Fleeing the Country: From the Horse's Mouth

Lots of people have sent me emails and posted about fleeing the country.  One of the main issues on BIDER readers' minds is whether Fannie Mae knocks on your door when your home is on foreign soil.  Well, I finally heard from someone who did it.  He moved to Canada and he (or she) isn't coming back and is damn proud of his/her decision.   It's nice to hear about it from someone who did it, successfully.  Here goes:


Saw your blog post about bailing on America and thought I would give you my $0.02 worth.

From where I sit, the best thing for any smart-minded American to do is to leave the country.  Let's see here, $14T national debt with a $1T+ annual budget deficit that is being added to said debt. In the face of all this, Mr Hope and Change continues to fight the dual losing wars in Vietraq and Vietstan and punts on first down on reversing the asinine Bush tax cuts for the rich. And we haven't even started talking about $40T in unfunded Medicare/Medicaid liabilities.

As a more practical matter, the improbability of upward economic mobility in the Land of Opportunity is well documented on your blog and elsewhere. By all accounts, nine-plus percent official unemployment is going to become the new normal for the foreseeable future.  The real figure, which includes the long-term unemployed who have given up looking for work and the involuntarily underemployed, has been estimated to be as high as 25 percent.  And here again, Mr Hope and Change has nothing to offer except extensions of the failed Bush policies.  We haven't even started talking about so-called health care reform that is nothing more than a massive giveaway to the same rapacious insurance companies that caused the problem in the first place.

As you've probably guessed, I moved to Canada and am starting on my fourth year here. And I love it here. I frequently go back to the States to visit, but I breathe a sigh of relief when I cross that border back into the Civilised World. For starters, universal health care through the provincial Medical Services Plan means no worries about finding that elusive "job with benefits." Up here, benefits doesn't mean health insurance, eight paid holidays and 10 days of paid vacation a year. Since all of those are guaranteed by law, even a job at Tim Hortons (coffee chain (in)famous for "Always Fresh" reheated frozen doughnuts and tepid, truck stop-grade coffee) is a job with benefits. Here, benefits means employer-paid extended health insurance that covers dentists, head shrinkers (i.e., marriage and family therapists, psychologists and the like - MSP covers psychiatric care in full, infra, if you're really nuts), massage practitioners, quackopractors, nastyropaths, "doctors" of traditional Chinese medicine and the like. This is on top of MSP that covers all medically necessary services in full with no deductibles, co-payments or any other out-of-pocket expenditures of any kind. And everybody gets MSP - from the senior partner at one of the Seven Sisters right down to the lowest, most strung-out street derelict.

Of course, all of this has wrecked our economy, right? Wrong. Our unemployment rate is currently around 7.5%, a full two points lower than America's. Our resources sector is going great guns to produce enough fuel for the Hummers driven by American men with potency issues. Also, keep in mind that our rate is always 1.5% - 2% higher than America's because of how we calculate it.

There is also a lot of misinformation out there regarding the potential consequences of reneging on student loans and skipping the country. As student loan defaults are civil in nature, rather than criminal, it is absolutely not the case that a borrower will be arrested, imprisoned or extradited. Also, claims that "you'll never be able to return to America" are completely false. Any U.S. citizen has the absolute Constitutional right to freely enter and leave the country.  The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that the government has no power to involuntarily strip anyone's citizenship for any reason.  See Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).

In fact, there is very little the government can do to collect defaulted student loans from a borrower who has left the country. Their usual tool - administrative wage garnishment, i.e., garnishment without due process of law - is not available.  Such an order would not be worth the paper it is printed on outside the U.S.  In order to collect, they would have to (1) sue in federal court, (2) take judgment against the borrower and (3) domesticate said judgment in the courts of whatever nation the borrower is living in.  The Department of Education's current policy is to not pursue litigation at all against borrowers living in foreign countries. I attach a copy of their litigation manual for your reference. Oh, and U.S. student loans are dischargeable in Canadian bankruptcy.

Bottom line - there are many, many people who, like me, feel they have done the right thing all of their lives.  We went to school, studied hard, started at the bottom and worked crap jobs for starvation wages.  We did this all in exchange for the promise of a better life down the road.  Those promises have turned out to be empty.  We now have nothing to show for it but massive amounts of debt with little to no hope of ever repaying.  We don't even have access to basic, affordable health care!  Since they haven't held up their end of the bargain, I don't see why I can't opt out of holding up mine.
--
Moving to Canada
movingtocanada@fastmail.fm

He/she even included his/her email in case you have any questions.
Look... I know it's a hard choice.  You may feel conflicted about abandoning ship.  However, everyone in this country (except for Native Americans) have it in your DNA to immigrate to greener pastures.  You may think it's scary, but how did you great grandpa feel when he left Ireland during the Potato Famine?  Or your mom and dad when they fled Vietnam via boat?  What about your great great great, etc. Grandfather who fled England because of religious persecution?  They did it, why can't you?  There's nothing unpatriotic about making your situation better. You will always be an American.

"Young Associates Aren't Worthless," Says Duke Dean

Thanks for that. But rather than write an op-ed in the National Law Journal, why not reform the curriculum at Duke to make better associates?

I went into this issue at length earlier this week. Yes, it's true. As a young and bright person, law school grads bring little to the table as an associate. It's not their fault. Law school does a horrid job of "preparing" law students to become practicing lawyers. But Dean Levi of Duke Law thinks this untrue:

For 17 years as a U.S. district judge, I hired first-year lawyers as clerks, and they were wonderfully productive, insightful, careful, skillful and hardworking. I gained a huge amount of very valuable assistance in preparing opinions and researching complex legal issues. Although it was somewhat of a burden to train a new crop of clerks each year, it was also a joy and undoubtedly made me a better judge.

I am certain that the same is true of new lawyers at firms, at government offices and at nonprofits. Indeed, I often have heard distinguished lawyers in all kinds of practice say that one of the aspects of being a lawyer they value the most is their interaction with, and instruction of, new and young lawyers. They say this not because young lawyers are worthless, but because they have so much to offer when properly guided.

Well, the problem with Dean Levi's logic, is that these students were likely productive, insightful, careful and hardworking before they went to law school. Don't get me started on researching "complex" legal issues either. Since Google has taken the place of Lexis and Westlaw, anyone can excel at researching complex legal issues. Frankly, very few legal issues are that complex. I know this because I explain the law to all of my clients and they all have a great understanding of their legal rights with a simple explanation. Some clients have approached me with what strategies that they came up after a few late nights on Google. So, what's the difference between a college graduate and a law school graduate? Not much. That's why complaints are mounting. Law Firms, selfish corporations that they are, are not willing to train attorneys on procedure--which can be truly complex and is NOT taught in law school. Instead, they fire young associates, or hold off on hiring and place the blame on law schools:

The criticism comes from law firm managers, in-house counsel and former lawyers who now comment on the legal profession. They most likely represent a minority view, but they are vocal. They say that clients are no longer willing to pay for the work of young associates because their work is "worthless." We might expect clients to make any argument that could lead to a lower bill, particularly during an economic downturn. But it is wrong and surprising for experienced lawyers inside and outside of firms to acquiesce in, even reinforce, this line of argument.

Clearly, the market dictates that there is no demand for an associate who bills at $350/hour. Why would there be? An inexperienced associate will take 10 hours to do what a mid-level associate can do in 2 hours. So, the clients are asking for discounts in their legal fees, and the law firms are turning around and slashing the overpriced associates. I don't blame law firms. I blame law schools. Dean Levi defends law schools as follows:

As a law school dean for the past three years, I know that law school graduates are ready and able to practice in firms, government agencies and public interest positions. Whatever room there may be for continued improvement to the law school curriculum, there is little doubt that the young lawyers whom we graduate today are equally well and better prepared for practice than at any other time in our history. Our graduates have had the benefit of superb clinical and experiential educational opportunities. Many of them already will have appeared in court, written appellate briefs and participated in simulated deals and transactions. They have had the discipline of thinking about difficult legal issues and applying that theoretical knowledge in the search for solutions to real-world problems. Many will graduate with joint degrees in business, economics, public policy, international law and the sciences. All of them have had substantial legal writing experience. Most of them are "tech savvy" in ways that both amaze and enormously benefit their less proficient elders.

It's not enough, Dean Levi. Listen to the Legal Industry. They aren't going to change their opinions because you told them to. Make Duke Grads more employable. That's what you're paid to do.

Even as conditions seem to improve, let's not permit the junior members of the profession to bear a disproportionate share of the burdens caused by the downturn on the ground they are only getting what they deserve.

What they deserve is the opportunity to show what they can do.

Why don't you do your part to lessen the burden on our young graduates? Why don't you decrease the tuition so they are able to find employment in smaller firms and eat and pay back Sallie Mae, simultaneously. You, Mr. Levi, and every other Dean of law schools are robbing our students blind. You have a duty to your students. Skaaden Arps doesn't. Jones Day doesn't. Neither does Mayer Brown. You have publicly acknowledged the problem, unlike most Deans. I will give you credit for that. Now create a solution.

The Unheralded Heroes of Law School

When I was a 1L, there was a girl in my class--let's call her Ana--who I hung out with often. For the first half of the semester, I found her to be delightful. I learned a ton about her as the year progressed. She came from an upper middle class background. Her father was a doctor and she was an only child whose mother had recently passed. Upon finishing up at the top of her class, her dad gave her two options--go to medical school or law school. She was a very girly girl and she fancied herself a creative type. She wanted to go into fashion or beauty, but she decided to appease her father and go to law school in the meantime.

So, as the weeks progressed, I noticed something odd about the way she looked at accomplishment in school. If she were called on in class, and she got the right answer, she was ecstatic. I, on the other hand, quickly realized that class participation didn't matter and I expended little to no energy in getting the right answer. I certainly didn't yell out, "Rah, rah, rah," if I managed to go through class not getting called on or I hit the nail on the head with the perfect answer. I kept my eye on the ball and focused on studying. Ana, on the other hand, hardly ever studied. I told her she should, but she said that the real studying doesn't start until Halloween. Since that is a rumor that is tossed around law school, I didn't think much of it.

Then Halloween came around and Ana lost it. She locked herself in her room for days at a time with gallons of water and hit the books. DAYS, as in missing days of class to study.

Sure enough, when exams came around, Ana didn't do so well. I can't say how she did for sure, but I can say she cleared out of her apartment in the late night hours in mid-January and left her roommate with a lease and no roommate.

At the time, my friends and I pitied her. Now, I harbor a bit of jealousy. Why? Because, although I enjoyed practicing the law, I can't do it. And I have 3 years of debt to repay, rather than one. Now, I'm in an saturated market where I can't find a job--and I'm too overqualified to get out of this market. Contrarily, Ana has one semester of debt, and is probably working in something she enjoys. Or, even if she too lost her job, she doesn't have an enormous amount of debt to pay back monthly, while she is waiting for the next big thing.

I lost touch with Ana. She probably didn't want to have contact with anyone or anything that would remind her of her horrible experience. I imagine she is out in Los Angeles in the fashion scene. Or maybe she married her long time boyfriend who she had left back home to go to law school.

So, when I read the third comment on my last post. It reminded me of Ana. The comment that came from a guy named fanofskolnick was sad, but really embodied what many law school "dropouts" (for lack of a better word) feel. It's a different world, where naturally intelligent people are scorned for what they have always prided themselves in--whether that creativity or writing skills. It's a place where you can wildly successful outside the classroom and be ridiculed inside the classroom. If you find, at the end of the first semester or year, that you're not doing well and don't know why or that it's not for you--it doesn't mean you're a failure or a quitter. It means that you're wise enough to cut your losses and move onto something better. You may owe $20K after one semester, or even more. But at least you won't find yourself in the same place after 3 years and $120K of debt. It's really not you! It is just one of those irrational places. Law school is certainly not for everyone.