This is a very real question for me. I haven't lived in the USA since 1990, but I still must file and pay taxes to the IRS every year, and I have to tell the IRS all about my foreign bank accounts, my foreign pension plan, and more. And what benefits do I derive?

For those thinking it's easy to escape the burdens of US citizenship, think again. Even if you get dual citizenship with another country, this does not excuse you from US taxes, nor does living overseas. The USA is essentially alone in the world in taxing its expatriate citizens' income; other countries base their income taxes on residence, not citizenship. 

This status seems preposterously unfair, but it's gone on for decades, and virtually no politicians, on either side of the aisle, have any interest in rectifying it. And since many expats have no US residences, no congressional reps or senators stand for us, meaning we are quite literally in a state of taxation without representation. 

Oh, and if you do indeed obtain a foreign passport and try to renounce your US citizenship, there can be additional heavy costs. 

So good luck, all!

Hong Kong is tiny: 400 square miles, with roughly 7 million people crowded into only 15-20% of that land. The welfare state here is actually minimal compared to the USA. People want to stay more because their homelands are impoverished, and, ironically, because HK is a place where the entrepreneurial dream still lives. There is also a decent public health system that draws some. Foreigners like me who can get work visas get the right to stay permanently after 7 years. This is not quite citizenship, although I can vote. I do not become a Chinese citizen. Hopes this helps clarify things, Devereaux.

I'm a regular Hugh Hewitt listener, and agree with HH on most issues, but on immigration I find myself utterly nonplussed listening to HH (and his frequent guest Marco Rubio) trying to justify this monstrosity of an immigration bill. 

HH believes a fence would be good enough; de facto amnesty (although he euphemizes it as 'regularization') could then go ahead. But what about the tens of millions of legal immigrants from central America the bill would allow? 

I can't grasp the Republican desire to push this immigration law. Is big business that strong? Are R's so terrified of being called racists? Do they really, honestly, deep-in-their-hearts think support for this bill will translate into votes? I despair.

I live in Hong Kong, which has a tightly-regulated 'guest worker' program allowing Filipino and Indonesian women to work here as domestic helpers. It is very, very hard to maintain. Anything similar in the USA, i.e. a status that falls short of full amnesty and citizenship (e.g. short-term guest worker programs, 'regularization', you name it) will provide a bottomless well of resentment and 'human rights abuse' the Left will feast upon. 

The problem with the most recent hymnbook is written into its title. The purpose of worship is to glorify God, not to refresh worshipers (presumably that's who's in need of refreshing, which God does not require). 

Sioux County here. 

The thing is, there's plenty in ag policy and practice to criticize. But the greenies these days don't need to bother trying to change policies -- they've been encouraged by the Obama administration to go right ahead and target people. And that's what worries me. 

I'm from NW Iowa myself, CJS. I'm trying to avoid thinking about the greenie shock troops descending on that bucolic and peaceful corner of our world . . . not good; not good at all.

Oh, there was a third Godfather movie? I hadn't heard . . . !

This is a great tip -- I didn't know these adaptations existed. I wanted very much to enjoy the Brother Cadfael books -- it's right in my leisure-reading roundhouse -- but I also found them very hard going. Thanks!

There have been so many good posts here I'll try something slightly different: I think the film adaptation that makes the greatest qualitative leap (i.e. adds the most aesthetic value) has to be the Godfather. The book's fun, sure, but lower-second-rate stuff. The films, well . . . .

I noticed this, too. Even Drudge has devoted its prime screen real estate to the Jodi Arias decision.

Very enjoyable episode!

The Sandford discussion was a particularly revealing sequence: Rob, you don't understand social conservatives if you think they'd be more likely to 'forgive' Mark Sandford than, for example, Bill Clinton. I'd classify myself as a social conservative, and I find Sandford's willful destruction of his family, betrayal of his wife, and breaking of his wedding vows at least as bad, if not worse, than the kind of casual dalliances you see as typical of politicians. 

In other words, where you see Sandford's saga as "a love story", I see a straightforward case of adultery. I don't care how much Mark Sandford loves Ms Argentina. The aesthetic or emotional appeal of his new relationship has no value in social conservatives' deontological moral reasoning.

Also, neither I nor you nor anyone other than Mark Sandford's wife and children can 'forgive' him. All that we can do is choose to overlook what he's done when considering whether or not it disqualifies him from running for congress. 

Great podcast, with one mild disappointment.

The conversation spiraled around the puzzling fact that Obama is terrible at being president, yet won re-election with relative ease. Jay finally hit on the reason I (and I suspect many others) find most salient: race, plain and simple. The racial redemption narrative was too powerful for Romney to overcome, resulting in millions of Americans voting in almost direct opposition to their interests and beliefs. Except for one belief, that is: that the votes of the sons and daughters can atone for the sins of the fathers.

This explanation seems so obvious, yet it's barely spoken of in popular discourse (especially rarely by Republican leading lights), and even Jay, Mona and Rob quickly changed the subject. I was hoping for more in-depth analysis of this question.

It's unlikely the Democrats' candidate for president in 2016 will be black , but if Hilary runs, then the race narrative will be quickly retooled for sex, and we on the right will face the same nagging but powerful media/popular culture undertone: how dare you vote against the first woman to run! 

Are we ready to deal with this?

Totally agreed, Judith; The Storm of War is excellent. I reviewed it here if anyone is interested.

Same here, and couldn't agree more. It's the one JA novel I'd never read, and I'm not sure that when I finish it won't turn out to be my favorite. It's wonderfully witty, and it moves along smartly. I'm finding Austen's exploration of a protagonist who has suffered regret over a long period, like Anne has, very moving. It's a complement to the much more acute regret Elizabeth Bennet and Emma Woodhouse suffer.  

This thread is hilarious, but widespread decay in good words' meanings makes me sad. The shift from 'wrong', 'sinful' or sometimes even 'evil' to 'inappropriate' is evidence of much deeper cultural deterioration.

My current bête noire in this realm is the word 'issues' replacing 'problems'. Only other people cause problems these days; if I have a seeming deficiency, then it's an issue, and it's totally inappropriate for you to judge me about it . . . .

Heinlein, without dispute. Better characters, better understanding of human nature, better stories in the sense of his worlds having more of the quirks and unexpected details that make them more lively and real (well, potentially real, I suppose).

I've got to agree, though, with those up the thread who mentioned Clarke's Childhood's End as something special. That is an unsettling and deeply memorable work. To me, it far exceeds anything else Clarke wrote, and is surely one of the very best sci-fi books ever written.

Thanks much for the episode, and the superb poster! 

The Family Tall (Mr, Mrs and 10-year-old daughter) is Austen-crazed, so I greatly enjoyed the brief journey into the land of Jane. 

Like Jay, I'd never connected with Jane Austen, even when reading two of her novels as an undergrad English major. But then years later I came across a reference to C S Lewis's love of reading Austen in his rare moments of leisure. Perhaps not coincidentally, Lewis did serve in the WWI trenches . . . . In any case, I figured 'Good enough for Lewis; good enough for me', so I gave Austen another try, and I've been hooked ever since.

I find the moral and cultural orderliness of Austen's world particularly comforting in these chaotic and depressing days. It reminds me that although human nature never changes, the times do.