Results of FAWCO "Representation" survey - May 2005

FAWCO Survey on Representation of Overseas Americans in Washington
January - April 2005

Contents

Introduction 

Survey    

Breakdown of results

Workshop results    

Carried out and reported by Lucy Stensland Laederich
FAWCO U.S. Liaison

Introduction

In our rapidly globalizing world, many tens of millions of people of many different nationalities have already left their home countries to live and work in foreign markets. Estimates of the number of overseas Americans have ranged from 3 to 9 million but generally put this global population somewhere around 4 million, the theoretical equivalent of the 25th state in the Union.

Although they pay taxes and vote in the United States, many Americans abroad feel relatively cut off from the American legislative process.  If they write to their Senators or Congressperson from an overseas address, they are most often informed that only residents of the state or district will be answered.  If they encounter a problem as overseas citizens, it is sometimes difficult to know where to turn and not always easy to find someone informed about their specific rights and responsibilities.

Various proposals have been made over time to give overseas Americans a "face" in Washington, from a dedicated agency to actual representation in Congress.  From January to April 2005, a survey was carried out in FAWCO to begin to define a "FAWCO position" on the question.  The survey was circulated in hard copy by a number of clubs and posted on the FAWCO website, as well as the websites of several member clubs.  While the response is very low in view of FAWCO's total global membership, it is nonetheless gratifying to note the interest spontaneously provoked by the survey.  In addition to the written/online survey, two workshops were held at the FAWCO Biennial Conference in Birmingham, England, in March 2005.  This report also gives the conclusions from those workshops.

Profile of respondents

314 responses were received from 28 clubs in 17 countries from Norway to Greece and from Europe to Mexico, Australia, Korea and the Philippines. Interestingly enough, most respondents are long-term residents overseas (2/3 have lived abroad for over 10 years and 3/4 are staying "indefinitely").  It is possible that this population is more concerned by a feeling of not being represented than are people abroad on short-term assignments.

Most responses were received by email but many were returned by mail, indicating that respondents cared enough to make the extra effort of printing out, stamping and mailing their survey.  Some (65) were returned in bulk by the clubs (3 clubs) and 53 were collected at the FAWCO conference in Birmingham.  Most responses were clearly from FAWCO clubs but a significant number came from non-FAWCO visitors to the FAWCO website and from readers of the online American Hour newsletter (27) whose editors I would particularly like to thank (www.theamericanhour.com).   Only 21 could not be identified as coming from a particular club or individual.

A word about the results

The survey itself can be found here; the hard copy and online versions were identical in all but appearance.

Only two of the questions were answered by every respondent; the numbers for other responses do not add up to 100% for several reasons.  Regarding problems in contacting legislators, for example, some said only that they had or had not had problems, while others identified one or more problems but not all.  Those who felt overseas Americans should not, as such, be represented in Washington generally (but only generally) did not give a preference as to the manner of representation.  Most indicated their preference for manner of representation as requested, ranking from 1 to 5, but some gave only one choice, while others gave "1" marks to 2 or more options or "5" marks to more than one.

Finally, the results obtained from the written survey might well have differed significantly from those of the workshops for one important reason.  As some people indicated on their survey, they were unsure of the ramifications of the 5 possible types of representation proposed in the survey.  For this reason, the results given separately from the 2 workshops in Birmingham are very interesting.  In the workshops, I explained clearly what each option meant in terms of difficulty of implementation and type of representation.  Following this, small groups discussed the pros and cons of each option and reported back to the group as a whole.  The vote taken at the end of each workshop, with each participant voting for only one option, closely parallels the results of the written survey.

Conclusions

In light of the survey results, the first FAWCO priority will be to attempt to speak with as many potential champions as possible for a bi-partisan, bi-cameral Congressional caucus (similar to certain existing country/region or exports-oriented caucuses).  In addition, we shall begin to explore models in other countries for an elected council of overseas citizens with official consultative status with the government, and actively promote the creation of a White House Liaison office dedicated to overseas Americans.

Back to Top

Breakdown of results:

1. Over half of the respondents have never tried to contact their legislators.  In many cases, those who have not say they didn't know who to contact, explaining the high percentage.  This is clearly a job for organizations of overseas Americans: we can and must inform others about what have now become the extremely user-friendly Senate and House websites.

Representative comments:

• "I don't tell them I'm overseas
• "I believe that Congressional representatives feel responsibility toward constituents who are residents in their respective states and not for overseas constituents."
• "My response does not refer to my senators, only to my Congressman who would not even make an appointment with me after I gave him 6 weeks advance notice of my visit to DC."

And more specifically:

• " Some 'respond' forms don't allow for overseas addresses. Thus I am constrained to fill in my last address in the U.S., possibly violating the privacy rights of whoever lives at that address now."

And the most encouraging:

• " Never thought about contacting my representative but since I voted for her, maybe I will now."

Of those reporting problems, most by far state that their legislators "don't respond in a personalized manner" and "have no understanding of overseas issues".  This, on the contrary, is a challenge for our legislators in Washington, to recognize that their constituents overseas are indeed  "constituents" and deserve to be answered despite their overseas address (the majority of legislators respond only to correspondents with addresses in their state, and most congressional websites don't even have a way to respond from a non-US address), and to try to be as informed about the issues of importance to their overseas voters as they are about domestic issues.

1. The vast majority of respondents (>95.5%) feel overseas Americans should be represented in Washington.

Representative comments:
Con:

• "I feel that participating more actively in our representative government as it is set up now has more potential impact than participating through an entity created for overseas citizens. It is better for us to be part of the existing process."
• " The US is built on citizens living in the US, not outside - we choose to live outside and the longer we are away, the less we are involved."

Pro:

"Yes, yes, yes!  I feel I am constantly falling through the cracks…"

"I have lived in France for 31 years and still consider myself totally American. I want to be represented as such!!!!"

"I intend to live in Australia for the rest of my life; as a dual-national citizen who grew up in the US, I have a vested interest in both countries.  I highly value my right to vote in the US and will continue to vote from abroad.  Thank you."

"We are such a varied and dispersed group that I think this would be difficult. However, there may be some issues that we could all rally around and it would be nice to have some representation to at least bring up those issues for those of us who are living abroad.  These might include the availability of consular services when renewing passports for children, laws regarding non-citizen spouse resident visas, etc.

1. Five options for representation in Washington were given.  Not described on the written survey, these were carefully explained at the workshops.  The results of both written and workshop surveys, as shown below, are quite close.  First, a breakdown, for each option, of how the majority who expressed an opinion about it voted:
   1. A White House office or government agency office dedicated to overseas Americans: 1st choice for most (29.7%) and 3rd choice for the next-highest percentage (24%)
   2. An official caucus of Congressmen & Senators dedicated to overseas Americans was by far 1st choice for most (34.7%) and 2nd choice for the next-highest percentage (26.6%)
   3. An official consultative council of overseas Americans was comfortably the 2nd choice for most (31.7%), and 3rd choice for the next-highest percentage (27%)
   4. A voting Representative in the House of Representatives, requiring a Constitutional amendment, despite the improbability of its happening, was nonetheless first choice for 23%.  It was, however, the last preference of 37%.
   5. A non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives, with no vote but able to introduce legislation and sit on committees, was perhaps surprisingly the last or the next-to-last choice for over 54.3% of respondents (evenly split at just over 27%).

The 46 workshop participants specifically discussed the pros and cons of the 5 representation options and voted on their single preference. Their votes were:

1. White House /government agency office: 0/46
2. Official caucus: 25/46
3. Consultative council: 7/46
4. Voting Representative: 0/46
5. Non-voting delegate: 12/46

At the end of this report (pp. 7-8) is a table giving the "pros & cons" identified by the discussion groups in the workshops.

1. A surprising number of the respondents to the written survey say they would be willing to give up their vote for their domestic Senator and Congressperson in favor of a vote for a representative in Congress of overseas Americans (but in view of the [written survey] results above, it would appear that they want a consultative council of directly elected overseas Americans, not the equivalent of what the Virgin Islands and Guam have, a non-voting Delegate in the House).

Because this result does not appear to be in line with the large number of concerned and dedicated overseas voters, there will be a follow-up questionnaire to attempt to both clarify the question for any who did not understand it and understand the reasoning of those who 1/ say they would give up their vote for their domestic legislators but 2/ do not want a voting or non-voting "overseas Americans" representative in Congress.  Some respondents actually added a comment on their questionnaire under this question saying that "in an ideal world" they would like their own representative but do not expect to have one.

1. Overwhelmingly (72%), respondents prefer a council of overseas Americans representing different geographical regions in the world to a single representative.
2. Even more overwhelmingly (>86%), they prefer directly elected representatives to any appointed by the President or Secretary of State.

Conclusions

It seems clear that the concept of a bi-partisan, bi-cameral caucus of elected legislators is the preferred option at the moment for the vast majority of respondents (1st or 2nd preference for 61.3%).    For 58.7%, an elected council of overseas Americans representing different geographical regions around the world would be 2nd or 3rd choice, while 53.7%  would like (1st or 3rd choice) to see an office in the White House as a dedicated channel of communication between overseas Americans and the Administration.

Exploring the possibilities for these three options and attempting to find champions in Washington will be a top priority for FAWCO in the next two years, in keeping with the statement unanimously approved at the 2005 FAWCO conference:

The delegates to the 37th Biennial Conference of the Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas advocate the creation of an official Congressional caucus in Washington dedicated to active dialogue with the overseas American community, and urge Congress to explore possibilities for setting up a council of overseas Americans with consultative status with the United States government.

Back to Top

Workshop results

(participants given one option to vote for after discussing the pros and cons of each)

Back to Top