A lot of Americans who rue the election of Donald Trump have been casting about for ways to survive the former and future president of the US. Should Trump-o-phobes emulate Ellen DeGeneres, the comedian and former talk show host, who has apparently bolted for Britain to avoid the incoming administration?
Thanksgiving is an ironic time to be considering this option. After all, the holiday — celebrated today — commemorates the national lore of the Mayflower pilgrims, who escaped religious persecution and poverty in England to create new lives in the colonies. Are you an American thinking about asylum or refuge abroad because you cannot stand what you believe Trump would impose on the US? As a newly minted British citizen and concurrent US passport holder, I can offer would-be reverse pilgrims some advice.
First, forget applying for political asylum. As much as one might despise Trump, it is going to be impossible to prove persecution when, despite the caustic and often insulting rhetoric being flung around, all that is available as evidence so far are really just words. As an American, I hope not to see the day the paranoia is justified, but right now it is going to be hard to prove a case for asylum without being caught up in British courts for months if not years. The British government is also unlikely to pick this fight so early in its dealings with the 47th US president.
Second, do you need to work?
DeGeneres is wealthy, so she does not have to, but you, dear American reader, cannot just fly into the UK as a tourist and tell the immigration officers you are hoping to find employment in the kingdom. While Americans do not need a visa to get into the UK as tourists, do not say you are coming to work. As much as Britain wants talent, you would be put back on the plane. For example, a musician from Brooklyn cannot just show up at Heathrow airport saying he or she is coming for a gig, even if it is to sing just one night at a grungy club for a negligible amount of money. The authorities would turn you around.
Legally, US citizens can stay up to six months at a time, leave and then come back again for six more months, and again and again, but without money, that is going to be an expensive enterprise.
The regulations say Americans can come for business. That is different from work. The British government defines “business” as negotiating contracts, pursuing deals, attending conferences and giving speeches, but not working for hire in Britain. Your business is based outside the UK; you are just coming here to engage with or fulfill agreements for your British partners.
You can apply to study for six months or longer, then perhaps get a job, or be invited because of your talent or skills to be part of a special arts or technological enterprise. Or be sponsored by a local institution. Or marry a British subject. Or you might be transferred by a multinational corporation with an office in the UK. Even then, a lot of bureaucracy needs to be satisfied to get the equivalent of a US green card — or legal residency. In the UK, it is called “indefinite leave to remain” — a chimerical label if you do not read “leave” as “permission.” You qualify for “indefinite leave to remain” — with gainful employment — after five years spent substantially within the UK. After attaining the status, you need another year to qualify for citizenship.
What if, like DeGeneres, you have money and can do the six months in, get out and come back again, without having to worry about British income? Then you would discover that, while you can run away from Trump, you cannot evade the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as I wrote earlier this year. There is a tax treaty between the US and UK that helps avoid and alleviate most of the pain of double taxation. It very often works in favor of Americans in the UK, where the higher local taxes cancel out most of what the individual owes to the US federal government (and the states that can claim them as residents). However, the IRS can still go after, say, the real-estate profits that DeGeneres and her wife, Portia de Rossi, have reportedly made by flipping property in California. It would certainly be on notice over the proceeds from any sale of her multimillion-dollar home in Montecito, California, where her neighbors are the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) — the UK equivalent of the IRS — can also go after funds that people like DeGeneres and De Rossi transfer to British banks. They might be deemed part of a category called non-domiciled residents of the UK — which has been very much in the news, in and out of the British government’s hunt for new sources of income. DeGeneres might enjoy extra protection because of the US-UK tax treaty, but who knows if HMRC would one day be as rapacious as the IRS and chase down the wealth of its citizenry everywhere.
A former TV sitcom star, DeGeneres was once the most popular and beloved LGBTQ+ celebrity in the US after coming out on a 1997 Time magazine cover (“Yep, I’m gay”). However, her career began disintegrating in 2020 after former staffers on her talk show alleged she was not a sweet and corny goofball at all, but a mean and petty bully. That show ended in 2022. After completing a pugnacious comedy special on Netflix, she is retired from show business and has apparently taken up residence in a costly cottage in the Cotswolds, a richly rural region for the privileged in England.
DeGeneres’ escape from Trump might look like a political statement, but she is not really a desperate pilgrim in reverse, risking all for new beginnings. Too many hints of self-serving blot this decamping for Britain. I would advise Trump-o-phobes to find another role model. Ellen DeGeneres is a turkey.
Howard Chua-Eoan is a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion covering culture and business. He previously served as Bloomberg Opinion’s international editor and a former news director at Time magazine. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS