Violent Crime In the US

Photo by Chang Liu

Pardon today's divergence; I'm still in shock. Today I started with the news and saw that 19 people were injured in a Mother's Day parade shooting in the US. Described by the FBI as "strictly an act of street violence", as if somehow that is more reassuring than terrorism. You have to wonder just how bad things have to get in the US before someone does anything. Sadly, due to overwhelming evidence that gun crime in the US has plummeted sharply in the past two decades, many in the US are using this as an excuse for inaction.

What they're ignoring is that gun murders in the US are far higher than the rest of the industrialized world. Just because we've improved this statistic doesn't mean that it's suddenly "acceptable." There's also another little statistic that many would rather you didn't know.

When the media is talking about how US gun crime has dropped sharply since 1993, you might ask the question "why did they pick 1993 as the year to measure from?" On one hand, this makes arbitrary sense as we can say "we looked at gun crime in the past 20 years". On the other hand, it turns out that this is a convenient year for those who would rather see nothing change: 1993 is the year that gun crime peaked in the US. Yes, you can say that "gun murders have dropped sharply in the past two decades", but you can also say "gun murders have dropped from their peak and have now returned to the levels see in the early 1960s." Let's go back a little bit further and look at another graph:

Source: US Department of Justice Statistics

Well, that changes the picture quite a bit, doesn't it? However, even that graph is misleading because it uses absolute rather than relative numbers, indicating that maybe the gun homicide rate is dropping a bit.  So let's look at the Pew Research Report that everyone is talking about but not linking to (emphasis mine):

Looking back 50 years, the U.S. gun homicide rate began rising in the 1960s, surged in the 1970s, and hit peaks in 1980 and the early 1990s. (The number of homicides peaked in the early 1990s.) The plunge in homicides after that meant that firearm homicide rates in the late 2000s were equal to those not seen since the early 1960s.

Even the most casual student of history can guess what major change was happening in the US starting in the 1960s.

The Pew report mentions that 1993 was a peak, but every single graph used throughout the entire report shows numbers dropping from a peak, so if you don't read the information carefully, you can easily be mislead. As for their "looking back 50 years", they found that information at this US Department of Justice report (pdf) which states:

In the last decade (since 2000) the homicide rate declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s [and] the homicide rate doubled from the early 1960s to the late 1970s, increasing from 4.6 per 100,000 U.S. residents in 1962 to 9.7 per 100,000 by 1979.

And guess what? They have graphs, too.

Source: FBI Uniform Crime reports, 1950-2010
Graph reproduced from US Department of Justice report

Note that these numbers are relative and clearly show that there was a peak, but this does not include guns. However, it does tend to show the ridiculously high homicide levels in the US and I've already pointed out that the US has a much higher murder rate than most of the industrialized world, and this interactive world gun homicide map will merely drive the point home.

Why does the US accept this? We know that simply throwing people in prison doesn't make crime go away. If it did, we'd have a paradise:

Source

There's so much more which can be said about the sad state of affairs in the US. We can easily look at US history or at other nations to see multiple approaches to the problems we face, but instead the US turns to bellicose rhetoric and finger pointing, politicians jockeying for position and the American people being overlooked in the scuffle. No one seems particularly interested in information any more.

So what's going to happen after this latest shooting?

Nothing. There will be talk. There will be wailing. There might even be a cosmetic change or two, but there will be no attempt to address the underlying causes of crime in the US. There will be no serious attempt to ensure that only responsible adults have guns. There will be no national introspection regarding what is going wrong in the US.

Forget about taking away people's guns. Not only is that simply not going to happen and it won't solve the underlying problems. The US needs to wake up and start behaving like adults willing to learn and to face hard choices. Of all the strengths of the US, learning and facing hard choices aren't amongst them.

The End of FATCA?

Rand Paul, US Senator for Kentucky

For those outside the US who do not know who Rand Paul is, he's the son of Ron Paul, a US politician who's perennial quest for the presidency was at first met with mockery but eventually garnered enough support that it's widely believed that the Republican party deliberately locked him out of contention for the Presidency.

So why would I talk about Rand Paul in an expat blog?

Senator Paul has introduced a bill to repeal FATCA. Here are two different takes on it:

• In lieu of journalism, the Wall Street Journal has posted a poorly written press release about it.
• In lieu of journalism, Mother Jones has posted a hysterical rant about it.

This just kills me. As I wrote near the end of Stateless Americans and Renunciants, nobody seems to give a damn about the actual facts regarding expats. Of the two stories above, the Wall Street Journal article strongly praises Paul's bill and Mother Jones strongly opposes it. Of those two publications, I would lean more towards Mother Jones than Wall Street Journal (particularly after Rupert Murdoch's yellow journalism "News Corporation" bought it), but in this case, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The Mother Jones article completely gets it wrong, implying that the six million plus Americans living abroad are mostly wealthy tax dodgers. We're not. We're taxi drivers, teachers, software engineers, retirees, accountants, waiters, spouses, and so on. There might be a higher percentage of rich Americans amongst expats, but no one will ever know since the Census Bureau refuses to count us and Congress repeatedly rejects bills whose aim is get information about expats upon which they can base their laws.

In the case of Rand Paul, a man I don't particularly like but who I'm beginning to at least respect (ironically, I used to feel that way about his racist father), the Wall Street Journal article avoids pointing out that Rand Paul isn't necessarily driven by compassion for expats, but perhaps is acting more in line with his virulent anti-tax beliefs driven by that starry-eyed conviction that Libertarianism is the path to nirvana.

Of course, Paul's beliefs do cause him all sorts of problems. He's backtracked on his civil rights views, for example, such as his beliefs that government laws to end private discrimination are wrong and that public pressure, which had already failed repeatedly, is the tool of choice. You don't want to hire black people or serve gay people? Paul thinks that's your right.

So I can't say I'm excited to have this man as an advocate of such an important issue, but nonetheless, he's articulate and he does appear to be following his beliefs. And given that Rand Paul will be running for the presidency in 2016, he's getting a fair amount of political traction and maybe, just maybe, we can have the mess that is FATCA ended.

Stateless Americans and Renunciants

So close ...
Photo by وسام زقوت

On the subject of renouncing one's citizenship, I previously reported that I only knew of two individuals who've renounced US citizenship without having another citizenship, making them "stateless". Being stateless, in this context, means "not having a legal nationality." There are many ways in which one can become stateless, with Palestinians being the most prominent example. Other examples stem from people being forced out of their country due to war, or being denied recognition by their home country. Sadly, the problem of statelessness is widespread, with an estimated 12 million people stateless around the world.

A Class for Integrating into France

Liberty Leading the People by Eugène Delacroix

"A government of the people, by the people and for the people." Does that sound familiar to anyone? That's actually the fundamental principle of the French republic, as enshrined in their constitution. In fact, as an American reading about French history and culture, I note how strong the parallels are between the two. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, freedom of association, and so on. Despite superficial differences, the US and France have more in common than than either side seems to think and this was reinforced last Saturday when I attended the convocation à la formation civique, or my "call to civic education".

I didn't experience a similar class in the UK or the Netherlands (and wouldn't have experienced in Japan as I was a military brat), but here in France they take cultural integration very seriously and require you to take free classes in it. In fact, if you have the right to settle in France but don't speak the language well enough, you'll get free French courses. You'll also be required to understand the rights and responsibilities that you will have as a resident or citizen of France, hence the class I attended.

My métro stop in Bobigny
Image courtesy Clicsouris

The class lasted eight hours and was a bit boring at times because I learned most of this material in studying for the visa tests I needed to pass to get my first visa for France. Because we live about stone's throw outside the Parisian border, I had to travel to Bobigny for the class, an hour long trip by métro (because I have to travel into the center of Paris and back out again to get to Bobigny). Bobigny is not a very picturesque area and has one of the highest crime rates in France, so it's not high on my list of places to visit, but if I want permanent residency or citizenship, I can't skip this class.

The class itself was standard: start with the history of France and then discuss the structure of the government, culture of France, and move on to rights and responsibilities. About halfway through the class we broke for lunch. Our class of about 45 students was taken to a restaurant where I was served fish which tasted like it died of dehydration. The pasta, curiously, tasted like the fish and was even slathered in the same watery sauce. We had stale baguette to accompany it, but the water was excellent (cough). As a means of scoring a free meal, I would suggest dumpster diving as a preferable alternative.

Interestingly, the class focused very heavily on women's freedoms, how polygamy was illegal, and how the "right of revenge" is outlawed. I've seen these issues stressed repeatedly in the French "cultural integration" materials and I suspect that this is largely due to many immigrants coming from Africa and the Middle East (other than the instructor, I was the only caucasian in the room and the instructor was shocked to find out that I was from the US). There was actually some very lively discussion when it was explained that the wife does not need her husband's permission to take a job, at which point some men objected, arguing that there might be children at home and the woman simply can't up and take a job just because she feels like it. Our instructor (a female) shut them down pretty quickly.

I would love to find out if these classes have had any noticeable impact on assimilation of others. I'd also be curious to know if others from strongly different cultural backgrounds move here but reject the local culture (I know of at least one individual who has two wives). All things considered, I think the classes are a good thing, though I'd feel better about them if immigrants were tested on the material presented. Instead, many of them were texting their friends and a couple were sleeping, though several were very engaged in the class. Perhaps said testing is done at a later date? Are there any immigrants to France who are reading this who could comment?

Belgian Blue Card

Bruge, Belgium
Photo by Wolfgang Staudt

In September of 2012, Belgium finally introduced their version of the European Blue Card. As with every country in the EU, the Belgian implementation of the Blue Card is unique and many Web sites appear to be reporting incorrect information. I've gone out to the French language Belgian government web site for Service public fédéral Emploi, Travail, et Concertation sociale, or their "Employment, Labor, and Social Services" web site and found the Belgian government's detailed explanation of their Blue Card laws.

The basic qualifications for the Blue Card are fairly normal. You must have:

• a higher education degree lasting which took at least three years to obtain.
• an indefinite employment contract.
• a salary of €49,995 per year (adjusted annually)
• a valid travel document (presumably a passport, but this is unclear)
• health insurance other than what your employer provides

You must also not be considered a threat to the public or to national security.

Interestingly, there are several ways in which you can be denied the Blue Card. First, the Belgian government imposes a labor test: you can't take the job if they feel there are qualified Belgians available (similar to the Austrian Blue Card). Second, the employer must not have been previously penalized for hiring illegal workers. Third, and most interestingly, if your position is considered in a sector in short supply in your home country, you can be denied.

The last provision is fascinating. African countries were extremely upset with the European Blue Card because they are worried about the "brain drain" of their highly skilled workers fleeing to Europe. This is not entirely unreasonable. From the fairpolitics.nl Web site (emphasis mine):

For developing countries, the most important negative effect of voluntary migration to developed countries (e.g. in Europe) is the brain drain caused by the loss of highly skilled workers. Currently, more than 25% of highly skilled workers from African countries such as Mozambique, Ghana, Kenya and Uganda live in developed countries. Figures for the Caribbean and Pacific are as high as 70%. This brain drain has severe repercussions on the labour market in the migrants countries of origin, where it impacts negatively on vital sectors such as education and health, and reduces those countries capacity to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) one of the priorities of the EUs development policy.

Belgium has cut through a dilemma that many countries have been facing: how to appease locals who are worried about immigration (because this provision largely impacts many African and Asian immigrants), keep the developing nations happy because Belgium can say "we're listening to your concerns", but still import skilled workers. Belgium now has a very effective throttle if Blue Card immigration becomes politically problematic.

The Face of Islam in Europe

Kahina Zed: The terrifying face of Islam

A friend of ours here in Paris, Kahina Zed, was recently in Canada with her partner and she met a bunch of Americans. After getting to know her for a couple of days, they were shocked to discover the horrifying truth: she's Muslim. They were incredulous, first assuming she was pulling their leg. With a drink in one hand and a cigarette in another, Kahina, who speaks French, English, Spanish and Arabic, is very proud of being a Muslim and, more importantly, she's practically the poster child for Islam in Europe, but you'd never know it from the news reports.

Austrian Blue Card

St. Wolfgang, Austria
Photo by Richard Taylor

If I had to do my move to Europe all over again, I'd seriously consider Austria. I've been there several times, it's a lovely country, the people are very friendly, and despite the occasional gay neo-Nazis running around, it's awesome. Now, thanks to the Austrian Blue Card, you can go there, too.

The requirements of the Austrian Blue Card are fairly straightforward. You must have:

1. completed a university course of three years minimum duration
2. a binding employment offer with 150% of the average yearly gross salary for a full-time employee (in 2011: annual gross salary of at least 52 417.50 €, that is about 3 745 € gross per month)
3. and no equally qualified unemployed person registered with the Austrian Public Employment Service was available to be recruited by the potential employer.

There are a few things worth pointing out here. The minimum "three years" degree might sound odd to Americans, but here in Europe, many countries offer a Bachelors degree after only three years of university education, unlike the four years you usually need in the US. The degrees themselves tend to be a bit more focused than the US Bachelors degrees, but they lack some of the breadth that US university students get in their first two years. The argument is that you get this "breadth" in your mandatory schooling, though I've heard anecdotal claims that some EU university graduates (particularly from the UK) aren't as well-rounded as some of their foreign counterparts.

The salary threshold is high, but the idea behind the Blue Card was to bring highly skilled workers to the European Union, so it makes sense and shouldn't be too much of a problem if you're really the worker that the EU seeks.

Point 3, however, is interesting. Though Austria had originally agreed to the EU Blue Card proposal (only the UK, Ireland, and Denmark rejected it), they didn't seem terribly keen on implementing it and eventually the EU issued a "Reasoned Opinion" against Austria (amongst others) for failing to implement the law they said they would implement. Had Austria failed to comply, eventually they would have been dragged to court (yes, countries go to court over here), but they eventually passed the law. However, unlike some other EU countries, they apparently imposed a labor market test requiring that Austrian companies first verify that they couldn't find a qualified unemployed person to take the job. Many people appreciate said protectionism while others decry the extra layer of bureaucracy.

And the benefits if you qualify?

• proof of German language skills before coming to Austria is not required
• the card is good for 24 months 
• free labor market access in case of extension 
• permanent leave to remain can be obtained more quickly and mobility in the EU is facilitated
• quota-free family reunification

In short, a two-year work and residence visa, you don't need to speak German, you can bring your family, and if you get extended, access to the entire EU labor market (minus countries who don't support the Blue Card).

The EU started the Blue Card program to directly compete with the US Green Card. Given how broken US immigration law is, it appears to me that the EU has a solid long-term strategy here. Of course, I think it's being undercut by how they're handling the Euro crisis, but that's a short-term thing. If they can solve that issue (and I mean, really solve that issue), than the future belongs to Europe and China.

Read a bit more about Austria. They're doing well economically, you can get your university education there virtually for free (that's even available to non-EU students) and, like I said, it's a beautiful country.