You forgot about Poland, redux (long post on building a new life elsewhere)

That one-of-a-kind Jeremy, over at JFW wonders why people are so psyched about moving to Canada now and not choosing to relocate to, say, Poland.

I have always felt myself to be at a cultural disadvantage here. At times (eg November 3rd, a.m.) I have thought – man, I just don’t GET this place! In those moments I have felt inferior, marginalized and confused. But I can take comfort in the fact that every now and then I can rise to the challenge and participate meaningfully in the debate. For instance now: I think I can help you decide -- Poland? Canada? the Caribbean maybe? Read on!

First, why Canada remains a cool choice: it’s because they are not yet ready to bash our brains in, that’s why. They still want to help us out, even though we mock their affected French ways in Quebec and poo poo their pandering to environmentally-correct mammals. Check out this website, which urges Canadians to take on an American bride at our time of great need. here's an excerpt:

Now that George W. Bush has been officially elected, single, sexy, American liberals - already a threatened species - will be desperate to escape.
These lonely, afraid (did we mention really hot?) progressives will need a safe haven.
You can help. Open your heart, and your home. Marry an American. Legions of Canadians have already pledged to sacrifice their singlehood to save our southern neighbours from four more years of cowboy conservatism.

And why not Poland?

Here’s someone positing that very question on her (Madison-based) blog, just yesterday. She writes:

Accepting my brother’s offer to work in Poznan (Poland) where he lives with his Polish wife is also not an option. He’s right – I’d make more than the average Pole and the landscape (at least in selected areas) would be much better. But, let’s be honest…I just wouldn’t fit in. I don’t speak Polish, I do yoga (which the Catholic church in Poland seems to regard with some mystical suspicions), I like to run outside (which, judging by my visits to Poland, is not an acceptable outdoor activity and tends to cause alarm), I drink my vodka in cocktails, I like a large supermarket with an expansive and fresh produce section to be within walking distance, I love it that even in Wisconsin I have the opportunity to see live roller-derby, I love rodeos, and a Sleater-Kinney, Le Tigre or White Stripes concert at least once per year is an absolute must. Oh, and I don’t speak Polish.

Now, I do think one shouldn't be quite this intimidated by the puzzled stares of my country-folk. Be bold! Kick the shi(ns) out of anyone who wont let you do yoga! The church is losing its grip on the Polish psyche anyway. Go! Relocate to Poland! (But do learn Polish first.)

In the alternative, a reader (thanks, Christina) brought the following Harper’s article to my attention:

A reader’s guide to expatriating on November 3

So the wrong candidate has won, and you want to leave the country. Let us consider your options.

Renouncing your citizenship

Given how much the United States as a nation professes to value freedom, your freedom to opt out of the nation itself is surprisingly limited. …
The most serious barrier to renouncing your citizenship is that the State Department, which oversees expatriation, is reluctant to allow citizens to go “stateless.” Before allowing expatriation, the department will want you to have obtained citizenship or legal asylum in another country…

Heading to Canada…

In your search for alternate citizenship, you might naturally think first of Canada and Mexico. But despite the generous terms of NAFTA, our neighbors to the north and south are, like us, far more interested in the flow of money than of persons. Canada, in particular, is no longer a paradise awaiting American dissidents... Today it takes an average of twenty-five months to be accepted as a permanent resident, and this is only the first step in what is likely to be a five-year process of becoming a citizen. At that point the gesture of expatriation may already be moot, particularly if a sympathetic political party has since resumed power.

France

… those who opposed the Iraq war might hope to find refuge in France, where a very select few are allowed to “assimilate” each year. Assimilation is reserved for persons of non-French descent who are able to prove that they are more French than American, having mastered the language as well as the philosophy of the French way of life…

The coalition of the willing

Should the other candidate win, war supporters might naturally look to join the coalition of the willing. But you may find a willing and developing nation as difficult to join as an unwilling and developed one. It takes at least five years to become a citizen of Pakistan, for instance, unless one marries into a family, and each applicant for residency in Pakistan is judged on a case-by-case basis. Uzbekistan imposes a five-year wait as well, with an additional twist: the nation does not recognize dual citizenship, and so you will be required to renounce your U.S. citizenship first. Given Uzbekistan’s standard of living (low), unemployment (high), and human-rights record (poor), this would be something of a leap of faith. …

The Caribbean

A more pleasant solution might be found in the Caribbean. Take, for example, the twin-island nation of St. Kitts and Nevis, which Frommer’s guide praises for its “average year-round temperature of 79°F (26°C), low humidity, white-sand beaches, and unspoiled natural beauty.” Citizenship in this paradise can be purchased outright. Prices start at around $125,000, which includes a $25,000 application fee and a minimum purchase of $100,000 in bonds. Processing time, which includes checks for criminal records and HIV, can take up to three months, but with luck you could be renouncing by Inauguration Day. ..


And, if all else fails, don’t forget about Poland. Start practicing: dziekuje and jak sie masz.

Second Postcript to post below

The European press reacts to the election results (thanks A., via yahoo.com):

The Independent bore the front-page headline "Four more years" on a black page with grim pictures including a hooded Iraqi prisoner and an orange-clad detainee at Guantanamo Bay.

The left-leaning Guardian led its features section with a black page bearing the tiny words, "Oh, God." Inside a story described how Bush's victory "catapaulted liberal Britain into collective depression."

Across Europe, many newspapers expressed dismay at the prospect of another term for Bush, a president often regarded as inflexible and unilateralist.

"Oops — they did it again," Germany's left-leaning Tageszeitung newspaper said in a front-page English headlinectory. The cover of the Swiss newsmagazine Facts called Bush's re-election "Europe's Nightmare." "Victory for the hothead: how far will he go?" asked another Swiss weekly, L'Hebdo.

A few British papers welcomed the U.S. election result. "The world is a safer place with George W. Bush back in the Oval Office," the tabloid Sun said in an editorial.

All agreed the result reflected a sea-change in U.S. politics, a victory for neo-conservatives and the religious right.

"March of the Moral Majority" said the conservative Daily Mail, above a photo of Bush with his wife and daughters. "America's moral majority sweeps Bush back into the White House," The Daily Telegraph said.

The Times said Europe "must come to terms, not only with Mr. Bush, but with the nation that has elected him. This is a president who really can speak for America."

[Oh dear, how embarassing.]

Postscript to post below

Thanks to C, D, D & J for the stream of pick-me-ups, and especially for the sketch below, which speaks directly to my morning rage at news analyses of what was neglected by the Democrats in the course of the campaign.

call it values-based redistricting 

Hey, don't look at me, I wasn't consulted on what to put on the front page:

I know, I know, I'm going to be a gracious loser real soon! 

Beginning of day two

Oh shut up (my sophisticated response to this morning’s news commentaries on the presidential race).

Democrats, we have to wake up (I hear this yesterday and today). It was all about family values and you, Mr. Kerry missed the boat. No, no, not affordable health care and social security and minimum wage and the right to make reproductive decisions and sending sons and daughters to war. Family VALUES. You know, like faith and gays taking over the institution of marriage (11 states? Are we insane?). Values. Loving Laura -- that guy had it figured out. Brilliant language of immagery! And, btw, Mr. Kerry, why couldn’t you have cried for larger audiences prior to the election? Why did you save that for your concession speech? Half a million votes would have been yours right there (we’re consistent – we told Gore the same thing – what a schelp to save emotion for concession!).

Did I imagine that as recently as a week ago it was All About Keeping Us Safe?