represented by Daniel, Donna, and Mark Crawford. Daniel and Donna both renounced their US citizenship because of FATCA and their compelling testimony gave voice to the millions impacted by this law.  Finally, US lawmakers saw the human face of those "unintended consequeneces."

I have to agree with Rick, Donna-Lane's spouse, that there was a lot of dodging and ducking on the part of FATCA's supporters at the hearing. I would summarize their defense as "It's not that bad" and "How else are we going to catch them?" Ahem.  Yes, ladies and gentlement, it is and government has other tools at their disposal to catch them that do not trample on Americans' consitutional protections. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"  Probable cause?  Getting a warrant before storming into someone's house or looking at their bank account activity?

There was also very credible evidence presented at the hearing that showed that the US government's efforts to find them aren't even getting a reasonable return since the costs are so high.  And out of what has been disclosed, the majority (80%) of the money is penalties, fees and interest, not taxes.

In response to those who say that we need more of  FATCA/CRS and damn the consequences, Edmund Burke said it far better than I ever could:

"It is the nature of tyranny and rapacity never to learn moderation from the ill-success of first oppressions; on the contrary, all oppressors, all men thinking highly of the methods dictated by their nature, attribute the frustration of their desire to the want of sufficient rigor.  Then they redouble the efforts of their impotent cruelty, which producing, as they ever must produce, new disappointments, they grow irrational against the objects of their rapacity; and then rage, fury, malice, implacable because unprovoked, recruiting and reinforcing their avarice, their vices are not longer human."

I urge you to watch the video.  I have included it in this post but for a much better and more comprehensive review of the hearing, please head over to the Isaac Brock Society (God bless the Brockers!) where Eric has put together a post with the video, summaries of the different speakers and lots o' links.  This is also THE place to join the international conversation about FATCA and citizenship-based taxation.  As I write this there are already 35 responses to Eric's post.

Donna-Lane, Daniel and Mark: You put youself on the frontlines of the American Diaspora Tax War and I thank you from the bottom of  my heart for your service.

Canada, Our Oldest Good neighbor

There is a great story in Jacques Poitras' Imaginary Line:  Life on an Unfinished Border about how folks living on the U.S. northern border feel about Canada:

"Lloyd Woods, the former head of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in nearby Madawaska, Maine, used to ask [U.S.] students in his school visits, "How many here have travelled to a foreign country in the last six months?" Two or three students would raise their hands. "How many of you have travelled to Canada in the last six months?" Every hand in the class would go up."

So it is with great astonishment that I learned that the Trump administration is provoking a  fight with the Canadians.  Given the long history of cross-border contact, swapping of populations, intermarriage, and mutual dependence, my response to this is "WTF?"  Canadians aren't just neighbors, they are family.  I am not alone in having relatives in both countries. For a closer look at the human beings involved in all this, I recommend  Migrants and Migration in Modern North America edited by Dick Hoerder and Nola Faires.  For Trump maybe it would be best to hand him this 1946 brochure which explains just how important Canada and Canadian are to the United States.



With the Trump administration I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.  What he wants to do is so nonsensical and silly that even children know better.  Stephen Colbert  treats this latest act with the ridicule and contempt that it deserves.  And once we are finished laughing, let's invite the Canadians to pick up their hockey sticks and have at the U.S. president. We need all the help we can get to knock some sense into him.

A Better Mousetrap? Luring the Highly-Skilled Foreign Professional to France and Japan

The results of the first round of the 2017 French presidential elections are in and the top two, Macron and Le Pen, will face off in the second round on May 7.  Le Pen is widely known for her anti-immigration stance:  "Elle n’est pas une chance pour la France, c’est un drame pour la France." (It is not a opportunity for France, it's a tragedy.)  Macron has a more nuanced and (dare I say it?) a more intelligent  position.  He wants to attract immigrants of a certain type by making it easier for professionals, academic, entrepreneurs, artists and other talent to live and work in France.  A couple of months age he sent a message to Americans inviting those with skills who are unhappy with US policies to consider making France their new home.

Let's put that call for talent in context because it has become a very common approach to immigration. Migration is notoriously difficult to stop and, frankly, business, the scientific and academic communities and governments don't want to stop it; they want to shape and control it in line with their own interests.  Who they want depends on what they think they need.  Alberta, Canada, for example, recruits foreign workers for the oil and construction industries,  Japan recruits nurses and English teachers.  New Zealand is recruiting tech workers.

So Macron's call is for France to compete for a share of  the best talent in this international labor pool.  His strategy is to make it easier for them to get visas.  Is that enough?  Not necessarily.

In 2012 Japan introduced a point-based immigration program for foreign professionals:  academics, technical workers and managers.  Those who qualify have the red carpet literally rolled out for them: a 5 year visa or indefinite leave to stay; spouses also get work visas; parents can come along in some cases; and permission to work in just about any area, field or industry.

Looking at how they allocate the points gives you a good idea of who and what they want.  Academic degrees count for a lot:  a Bachelor's degree is worth 10 points, a Master's degree is 20 and a PhD is 30.  However, experience counts for as much or more:  7 years of business experience is worth as much as a Master's. In the Academic and Technical categories being young (up to 29) gets you more points than being "old" (35 to 39).  There are also bonus points for things like having a degree from a Japanese school or Japanese language proficiency.  The Japanese government wants to make the deal even sweeter by allowing the most skilled (those with more than 80 points) the right to permanent resident status after only one year in Japan.  Read the brochure for yourself.  It's a fascinating look into what Japan thinks will draw migrants to Japan, and how they calculate what profiles will be the best ones for Japan.  Then, if you are interested, go look at similar points-based programs in Canada and New Zealand.

Thus far, Japan's recruitment of the highly skilled has not been a resounding success.  The points system is just the latest attempt to attract and retain them.  This article in the Nikkei Asian Review says that Japan is far from meeting the goal of 10,000 skilled foreign workers by 2020.  So far Japan has only attracted about half that number and the departure rate is high.  The barriers, they say, are language and workplace culture.  I think that is an overly simplistic explanation.  Yes, those are factors but there are others.

Nana Oishi's 2012 article on skilled migration to Japan (full text available on-line here) is a deeper look into why loosening immigration restrictions for the highly skilled does not always suffice to attract them to a particular country.  This is how she sees skilled migration in the Japanese context and I add a similar perspective with regard to France.

Limited Demand:  Though the Nikkei Asian Review article above says that Japanese companies are open to hiring foreigners, there is a disconnect between what they say and what they do.  "The most recent survey showed that 46% of Japanese corporations have never hired highly skilled migrants and have no plans to hire them in the near future (HITO Research Institute, 2011)." (P. 1086)

Lack of Advancement Opportunities:  Oishi says that professionals are motivated more by an opportunity for professional development and gaining new skills than they are by high salaries.  She found that foreigners were kept back by unclear or difficult promotion paths. (No foreigners at the management level, for example.)  Why should a Japanese company (or any company) invest in a foreign worker if they perceive that that worker might move on?  She cites research (Tsukasaki 2008) that shows that foreign professionals do not necessarily acquire skills and experience in Japan that are valued elsewhere.

Inflexible Labor Market:  This one, I think, is also pertinent to France. A labor market that is "flexible" is one where it's not too hard to enter and once in, it is relatively easy for a migrant or citizen to find other work.  France is a country where this lack of flexibility hits migrants very hard. (See this 2014 MPI report on the integration of migrants into the French labor force.)   Oishi says that access to the primary Japan labor market (permanent, full-time jobs) usually occurs right after graduation from high school or university.  Japanese companies hire the graduates and then train them.  By age 35 or 40 it's much harder to find another good job in a good company.  Hence, the higher points for younger workers.  In France, same problem but I'd say the age discrimination starts around 50.

Education:  For skilled migrants with family, the education of their children is a top priority.  These are "international" people who want an international education for their offspring.  That means a multi-lingual education and a school system that teaches skills that are good anywhere.  Some countries (like France) have special programs in the public school system that are subsidized by the state.  Japan is working toward state-supported dual-language IB (International Baccalaureate) programs in Japanese schools.   And that is a good sign.  These things are very important to skilled migrants because the cost of self-financing education for their children is factored into the migration decision and impacts the retainment of foreign workers.  Oishi says:

• "However, a Japanese education runs the risk of “trapping” children into a monocultural and monolingual environment that might make it difficult to excel in the global environment. To avoid such a “Japanese trap” in education, many highly skilled migrants plan to either leave Japan eventually or send their children back home where the quality of education is better." (p. 1091)

What would also help the migrants, of course is home country subsidies for this kind of education in the host country.  And that seems to be something that the French presidential candidates support.  However, this effort is at cross-purposes with the host country's effort to retain and integrate migrant children.

Pension and Tax Systems:  At the time Oishi's article was written foreigners had to work in Japan for 25 years before they could draw a Japanese pension.  She writes:

• "Pension contributions are automatically deducted from an employee’s salary every month, and if he or she withdraws from the Employees Pension Insurance system after 10 years of contribution, he or she receives only the equivalent of 2 months of salary as a lump sum refund, a small fraction of the actual contributions." (p. 1092)

I don't know if this has changed or not and I appeal to those who know more about this to set the record straight.  I will point out that Japan does have (like France) pension agreements with other countries - 16 of them.  That is something but not nearly enough.

Japan's worldwide tax system is another problem which I wrote about here.  If you are a Japanese resident you must report and pay taxes on earned and un-earned income from anywhere in the world. There is also an inheritance tax which means that a French resident of Japan will owe Japanese taxes on what he or she inherits in France.  France has a similar worldwide taxation system.  Both do have tax treaties with other countries but what they offer and how they apply are a complication that migrants with other options do not necessarily want to deal with.  Is Macron aware that a US academic working in France will be filing tax and asset declarations in two countries with a possibility of double taxation?  Nothing attractive about that.

Gender/Racial Equality:  A lot of the professional migrants that Japan and France want to attract are women and visible minorities.  Neither country is known for work environments that are attractive to either. In Oishi's study, she notes:

• "The lack of gender equality and work–life balance has discouraged highly skilled migrant women from working for Japanese corporations. It was extremely difficult to identify professional migrant women in Japan; the author was informed that not many professional migrant women would be interested in working for Japanese corporations, which are notorious for gender inequality."

France has made a lot of progress in this area and certainly is known for a good work/life balance but there are still issues.  A 2015 EU study concluded that in France, "Having children and/or being pregnant are still perceived by employers as an impediment to employment and to promotion." Certain kinds of racial and national origin discrimination have also been well documented in both countries.

If that perception is wrong or foreigners underestimate the progress that has been made than both countries have work to do.  Assuming that Oishi is correct and that salaries are much less important to the skilled than opportunity, the skilled migrants will need assurances that they will be allowed to pursue that opportunity without discrimination or unfair treatment.

Oishi has a lot more to say and I recommend that you read her article.  The point here, however, is that there a wide variety of factors that migrants (and especially skilled migrants) take into consideration before moving to another country to live and work.  The skilled (however that is locally defined) have some advantage here because they are sought after in this international labor competition.  They have more options and it's as much about them choosing a place as it is about a place choosing them.  Simply tweaking the immigration system and expecting the skilled to come to your country is wildly over-optimistic and a good example of the Better Mousetrap Fallacy.

They will not necessarily come with the skills in the numbers you would like if your country does not make an offer that may include easier access to visas, but also has positive answers to questions about education for children, families, pensions, taxes, flexible/inflexible labor markets, benefits, and integration.  If Abe and Macron are serious about skilled immigration than they have a lot of work ahead of them.

The Diversity of Americans Abroad

In the Greater Journey: Americans In Paris the author David McCullough described the epiphany experienced by Charles Sumner in 1838 at a lecture at the Sorbonne on the Greek philosopher Heraclites.    Sumner was startled to see young, well-dressed people of African origin in the audience. He was even more intrigued because their presence did not cause any comment and they were simply students like any other student at this prestigious institution of learning.  Sumner wrote:

• "They were standing in the midst of a knot of young men and their color seemed no objection to them.  I was glad to see this, though with American impressions, it seemed very strange.  It must be then that the distance between free blacks and whites among us is derived from education, and does not exist in the nature of things."

In 2017 we need something like Sumner's enlightenment with regards to Americans abroad.  The United States (and many other nation-states) are multi-racial and multi-cultural and the Americans who go abroad reflect that diversity.  This should not be a surprise to anyone and it certainly isn't to the American community in France.  The presence of African and other Americans of all creeds and colors is well documented and among them were many internationally known artists, writers, scholars and scientists who came to Paris for a time or to stay.  If you have any doubts about whether or not this is still true read Black Paris Profiles by Monique Wells which reveals the stories of contemporary African-American writers, journalists, teachers, businessmen and women, and entrepreneurs in France.

Oddly enough, Americans at home and abroad are often surprised by this.  What they have to say goes something like this: "African-Americans (and other non-white Americans) are so oppressed at home and are so poor that they can't possibly travel or go abroad like white Americans."  Really.  And so how would they explain the presence of African-Americans, Asian-Americans, native Americans and Hispanic Americans in places like Paris, Tokyo, Shanghai, Berlin?

That kind of thinking just makes me crazy.  I'm not sure what offends me more, the vision of African-Americans as so lacking in resources that they are stuck in the US, or the idea that all Americans of European origin are rich and thus they are the only Americans able to go abroad.  African-Americans were going abroad before slavery was abolished in the US and one of the reasons many left was because of racism and lack of opportunity in the US.  Whatever progress has been made in America,  it is still an argument that resonates.  In an article on the Fly Brother website, Ernest White II writes:

• "We have options. There are places in this world where our presence isn’t viewed as a menace, as a problem, or even as an inconvenience. There are places where we are welcomed, listened to, appreciated, and even loved. These places can and do challenge us in ways we could have never imagined, but our very existence isn’t challenged...In the end, the tangible investment in passport fees, airline tickets, and lodging expenses pay off in that they remove the yoke of low expectations. They can release us from the snares of a society that thinks it’s got us all figured out. Most importantly, these investments pay off in options."

That's a sentiment that many Americans abroad can relate to.  We are in an era of increasing income inequality and mass travel.  It should not surprise anyone that some Americans might find other countries to be a better deal for the average person:  better jobs, comprehensive social welfare programs, and a higher chance of social mobility.   Now there is no guarantee that these things will be had by all American emigrants, but Americans in the homeland read about lives in other lands in books, blogs, and social media, and can envision something else, somewhere else.

As explained in The Age of Migration (Castles, Haas & Miller 5th edition, p. 29) the problem with classic economic models of migration is that while extreme poverty can slow or stop some migration, "Improved education and media exposure may increase feeling of relative deprivation, and may give rise to higher aspirations and, therefore, increased migration, without any change in local opportunities."

In my study of Anglophones in Japan the American survey and interview participants had very diverse socio-economic statuses in the United States. Many were the children of police officers, teachers, nurses, truck drivers, factory workers, or domestic workers.  The majority did not have degrees from elite institutions. And many were from rural areas, small towns or small regional cities as opposed to connected global metropolises like New York or Los Angeles.

Add to this mix the Great Recession and the decline of the middle-class, and worsening conditions for the working classes and I am amazed that so many of the 62% of Americans making less than 50,000 USD actually stay in the US. And what stops them from migrating, I suspect, has more to do with the myth that America is a place people immigrate to and not a place people emigrate from, debt, problems with certificates and other professional credentials being recognized abroad, and nation-state emigration and immigration bureaucracy than extreme poverty.  I could be entirely off base about this, and please challenge me if you have a different opinion.

Because the fact is that Americans do leave and have always left America.  Today, there are African-Americans in Tokyo, Chinese-Americans in Paris,  and Native Americans in Berlin. And let us not forget that a sizable number of Americans abroad are military personnel (about 200,000) living in over 150 countries. The US Army and Navy are even more diverse than the general US population (see page 34 of the Population Representation in the Military Services).  Civilian Americans abroad frequently overlook them because US foreign policy is often criticized by our host countries and there is a distancing from it.  And, to be brutally honest, I think there are generational, class and racial issues here as well.  Not all American military go home to the US as the wide network of VFW posts around the world will attest. In my travels I have met veterans of World War II, Vietnam, and both Iraq wars living in France, Japan, and Belgium.

So for me there is no doubt that the diversity of Americans in the homeland is reflected in the population of Americans living abroad.  And that leads us back to Sumner's epiphany. In some ways Americans in the homeland and abroad are just as clueless as he was. African-Americans abroad? How ever did they manage to do that?  Well, drop the condescending attitude, learn something about Americans abroad, and you'll find out, folks.

The diversity is there, we just don't acknowledge and value it as much as we should.  At our worst we actually perpetuate harmful stereotypes about our compatriots and acquiesce to the racism in our host societies.  I have had some very troubling conversations over the years where Americans have stood by and watched (or even colluded with) the racism, classism, and sexism in their host societies against their fellow Americans.

The ugliest Americans, I suggest to you, my dear readers, are not those who struggle with a foreign language and the culture, but those "consummate asses" who elevate themselves at the expense of other migrants and their own compatriots.   Pretend to be the only American in Paris, Buenos Aires, Brussels, Tokyo, Shanghai or Singapore, if you must, but do get a reality check from time to time. There are 75,000 other Americans in Paris with tales to tell and you are hardly living in a "ghetto" if you acknowledge them in the streets and have coffee and a chat once in a while. Broadening your horizons in a foreign country can be as much about meeting Americans you would never have encountered at home as it is about integrating in the host society.  Before I moved to France I had never spent time with anyone from New York Arizona or Michigan.

Above all, do no harm by word or deed to other settlers and sojourners.  We have all rolled the dice in the Cosmic Crapshoot of Life.  We have all crossed borders.  We are all migrants.  And for those of us with pretty blue passports, we are all Americans.

Election Day: The French Abroad Voting in the US and Canada

Today is election day for the French abroad and at home.  Tim Smyth in the US has been driving by one of the polling sites and he took a picture which he posted on Facebook. Tim very kindly gave me his permission to post his photo on the Flophouse.

Tim writes, "Below is a picture of the line to vote at the Lycee Francais in Somerville, MA [State of Massachusetts] outside of Boston at around 4:00PM. It was actually slightly longer when I first drove by."

Photo by Tim Smyth, April 23, 2017

And here is a video of the French voting in Washington, D.C.



And this video on Twitter by Francois Zeller showing a very long line of French trying to vote in Montreal.  The Montreal Gazette says that French waited for hours in line to vote.  The article has a video with on the spot interviews with French voters.


And here are a few general articles about the election in the New York Times, the Japan Times, Al Jazeera, and the Guardian.

The French Candidates' Promises to the French Abroad

Update:  The Union des Français de l'Etranger (UFE) sent a questionnaire to all the candidates.  Fillon, Cheminade, Melenchon and Macron all submitted replies to the questions.  The responses received are here. Bonne lecture!

I am very interested in the French elections even though I am not a French citizen and I cannot vote. However, the candidates' programs will directly affect me.  I will be taxed more (or less) depending on who wins.  I have the same concerns about the economy, pensions, and security as any French national.  And I want France's future to be bright because I want my children to be able to return if they wish.

One of the things I most envy the French abroad is that they not only have the vote but they have representation in the nation's parliament (senators and representatives).  Thus, the French candidates pay attention (at least during the election season) to their citizens abroad.  I wouldn't claim that it's perfect. The French government decided not to allow on-line voting this election cycle so the French in Japan must vote by mail or travel to the nearest consulate in Kyoto or Tokyo to cast their vote in person.  Still, it is better than what many countries offer their communities abroad.

Since I have two French voters in my household, I am aware of just how close that attention is.  The younger Frenchling and my spouse have received emails from many of the candidates outlining what they have in mind for les Français de l'Etranger should they be elected.  A large enveloppe arrived the other day with pretty flyers and other election information.

So today I thought I would give you some idea of the promises the candidates are making to their compatriots in distant lands.  Though "Les promesses n'engagent que ceux qui y croient" I think we can reasonably assume that these politicians are trying to respond to needs that have been expressed by the French abroad.  As such it is an interesting, if indirect, view of the French diaspora's lives abroad -  what the candidates think will entice them to go to the polls and vote for them.  This is recognition that the world of the French at home and the world of the French expatriates are different. The candidates had to give this some thought in order to come up with an offer that would interest the French living in Berlin, Toronto, San Francisco, Hong Kong, and Casablanca alike while still linking the French abroad to France and emphasizing their ties to the nation. But the offer can't be too good lest they ruffle the feathers of voters back in France who are still the majority.

Whenever possible I will try give you a link or a video so you can read or listen to what they have to say yourself.  In one case (Melenchon) I wasn't able to find anything specific - a message expressly for the Français établis hors de France nor did the French voters in my house get an email from his campaign.  If he has sent something out and I have simply missed it, please send me the link or the contents of the mail and I will add it.  The website with Melenchon's program is here. And see above for his answers to the UFE questionnaire.

Benoît Hamon:  In this not terribly inspiring video he talks first about education and helping the French abroad to educate their children in French schools.  And then he goes on to talk about consular services and how he sees the French abroad as performing a service as ambassadors and how their influence should be part of an overall strategy for France in the world.

Emmanuel Macron:  In his email Une France tournée vers l'Europe et le monde Macron has a bright pink link inviting you to "consulte les mesures pour les français à l'étranger."  Note that he invokes the idea of the French abroad as representatives of France at the top of the webpage.  He has three goals for the French expatriés.  The first is education. Macron wants to make a French education abroad accessible to everyone. The second is about equitable taxation and better social protections abroad.  The third is to bring the French abroad closer to their elected representatives and to make sure that their voices are heard back in France.

Marine Le Pen:  In her email Mon programme présidentiel pour les Français de l'Etranger Le Pen  also put education at the top of the list.  She wants to assure free education and distance learning for all French students. Next is security abroad especially in dangerous areas.  Third is taxation:  Le Pen affirms a tax system based on territory, not nationality and she wants to lift the requirement to pay the  CSG/CRDS for the French living outside the EU - something that is apparently already the case but perhaps she is referring to the reimbursement of the CSG/CRDS already paid which is still an issue. She also promises better social protection with something called the Protection Universelle Maladie.  And finally she also proposes that the French abroad have more say in national issues.  You can read the long version here. 

François Fillon:  And yet another who talks about how the French abroad are representatives participating in the "rayonnement de la France" in the world.  In this video Fillon begins with taxes and confirms that the territorial taxation system will continue under his leadership.  He then discusses security and, yes, education.  He proposes more scholarships and other financing for a French education outside of France.  As for social protection he would allow expatriates to have access to all social protections in France the moment they return home.  And he promises that the voice of the French abroad will be heard at home and he fully supports the on-line vote to make it easier for the French abroad to participate in French elections.

Clearly, there are some recurring themes here with all candidates promising better access to French education abroad.  Another is the idea that the French abroad are unofficial French ambassadors in their host country - a sentiment that Americans abroad also hear in conversations with the homeland (when we or they want something.) It is one of those feel-good expressions that is so ambiguous that we can read whatever we want to into it.  Yes, I have come to have a certain cynicism when I hear it used.  All the candidates promise to ensure that expat voices will be heard and their influence recognized back in the home country.

Taxation is also mentioned by three candidates who seem to have a very different idea of "fair" than Melenchon.  Territorial taxation all the way.  Oh, and they all agree that it isn't reasonable to expect the French abroad to pay the CSG/CRDS ( special French  income taxes that the US IRS does not recognize as "real" taxes that can be used to offset US taxes.)

And finally both Fillon, Macron and Le Pen are in favor of either extending social protections to the French abroad or making them immediately eligible for coverage the moment they hit French soil.

Of all these promises the one that I would hold them to (if I were a French citizen abroad) is the one about education.  It's telling that all the candidates here have ideas about how to help the French expatriate pay for a French education in the host country.  This is one that would not only be a huge help to French families (see some of the school fees in Hong Kong, Tokyo, San Francisco, London)  and a way of reducing the inequalities between the French abroad on company packages and those who aren't, but it is a very good investment for France.  

A French child abroad who is inserted into the French school system as early as possible and who follows it all the way through high school is more likely to return to France for university.  This would mean young French returning to France with a good education, good health, knowledge about the world, and an extra language or two.  What France lost with the departure of their parents, comes back with interest.  That is one hell of a deal.  And I think France would be all the better for it.

Japan Has Something Worse than the FBAR

The US Foreign Bank Account Report (known as the FBAR) is an annual report that Americans and Green Card holders must file if they have more than 10,000 USD (about 9,000 Euros and about 1 million Japanese Yen) in the foreign-to-the-US-but-local-to-those-of-us-living-abroad banks .  I bank at a branch of the BNP a couple of hundred meters from my house in France, but for the US this is "offshore" and must be reported as if I were banking in the Cayman Islands. It's a tedious exercise but failure to file incurs stiff penalties.

However, compared to the Japanese Overseas Assets Reporting (OAR), the FBAR is a model of simplicity.  I had no idea this existed because I'm only a part-timer in Japan and it doesn't apply to me.  However, it would apply to a lot of the foreigners I have met in Japan and it's worth a look.  This is not an attempt to say that the FBAR is a better beast (I don't think that at all) but it gave me some idea of how the FBAR and form 8938 could evolve.

The OAR forms are here. They are in Japanese as are the instructions.

The scope of the OAR is greater than that of the FBAR.  Japan wants to know all about your overseas assets:  banks accounts, homes and other property, jewelry, antiques, trusts.  It's basically anything with monetary value.

Who has to file?  A couple of very good articles in the Japan Times by Louise George Kittaka gives the particulars without inundating you with too much information. She writes:

"In a nutshell, the OAR law applies to foreign nationals who have been in Japan more than five years within the last 10, and whose overseas assets have a combined value of ¥50 million or more. Those who fall outside this group have nothing to worry about, for now at least."

50 million Yen is about 460,000 USD and about 427,000 Euros.  This is a higher threshold than both the FBAR and form 8938.  However, there is more work involved because it's the agregate (combined total) of all the assets, not just the combined balances of the financial accounts.  It does exclude those who came to Japan with little or no assets back in the home country.  But it will hit those with a house they might be renting while they are abroad, those who have retirement accounts, and those who inherit assets in the home country while they are living in Japan:  the family home in France, mother's jewelry, plus a PEA and a company retirement account or stock options  might take a French in Japan over the threshold faster than she thinks.  It's also not clear to me how Japan will handle currency fluctuations.  Depending on how the Yen does relative to the British Pound or the Euro may mean an individual has to report one year and then falls under the threshold the next year and can skip the exercise.

I see a real bonanza here for the compliance industry because it's not easy to comply. With the FBAR the American abroad just takes the bank statements and determines the highest value of each one and fills in the form.  But how do you accurately report the value of a home in the UK?  What is the value of mom's jewelry in Canada?  Things like that make this a real headache.

Like the FBAR there are stiff fines for non-compliance.  Kittaka quotes a tax expert in this article:

“The penalty for noncompliance is ¥500,000 [about 4,000 Euros] or a year in jail, irrespective of any earnings derived. This person should definitely file, even if a tax return is not required to accompany it,” Tong advises."

Looking beyond the reporting, is the income from these assets taxable in Japan if you are a resident?  The answer is Yes.  See the 2016 Income Tax and Special Income Tax for Reconstruction Guide for Aliens which says on page 3  "Any individual who has a domicile or owns a residence continuously for one year or more is classified as a resident. Residents, except for those classified as “non-permanent residents” have an obligation to pay the income tax and special income tax for reconstruction for whole domestic source income and foreign source income."  (The Foreign Asset reporting guidelines are on page 16.)  So if you are getting rental income in the home country or former country of citizenship, it is both reportable and taxable in Japan.

Which creates the same problem that Americans have with the FBAR.  If you are a permanent resident of Japan and you start reporting on income-generating assets that you have never reported on your Japanese income tax declaration in previous years, well you've just outed yourself as a "tax evader" in Japan.  What happens next?  An audit?  Fines? Jail time? Deportation?  The US has an amnesty program called Streamlined which again is not perfect but can be used by some to get out of the trap.  If Japan has something similar please let me know.

Having learned this relatively bad news, there are people asking on forums about the risk of being caught if you don't comply.  How will Japan know that you inherited something in the UK, France, South Korea?

In the past I would say that it would have been very hard for Japan to track assets and income abroad.  Today, well, things have changed.  Concerning FATCA, the Japan/US IGA calls for Japan to report to the US and not the other way around.  So FATCA is mostly a concern for Americans in Japan who have not filed in the US. However, the basic tax treaty does allow for information exchange.  In fact, as of 2017 Japan has 68 of these agreements with 110 jurisdictions.    It was not automatic, Japan has to make the request to the other tax authority.

However, Japan has signed on to something called the CRS (Common Reporting Standard).  This is the OECD version of FATCA.  I went looking for how this actually works and I found this FAQ by the Canadian Bankers Association.  They say:

"The CRS expands upon FATCA by requiring Canadian financial institutions to identify and report to the CRA [Canada Revenue Agency] information about accounts held by persons who are resident for tax purposes in any country other than Canada or the U.S. The CRA will then exchange this information with tax authorities of the countries with which Canada has entered into an agreement."

So if you have accounts in Canada (or any other country that has signed onto CRS like France, Japan, Korea, India, UK  (full list is here), your accounts are reportable to the jurisdictions (yes, you can have more than one) in which you are a tax resident.  So, if you live in Japan and this is one of your residences for tax purposes then other countries will automatically report on your reportable accounts in the UK, Canada and so on. To complicate matters what is a reportable account depends on the country implementation.   KPMG has this report on how Japan will implement. Assuming that your accounts in another country are reportable,  Japan won't find all your assets abroad in the report, but it will give the Japanese tax authorities some idea of where to look and who to ask.

This means that your chances of getting caught not reporting foreign assets are getting much higher. Also look forward to future refinements.  This is version 1.0 of the net and governments everywhere are struggling to find tax revenue in the face of changing demographics, deficits and outbound migration.  They want more and more reporting, more and more information flowing on a global scale.  

To those who argue that this is "tax justice"  I would urge them to look closely at the implementation of these reporting systems to see who exactly is going to be impacted:  the whales (high earners) or the minnows (mid to low income earners)?    How much money will be coming in versus the cost of implementation and enforcement? How much will individuals have to pay to comply?  Are we filling the national treasury or are we making the lawyers and other compliance experts rich?   Are there programs for the "minnows" to get compliant without going bankrupt, getting thrown in jail or being deported?  These are all legitimate questions that should be answered in full by anyone throwing around the word "justice."   And I'm sure they'll get right on that now that I've brought it up.  

I dream.....

Mélenchon and the "Impôt universel"

For those of you who didn't get the memo the United States has a  little special something for its compatriots living outside the US:  citizenship-based taxation.  This mean that US citizens and Green Card holders abroad owe a pile of paperwork (tax and foreign account declarations) to the IRS every year even if they have never lived or worked in the US and have no assets or income there.

Awareness of this is growing among the US migrant/expatriate communities around the world because of FATCA, a program that requires foreign financial institutions to send a list of their American and almost American account holders to the US.  Many countries have signed agreements to hand over this information to the American government.  (See my post on the France/US IGA  and this review for the Flophouse on the Japan/US agreement by Inaka Nezumi.)

Read them and weep. And then grow a spine and (wo)man up. We are in this mess for the most part because of our government but also because we weren't paying attention and most of us refused to be part of any "American" organization abroad lest we be accused of living in an English-speaking ghetto.  There are organizations and individuals out there fighting this:  Isaac Brock Society, AARO, ACA.  These are the soldiers doing the heavy lifting and taking the risks in what I call the American Diaspora Tax War.  Find a way to show your support.

And to those of you who live outside your home countries and are not American citizens or Green Card holders, pay attention because some governments are looking at their deficits and eyeing the income and assets of their "rich" expats and thinking, "Maybe the Americans are on to something..."

Exhibit A this month is the French presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon.  He went on a French news program a few weeks ago and extolled the virtues of an "Impôt universel."  This is code for "citizenship-based taxation."  Something he admitted to and he even described how it would work:  a French living in another country would pay local taxes and then send his/her declaration to the French "fisc" with a little something for "la France."

Mélenchon has been rising in the polls and he stands a real chance of winning.  His proposal for taxing the French diaspora is getting a lot of attention.  He uses the old argument (one that Americans abroad know all too well) that this is necessary in order to combat tax evasion by the rich and it's only fair that French citizens contribute something to the home country in addition to what they pay in the host country.  

«Vous êtes français ? Très bien : vous payez vos impôts où que vous soyez sur la planète.»

"You are French?  Fine.  You pay your [French] taxes wherever you are on this planet."

We (Americans abroad) have heard that one before and it's a message Americans at home like a lot. It is an equally appealing argument for the French in France.  It invokes solidarity, fairness, and a chance to get back at those who walked away from La République.  The time to push back on this is now, mes amis.  Don't let this one go unchallenged, especially at a time when populism seems to be on the rise in the home country.  Email your French representatives and let them know exactly what you think of this.  

Take it from me, fighting a fait accompli is much harder than killing an idea before it gets traction and votes.

(Discussion about the "universal tax" starts at 31:00)

The Middle-Class Migrant

"Whilst it is impossible to come up with a coherent answer as to why the middle class migrate internationally, it is plausible to see international migration as a particular mobility strategy, employed consciously or otherwise, that leads to their appropriation of social, cultural and economic capital (Bourdieu 1984). No longer do we just see managers and executives in Europe using international mobility to increase their transnational socio-economic networks and augment their class position. We also see large numbers of skilled migrants venturing overseas on less structured journeys of advancement. This advancement involves a different balance of social, cultural and economic capital to the corporate professional, but is nevertheless important in middle-class reproduction and internal distinction." Scott, S. (2006). The social morphology of skilled migration: The case of the British middle class in Paris. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32(7), 1105-1129.

Definitions of "middle-class" abound and differ according to the metric used: income, occupation, lifestyle.  I think of it as group that has some level of financial and social capital (family background, education, credentials, skills, assets) but not enough of these things to put them in the "upper class."    The children of the well-to-do don't have to get a university education (though they usually do at elite institutions at home or abroad) nor do they have to worry too much about where they will work because money, connections, the family business means that they will never be unemployed unless they choose to be.  The middle class, on the other hand, must think strategically - how to best use the resources they have to get a good education and/or a profession that is financially and psychologically satisfying.  For the children of the middle-class some kind of paid employment is rarely optional; it is necessary in order to pay for housing, raise a family, and retire in relative comfort wherever they live.

Middle-class status in the home and the destinations countries, I contend, affects migration in many ways.

Temporary versus permanent: Temporary migration is a strategy that seeks to increase one's capital back in the home country.  The "Big OE"  overseas experience like study or work abroad can confer important social capital.   It can lead to better higher-status work at home. For example, a writer that spends a couple of years in Paris finances his stay doing childcare and writes until he is noticed back home and gets a job there based on his Parisian experience. Paying off credit cards or student loans is another possibility and many graduates go abroad to do this with the intention of coming home with less debt or savings. These are called "target earners" since they plan to leave once they have achieved their financial goal. However, the overall goal of the sojourners here is to maximize whatever benefit there is to being abroad  and leverage that capital to make a better life at home.

Those who come to settle in the new country are thinking more long-term (but not necessarily permanent).   Their intention is to leverage their capital into something that will provide them with a decent living in the host country.  Their middle-class status in the home country can mean that they are reluctant to take on work that would lower their status in either country. Furthermore, they have a model of "success" or upward mobility in the home country (one that is entirely relative) that they try to replicate in their new home.  What is most important here is that do this with limited resources and social capital which doesn't always translate very well.  They can not afford to stay in the host country without working or being with a spouse or partner who is working.  They may also not be in a position to move back if it doesn't work out:  the sheer cost of moving a household, the uncertainty of the job market in the home country, medical problems, family obligations are all things that may limit further mobility.

Different Skills,  Different Outcomes:  The "skilled" migrant is often defined by level of education with a BA or some tertiary education being the lower limit.  This ignores the enormous differences in universities, degrees, experience, and credentials. There are migrants with home country degrees in business, finance, medicine, engineering and science and there are those with classics, philosophy, political science and the like.  A basic liberal arts degree may be worth just as little in the destination job market as it was at home unless it's from an internationally recognized elite school.  I would argue that most middle-class migrants from developed and developing countries leave with higher levels of education than unskilled migrants, but where they went to school and what they studied still matters.  Anyone with Internet access can look up the Shanghai ratings and company HRs may have their own internal ranking with preferences for specific schools in the host country or abroad.  So those middle-class migrants from better schools in sought after fields have an edge.

This clearly translates into different outcomes in the destination country.  Those who come from other schools may have to fight even harder to get work that is commensurate with their education because they probably don't have native-level language skills or the right connections.  There are different strategies to overcome these things.  Some decide to open their own businesses or to go freelance.  Others find occupations where the employer doesn't care about what the migrant studied, only that he or she has a BA in order to get a work visa.   Another, interestingly enough, is to lie or to forge credentials.  This assumes that the employer in the host country won't or can't check.  All of these strategies have one thing in common;  they may or may not pay well but there is a higher level of risk:  a business can fail, freelancers may not find enough clients, a person with a generic BA can be replaced with another cheaper person with a generic BA and fraud might not only get him/her fired, it can put his immigration status in jeopardy.

Social Mobility:  Some middle-class migrants go abroad with the intention of moving down the class ladder.  They are looking for a lifestyle, not professional or social advancement. And yet, very few, in my experience, go to work in a factory or clean houses.  Instead they write, translate, teach, organize tours, open a bar/restaurant or just go back to the home country periodically to save enough money to return abroad.  Other middle-class migrants are content if they can just maintain their home country status in the host country:  a good "white-collar" or "pink-collar" job with benefits; a house or apartment that they own; enough pay to raise a family, save for retirement, and send the children to university.  In some cases the host country offers more possibilities for these things than the home country did.  Social-welfare programs vary widely among nation-states and depending on the migrant's situation, there may be more security and a greater likelihood that his or her children will also be middle-class or more.  And then there are those with ambitions; they want to do better than they would have done in the home country.  Moving is all about upward mobility:  starting a business in a place that favors entrepreneurship, marrying someone with a higher status and more resources, becoming an itinerant cosmopolitan "creative."

Redefining Successful Migration:  Somewhere in the middle-class migrant's mind is an ideal of the "successful" migrant and the fear of being seen as a "failure."  In some countries and cultures just moving abroad immediately confers status if the person is from a middle-class background. (Elites moving about is just, well, "normal.")  However, that status is precarious because as more and more other middle-class people migrate, it becomes less about the fact the migrants moved and more about what he or she did when she got there and settled.

There is a certain amount of defensiveness that creeps in when family or friends back home question how well they really are doing.  They feel that they must constantly justify their decision to move and stay.  I have to wonder if those who come from countries of immigration don't have a very difficult time with this.  Their middle-class status in the home country may be a result of centuries of immigration based on a perceived ideal that immigrants and their children are supposed to do better with each generation - from cleaning houses to small business owner, from SBO to law or medicine, from professional status to politician, high-level executive, CEO and so on.  There is a clear connection in this ideal between geographic mobility and social and professional upward mobility.

Middle-class migrants do not always do better and this is extremely embarrassing in both the host and home countries.  In the home country there is wonder that the migrant has somehow squandered a wonderful opportunity; in the host country it feels just as bad to struggle to achieve one's personal goals as it would at home.  "Going back" is seen as failure.

That kind of pressure leads migrants to redefine "success."  Instead of money or status, they point to other things they have done:  learned a language and a new culture, made friends, married, found a job they like even if it isn't something that they had ever aspired to do and doesn't "go anywhere."  They extol the virtues of the host country compared to home.  And they very rarely openly discuss the challenges, dissatisfactions, frustrations they experience abroad.  That would be handing ammunition to those who questioned the move in the first place and think that the migrant should return.

My take on this is that we greatly overestimate the ability of the middle-class migrant to be successful in all respects in the host country.  Yes, they have more education and some skills but there is no guarantee that they have the right ones for where they are going.  But they have at least a BA and speak English.  How hard could it possibly be to get a really good job abroad?   It can be very hard, actually. There a millions of people around the world who speak English and more learning every day.  There is a much smaller number of people who went to a school in the Shanghai List Top 10.   Not to mention that a BA does not automatically mean an aptitude for languages or the ability to absorb culture or have a successful relationship.   Furthermore, my definition of middle-class it implies limited means.  These are people who do not have years to master the language and life in the new country before they hit the job market.

I am often frustrated at the lack of research on middle-class migrants.  It is just as interesting as the mobility of the unskilled versus the skilled or the poor versus the well to do.  Maybe more so because they are operating under multiple constraints.  They have resources but they are not unlimited and so they must be very flexible and very smart about how they leverage what they have versus what is possible in the destination countries.  And when it's migration from one developed country to another it is not obvious what constitutes a "better" life in financial or social terms.

In the old immigrant steamships passengers were divided up into classes with luxurious first class cabins, the bare minimum in steerage (third class) and the intermediate second class accommodations for those with a little money but not enough to pay for better.  Something like that, I think, still operates and I think it would be worth our time to stop our obsession with the very rich and the very poor and see what the invisible middle has to offer migration studies.

The French Election

There is something so perverse about a British immigrant to America weighing in on the election in France.  But, I enjoy John Oliver so much that I did watch his latest show.  The obligatory joke about the French eating snails didn't do much for me. Hello, stereotype!  (For the record I eat tasty snails with butter and garlic but we all know better than to eat the disease-carrying ones in the garden.)  It got funnier as he poked fun at the various candidates.  It became deadly serious for me when he profiled Marine Le Pen of the Front National. Nothing funny at all about Le Pen's program and you can read on-line her 144 Engagements Presidentiels. Number 27 would eliminate dual-nationality for those who do not come from another EU state.  Her target, of course, is the North Africans but it would also apply to Americans, Canadians, Brazilians,  Chinese and anyone else who doesn't come from a European member state.  I don't know if it would apply to people who are already dual citizens, but I think she'll go as far as she can if she's elected.

Oliver ends with an appeal in French which is indeed very funny because he has the most amazing.   accent. (He should have included subtitles in French as well as English.)   Can't argue with his take on the UK, US, and Le Pen though.

For your viewing pleasure today, here is the video from Youtube.  Once you've watched it, please head over to Arun with a View for some serious, well-written, informed posts on the candidates.

Aging Parents and International Marriage

"In other words, it is postulated that a semi-independent relation links the nuclear family to the extended family. Because the extended family cannot offer a complete guarantee of occupational success it legitimates the moves of nuclear family members. On the other hand, receiving as it does significant aid in achieving many of its goals, the nuclear family retains its extended family connections despite geographical distance." (Litwak, Eugene. “Geographic Mobility and Extended Family Cohesion.” American Sociological Review, vol. 25, no. 3, 1960, pp. 385–394., www.jstor.org/stable/2092085.)

International Marriage is more than just the joining of two individuals from different nation-states, it also links two extended families in different countries and creates a web of kinship ties that transcend borders.  This can be seen as an opportunity for all since immigration laws that favor family reunification make it possible for other family members to migrate, too.  Remittances play a role as well with money being sent back to help family members in the home country.  In Klekowski von Koppenfel's study of Americans in Europe, she found that American migrants sent money to family in the US to help pay for unexpected expenses like medical care.

There is opportunity but there are also obligations.  Conflicts can and do arise when the couple must make decisions in favor of one extended family over the other.  The couple (unless they are very wealthy) simply can not provide personal care to two sets of aging parents living in two different countries. And while there may be general agreement that some assistance is necessary there can be arguments over just how many resources the nuclear family can afford to transfer to one or the other's elderly parents.

Where to live, where to send the children to school, what languages to speak in the home are all issues that are salient to a bi-national couple and some are mutually exclusive or just very difficult to achieve.  Caring for parents is one that is fraught with cultural expectations that neither spouse may be aware of until it becomes an issue.  In some countries (US, UK) older people are encouraged (and want) to be independent.  After a lifetime of caring for their children, they see retirement as freedom and don't want their children interfering in their lives. It is assumed by all that they will move into some sort of assisted living as they become less able to care for themselves.

Other countries and cultures have very different expectations.  Parents remain active in their children's lives (and vice versa) and they help raise their grandchildren. A retirement home is a last resort - the ideal is to grow old at home with one's children and grandchildren.  If the parents must be moved to a long-term care facility, it is still expected that  the adult children play a large role in their parents' care. (Spain, Japan).

To complicate matters even further, different countries have different approaches to care for the elderly.  Some countries like France or Sweden have state-provided services.  France has something called allocation personnalisée d'autonomie (APA) which is a subsidy for people over 60.  Sweden has similar subsidies and services. These things do not mean that family isn't involved in care, but it does mean that there are local resources to help the elderly whether they have family living nearby or not.  In other countries like Japan the state has had less of a role (this is changing) and families still provide a lot of care.  

These factors plus the distance or proximity of parents and limited financial resources make for some very hard decisions - decisions that involve both spouses and test their ability to be culturally aware and compromise.  A foreign spouse may be surprised to learn that she is responsible for caring for the husband's parents while her parents rely on state care at home..  Another may be shocked to be told that the spouse's parents are moving with them because "that's what we do here."  The native spouse may resent having to transfer money locally or abroad to help in-laws he or she hardly knows (or doesn't like very much).  In the event of a crisis one spouse may need to purchase plane tickets and have to leave for extended periods. There may even be strong pressure to return "home" with an equally strong reaction on the part of the other spouse to stay.  Gender certainly plays a part here since there may be more pressure on women to provide personal care, while men might feel more pressure to contribute financially.

Family connections are a social and biological fact, "family values" are not.   The cultural context is extremely important and even very well-integrated migrants may discover that their assumptions about how parents should be cared for when they can no longer care for themselves differ dramatically from that of their spouse.  Like other questions that require a projection into the future (where will we send the children to school?) most of us don't think about them until we must.  And thinking of our parents as aging and needing care is one that most of  us put off thinking about because we love them and want them to live forever.  However, this is one we should probably discuss with our spouses beforehand.  In my time here in Japan I have met migrants who married  under very explicit terms - that they would take care of the spouse's parents in the host country first and that they would never leave Japan for long periods.  That arrangement shows a foresight that many of us don't have.

I do wonder, however,  about the fairness of such deals.  Circumstances change.  A decision made when one is 30 may not be the same one he/she would make at 50.  For as our parents age, so do we.  And when they are gone, we may be the ones needing care one day from our children who may be just as far from us as we were from our parents.

Employment Poker in the Destination Country

Many migrants leave their country of origin to go off to play employment poker in the destination country.  You have a hand to play and in order to win (or just keep from losing big) you need to have a good understanding of  how your hand plays in the larger game that is the national job market.

Today let's look at a few things to think about before you go if you intend to seek employment on a distant shore.

Credentials:  What do you have?  High school diploma, associate degree, BA, MA or PhD?  In what fields?  Do you belong to a professional association that certifies certain professions?  Take a hard look at how those credentials "translate" on the other side.

Will your foreign credentials be recognized in the destination country?   A French going to Quebec or a Quebecois going to France will benefit from mutual recognition agreements (MRAs).  In the EU, see this site for information on how EU countries regulate access to certain professions.   If you are an engineer, look for countries that have signed the Washington Accord.

If there are no MRAs, what's next?  Look into what kind of retraining you would need to re-certify. How many years would you have to study?  How much will it cost?  Beware of  schemes that lure migrants in with the promise of certification in a few years.  Some foreign nurses are still waiting to become certified nurses in Japan.  Find out just how far industry certifications like Microsoft or Oracle (IT) or a TEFL or CELTA (English Language Training) certificate will take you. One high-tech French company I worked for only took IT people with engineering/computer science degrees, even for relatively simple tech work.  

What if none of your credentials are recognized and it's extremely difficult to recertify?  This is where you need to do some deep thinking.  How important is your profession to you?  Are you OK with the idea that you may not ever be able to work in that profession in the host country?  Would you be satisfied doing something else?  Something that may not be commensurate with your professional status, education, and experience in the home country (called "deskilling").  If your spouse is a citizen of that country how will this affect your relationship if you can't find work?  Perhaps you will find different work or full-time parenting to be a refreshing change, but perhaps not.  The time to negotiate these things is now, not after you've arrived and settled.

Language(s):  Start learning before you go.  Get as much experience with the language as you can.  Join the local Alliance Francaise, the Japan Foundation, or the Goethe Institut.   Contact consulates,  sister city associations, or local associations where you can find competent speakers of the target language willing to teach for a reasonable price.  Globalization means that there is probably a language community near you.  There is a  Japanese community in Versailles, for example.

In addition to basic communication skills, learn how to read and write.  How far do the illiterate go in your home country?  Not very.  Don't expect it to be any different in the host country.  I applied for one job in France, where to my surprise they gave me a handout describing a difficult situation with a client.  I was then given 30 minutes to write a response in French, using verb tenses not used in the spoken language and formal language and syntax that one would normally use with a client.  This was not a managerial job;  it was a very low-level IT consulting position. Literacy, literacy, literacy.

Connections:  If you have any connections to the destination country, use them.  It can be anything:  alumni associations, churches, a friend who was an au pair in that country, a family member who lives there, a co-worker who worked there.  Get into a network and see where it takes you.  There are places where a connection will land you a job much faster than fancy credentials and experience. It's not who you are, but who you know....

Money:  Down and Out in Paris and London (or Tokyo, Buenos Aires, or Shanghai) sounds so romantic.  It isn't.  Being poor isn't fun anywhere.  When I arrived in France I had almost no money and what little I had was sucked up with transportation fees, decent inexpensive clothes for job interviews, and language training.  I was not ready when I went looking but there was rent to pay.  And what I found was poorly paid secretarial work.  Money means options. Have something as a cushion just in case.  And don't assume you will be able to pay down your home country debts in the host country. It might happen, it might not.

Work Visas:  Given your situation, what visa categories are available to you?    Different countries have multiple work visa categories with different requirements and more or less beneficial conditions. If the visa is a short-term one (1 to 3 years) find out how hard it is to renew.  A spousal visa might be an option but it comes with its own issues; your ability to stay in the country and work may depend on your relationship with your spouse.  Never forget that you can be fired from that job, too.

Can you switch easily from one visa category to another?  Are you required to stay with an employer (H1-B in the US) or can you quit and find another employer without having to reapply to be able to stay?  Will the employer help with the visa process?  What about student visas?  Some countries allow students to work part-time.  Other countries allow international students to stay in the country after graduation and look for work.

Ghettoization:  The job market in the destination country is structured in particular ways.  Be aware of them.  Are certain nationalities mostly hired for certain kinds of jobs?  For example, it is reported that the Portuguese have a lock on the apartment manager jobs in Paris. Anglophones from certain countries are hired to teach English.  Silicon Valley seems to like French engineers.  A friend of mine who is an engineer from Mexico arrived in Europe where people suggested that she look for work teaching Spanish.  Eastern Europeans in some countries are associated with skilled trades.  In other places an Asian nationality may be associated with entrepreneurship.   Not to mention all the national stereotypes about migrant criminality, women and the sex trade, perceived failure of your nationality to integrate, and things like that.  Is that discrimination on the basis of national-origin?  You bet your ass it is.  And yet, it happens all the time and you can find yourself being herded into what the natives think is the "right" position for you based on the color of your passport.  And once you are there, they may never let you out.

Discrimination:  In addition to discrimination on the basis of national origin there can also be racial, sexual orientation, or gender-based discrimination in the host country.  If you are going to work in any country find out what your rights are (or if you even have any).  You are going into a world where you are most likely not a native-born citizen.  Perhaps there are local laws and protections but don't count on being able to use them because you are a migrant/immigrant/naturalized citizen.    Have a look at this EU publication, Migrants, Minorities and Employment-Exclusion and Discrimination in the 27 Member States.  Or this working paper on discrimination in Canada.

It's one hell of a game.  There are so many different possibilities that my head swims and I had trouble keeping this list short.  The thing to remember is that you have good cards and not so good ones that play differently in different countries.  Some of them you can throw away if you wish, others you are just plain stuck holding or giving them up is unthinkable.  I would argue that your chances of successful play are greatly improved with a little research and lot of thought.  I hope this helps.