Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 34 Comments

France is all a’flutter over the news that the beloved actor Gérard Depardieu was seeking (and apparently has now obtained) a second passport.

“Je suis un citoyen du monde,” he has declared and that is the reason he is giving for accepting a Russian passport.  He vigorously denies that his actions are linked to tax matters in France though few people believe him since he has been highly critical of the French government’s tax policies and not too long ago he left the Hexagon for Belgium which provoked a perfect storm of criticism and angst.  Look here for a superb editorial about the language that French politicians have been using to describe him (tax evader, ingrate, deserter – terms that many of us here hear quite often).  The conclusion of the author of the piece?  These politicians are unconscious defenders of slavery, says Bertrand Lemennicier, who act ” s’ils étaient propriétaires de nos corps et de nos vies.” (as if they owned our bodies and our lives.)

And Depardieu was having none of it.  His  open letter to the President and Prime Minister is something to read and I invite you to do so.  He certainly came out swinging and was not in the slightest bit apologetic – apoplectic is more like it.  A few choice bits that I enjoyed greatly:

“Je n’ai pas à justifier les raisons de mon choix, qui sont nombreuses et intimes.” (I do not have justify the reasons for my choices which are many and private.)

“Je n’ai jamais tué personne, je ne pense pas avoir démérité, j’ai payé 145 millions d’euros d’impôts en quarante-cinq ans, je fais travailler 80 personnes dans des entreprises qui ont été créées pour eux et qui sont gérées par eux.” (I never killed anyone, I don’t think I was ever a bad guy, I paid 145 million Euros in taxes over 45 years, I provide work for 80 people in companies that were created for and are managed by them.)

And he ends his missive by asking the French President and his Prime Minister, “Who in the hell are you to judge me?”

Good question and I applaud him for having the courage and the audacity to ask it.  As Depardieu so rightly points out those who leave their countries of origin – who choose to live, marry, raise families and work on distant shores- should never have to justify their choices to anyone.  We have that right – the right to leave the place where we accidentally found ourselves at one point in time and to go wherever we are welcome.  This is true of all of us whatever category of migrant we happen to be in – whether we are film stars or farmhands.  And the only proper response in my view to attempts by states and their homeland citizens to prevent people from leaving their territories (policies against emigration) or punishing them for it (exit taxes and citizenship-based taxation) or trying to shame them into staying is outrage.

34 thoughts on “The Affaire Depardieu”

  1. @LorneMarr, well, Gerard Depardieu made the point of the 80 people that he employs and empowers in their jobs.  He is, besides being a famous actor, also an employer.  Now when you chase off the rich and call them cowards people who take the easy way out (evidently you now prefer to leave off the coward moniker), then you are chasing away employers.

    Between my wife and I, we employ over 30 people in Canada.  I spoken with other employers who are renouncing their US citizenship like us.  We are not cowards nor are we taking the easy way out.  One should be reticent with that “coward” label.

    I have a friend who is an expert marksman.  He has, e.g., won pistol shooting competitions.  I asked him how he thinks he would perform in an actual combat situation.  He said, “I don’t know.  Because I’ve never had to deal with people shooting back at me.”  Americans are quick to judge, and slow to think. That’s why the expats who renounce are being called such vicious names.  I therefore sympathize completely with Mr. Depardieu.  Bully on him.

  2. @LorneMarr, I am an economic migrant.  I left the US to avoid the “exit tax” taking 35% of my retirement savings.  It is laughable that anyone would think I should have instead stayed to fight.  Fight what, and how?  The “exit tax” is law, so challenge it on what grounds?  Constitutional?  Unlikely to succeed and laughably expensive.  Appeal to my representative?  As a green card holder without any vote I had none.

    To have stayed in the US would have been financial suicide, not courage.  An unwillingness to stand still and be slaughtered is not cowardice.  Nor is moving to another country any form of easy option.  I have done it three times, and it requires much more perseverance and determination than staying put.

  3. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard people like LorneMarr freely pronounce judgment on expats, suggesting that moving abroad is a sign of weakness. The Internet is a free place to give opinions, and I find the thinking behind this kind of “stay and fight” argument to be more reflective of ignorance and fear than of any noble sentiment. I myself moved to Europe more than two decades ago and never looked back (although I didn’t emigrate for economic reasons I must admit). I enjoy life immensely here and wouldn’t dream of moving back to the US (no LorneMarr, not even to “fight”). I took some risk, made my life choice, and consider myself a better person for it. 

    But even if I were fleeing a bad economic situation, I would not consider this a cowardly act. In fact, I would propose that LorneMarr is arguing backwards. He who is able to take risk by leaving his homeland to seize opportunities abroad is the brave person. He who stays pat and tolerates misfortune is rather the coward. 

    I don’t know LorneMarr’s origins, but I would guess he is at least partly of European descent. In which case I would argue that his ancestors were made of sterner stuff than him.

  4. Whether Americans should choose fight or flight when faced with adversity is soon to become a moot point anyway. The effect of citizenship based taxation on American global migration has been insignificant only because the US government has been negligent in enforcing it, that is until FATCA and FBAR. Americans are soon to find out that they will be punished if they leave the confines of the US, other than on brief tours. The world, when it learns of the ‘mark’ of citizenship based taxation on US citizens will avoid partnerships with Americans, whether business or marriage, like the plague. 

  5. I know for some people that “home” is all about their nationality but there are some of us for whom “home” is people we love and a community of the like-minded and that can’t be contained by borders no matter how convenient that is for the State.

    Humans have always migrated. Calling it taking the path or least resistance or choosing the road less traveled is a matter of viewpoint.

  6. “no matter how convenient that is for the State.”

    And for a very good read about how the state views this and other such matters I cannot recommend highly enough J.C. Scott’s Seeing Like a State.  Damn fine read. You will never look at the state in the same way again….

  7. A little laugh for you…

    Official says insults to France should end

    Corrine Lepage, a member of the European parliament and a former presidential candidate, demanded individuals from France and elsewhere stop treating France like “the scum of the earth” in an editorial in the French version of the Huffington Post, The Daily Telegraph reported.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: