Ask Arthur 2023, Part 5: Something about me

Here we are already: This is the final post in this year’s “Ask Arthur” series. Today's questions are about me, more than my opinions. Quite frankly, I’m surprised no one has asked some of these before, but there you go.

The first group of questions today is from AustininSeattle, and, as I did with Roger’s questions the other day, I decided to number them for clarity:

1. Are you currently working or are you retired?
2. If you're retired, are you financially comfortable? Is your house paid off? How does the pension in New Zealand work? Do you also receive the US Social Security money?
3. How often do you go back to the US to visit your relatives (siblings, cousins, nephews, and nieces)? Do you see yourself returning back to the US since it's your home country and you have relatives?
4. Are you planning to find a new partner after Nigel? If so, have you dated anyone?

1. “Are you currently working or are you retired?” Technically, neither—and both. The job I had for 16 years ended just before New Zealand went under the first Covid lockdown, which was pure coincidence. The publication I worked on part-time was sold, and the new owners were going to do all the work in house. I’m not opposed to getting a new job—I think about it all the time, actually—but I have no idea what I’d do at my age and with my skils, which were niche to begin with, no longer in demand.

However, I’m considered “employed” for tax reasons because I still own our house on Auckland’s North Shore, and that’s a rental. The income from that has to be reported to both countries (as I understand it, it’s kind of analogous to self-employment income in the USA). Fortunately, we’re not talking big money—basically enough to pay the loans and maintenance—so I only pay income tax to New Zealand.

This actually nicely segues to the next question:

2. “If you're retired, are you financially comfortable? Is your house paid off? How does the pension in New Zealand work? Do you also receive the US Social Security money?”

I’ll take the last part first: As a US citizen living overseas, I qualify for Social Security, though not Medicare (not that I need Medicare, of course). However, as a New Zealander who has lived and worked here for more than ten years, I also qualify for New Zealand Superannuation (government retirement benefit, usually called "Super"). Because New Zealand and the USA have a treaty dealing with this, New Zealand deducts the US Social Security payment from my New Zealand Superannuation, though I still get the same amount net as any other New Zealander, it’s just that some of it comes from the USA (it would be similar for a New Zealander living in the USA, and in a situation similar to mine, and who retired in the USA). There’s one other thing about this: NZ Super begins at age 65 (next month for me), but I don’t qualify for my full Social Security entitlement until I’m 66 and 10 months, which would be November 2025. I’m required by New Zealand to apply for Social Security at 65 or else I can’t collect NZ Super.

I’m in the process for applying for both right now, and I’ll talk about that when it’s done. The important thing to know is that applying for the NZ pension is incredibly easy, and applying for Social Security from overseas absolutely is not.

As for the rest, I own the house I live in freehold (without a mortgage), which helps keep my monthly outgoings as small as possible. The rental property has loans that the rent pays. I don't have a frame of reference for what financially comfortable would mean, for me or someone else, but I know that I'm in far better shape that far too many people, working people, even. But whether the gold of my golden years turn out to be  lead that's painted gold is something I can't yet answer. In any case, I don't intend to stop working, in one sense or another, and regardless if it's for pay or not, until I'm no longer able, and that could affect my answer.

3. “How often do you go back to the US to visit your relatives (siblings, cousins, nephews, and nieces)? Do you see yourself returning back to the US since it's your home country and you have relatives?”

Since I moved to New Zealand 28 years ago, I’ve been back three times: In 1997 and 1999 (both times with Nigel, and his cousin joined us for the ‘99 trip). I went back alone from late December 2007 to early January 2008 to tidy up some loose ends. That’s it. Nigel and I planned several different times to go back, but life got in the way, and time passed. We talked loosely about going to Hawaii for our 25th anniversary together, but, of course, he didn’t live that long. I have no plans to visit in the foreseeable future.

By “returning” to the USA, I assume you mean to live, and no, that’s impossible. First, I left the USA 28 years ago, after living there for the first 36 years of my life—half of which was when I was legally a child. So, I’ve lived more of my adult life in New Zealand than I did in the USA (28 v. 18), and that means that in a very real sense, the country I left doesn’t exist anymore: Many of the people I knew—friends and colleagues alike—have died or scattered across the country. The places I knew so very well when I lived there—Chicago and Illinois—have changed dramatically since I left, so much so that neighbourhoods I could’ve walked blindfolded are totally unfamiliar to me now. In fact, if I was to move to the USA now, it’d be like moving to a foreign country, because so much has changed. Heck, I often see Americans talking about something going on in pop culture, and I have NO idea what they’re talking about.

On top of that, I’m used to national healthcare, not an insurance-driven system, and having to pay for health insurance—even with Medicare—would mean I’d have to live a very, very modest life. Here in New Zealand, I have a bit more flexibility. Having said all that, I wouldn’t mind going back for a visit before I get really old, but that possibility no doubt depends on what happens in the 2024 US elections, though it’s kind of moot at the moment, anyway: My US passport expired several years ago, and I don’t have anyone to look after Leo while I was on a long trip. All of which means I have completely accepted the fact that it’s possible I may never get back the USA again.

4. “Are you planning to find a new partner after Nigel? If so, have you dated anyone?”

I could be glib and say “no and no”, but, while true, that’s not the whole story. I have no plans to ever have another partner, and I’ve never considered dating. The reality is, and I know I’ve talked about this somewhere, I have absolutely NO idea how to be a single gay man in 2023/24. When I was last single, the Internet had barely begun, and guys mostly met in bars, through friends, in social groups, or they sought someone through newspaper classifieds. In many places, most of those things don’t happen anymore.

Around the time of the first Covid lockdown, or thereabouts, anyway, I thought about how nice it would be to have some gay friends to just hang out with. Apple promoted an App (maybe for Pride) that, it said, was for gay people to find friends and chat. I downloaded it, but realised pretty quickly it was actually a hook-up app (it wasn’t one of the well-known ones, which is why I tried it). Then I got an email from the company that talked about their App having “the hottest gay singles”, and I immediately closed my account and deleted the App. That was the absolute last thing I wanted.

My current mindset may not be forever—I understand all too well the extreme importance of never saying “never”—but it would have to be extraordinary circumstances for anything to change my mind for the foreseeable future. Still, that’s not actually a “no”, but more of a “probably not” or maybe, more vaguely, “possibly one day, maybe.” Time will tell, I guess, even though right now I think it’s highly improbable.

Next up, and staying on the same overall theme, is one from Roger Green, and it requires some background. Earlier this month, I published a post, ”A venture out”, in which I talked about some errands I ran that day. In it I mentioned that at one shop I went to I was helped by a nice-looking young man with “a North American accent”, and, I added, “I didn’t ask where he was from; didn’t want him to think I was flirting”. After saying I could use it for this series, Roger commented:

I'm not quite sure: 1) Why is asking about where someone is from would be considered flirting, and 2) why a perceived flirtation would be problematic.”

I was mostly joking, however, humour is often a way of expressing truth, so: I don’t actually think he’d have thought that merely asking him where he was from was me flirting (that’s the part I wasn’t serious about). However, I never want guys to think I’m flirting, and that needs some explanation.

I came of age at a time when flirting with a guy could lead to a violent reaction, and while that’s far less true than it’s been in many, many decades, the possibility is still seared into my brain—I think that’s probably just a generational thing. The bigger issue is that I’m shy and an introvert by nature, and I don’t want to impose on people, or, in this case, to impose myself, even when I think the guy is good looking. I know that flirting isn’t the same as trying to pick someone up—except when I was younger, when it pretty much was. These days, as I was saying above, I have no interest in picking anyone up, so in my behavioural brain, still frozen in 1995, I think there’s no point in flirting when there would be no follow-through. Plus, being shy and all.

So, no, I don’t think he’d have thought I was flirting if I asked where he was from, and if I had been flirting, it would have been innocent and not a problem. Having said all that, I’m almost always extremely nice and polite to all shopworkers, even those who aren’t attractive men. And if an attractive man wants to respond to my niceness by flirting with me, well, who am I to complain? Unfortunately, this has hardly ever happened, though.

Thanks to AustininSeattle and Roger Green for today’s questions, and for closing out this series! Personally, I think most of today’s questions could use more discussion, but possibly in posts of their own—or next year’s series?

Thanks to everyone for playing along with this year’s series!

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-23”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:

”Let the annual inquisition begin” – The first post in this year’s series.
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 1: Get here from there”
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 2: Measuring and measured”
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 3: US political stuff”
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 4: Saying no and being okay”

Ask Arthur 2023, Part 4: Saying no and being okay

Today’s post heads in a different direction than the previous ones, but it’s actually not that different from questions I’ve taken on in past series, though it's perhaps a bit more specific than others have been. To me, that makes it more important than many previous questions.

Today’s question is from Anonymous, who writes:

How do I learn to say no? All my life I have tried to live my life helping others. As I approach my mid sixties, I have found myself embroiled in so many people's problems, that I am overwhelmed beyond belief. I'm so deeply involved that I let my needs and sometimes my immediate family needs go, to help someone else. I want to help, but I'm exhausted. I don't want to "not help"... because that changes who I am. But I'm being taken advantage of, and I see no way out, without becoming someone I'm not. Just say no, doesn't work for me.

I know this is more of a Dear Abby question, but you are one of the most reasonable people I know, and I trust you to give an intelligent, concrete answer. P.S. these are dear loved ones, I'm dealing with.

Two things up front: First, thank you for your kind words about me—I hope I live up to the faith you expressed in me, at least a little bit. Second, it’s important I note that I have no qualifications or formal training in helping people with life issues—I’m not a life coach, for example. However, ya know, I’ve been around a bit, and I’ve seen things: Been there, done that, and probably wrote a blog post about it. I mention this upfront because I want to be clear I’m offering my opinions, not expertise.

That said, what you describe is a quite common thing—in fact, when I Googled the topic I got 5.7 billion results, though I wasn’t actually surprised by that. It made me wonder, though: Since this is such a common thing, why aren’t we talking about it more? I suppose I would think that, since I obviously believe in the importance of open and honest communication. I also think this gets to the heart of your issue.

The most obvious thing to say is the thing you already know: It’s okay to say no, and to prioritise your own needs and those of your immediate family. However, you say that “just say no” doesn’t work for you, and you don’t want to change who you are, all of which is completely valid. So many people don’t know who they are at their core, and you do, and that’s something to celebrate.

However, being overwhelmed as the primary helper—or maybe “rescuer” is sometimes a better word?—doesn’t automatically mean saying no. There are another ways, including one I think is more sustainable for everyone, especially you, and it starts with setting boundaries and limits. The difficulty here is that it requires open and honest discussion, and maybe even negotiation, and not all people or all families do those things well. How do we make the transition to a more sustainable way of doing things?

It sounds to me as if you feel you haven’t had control over the level, frequency, and intensity of your involvement, which leads me to think that others might not be aware that, in fact, you have limits just like everyone else does. So maybe a place to start would be with something small, like instead of doing the thing at the time/place/and manner they request, you offer an alternative, and I think there’s a sort of a procedure.

First, it’s probable that some or even most of the folks you’re helping are completely unaware of the toll they’re taking on you. There absolutely are people who always take with no concern, and they know they’re doing it. Then there are people who take because the other person doesn’t ever say no. Finally, there are the people who are utterly unaware they’re asking so much/too much. I think it’s always best to assume someone is in the last category (until/unless they make clear they’re not).

The next step is to begin by affirming. When someone asks you to do a thing that’s not urgent, begin by saying something like, “sure, I’d be happy to help you with that…” and then you begin trying to set boundaries. All tasks can be broken down into smaller ones (more about that in a minute), so you can try asking, “which one of those things is most urgent?”, part of the goal there is to get them to see that all tasks take time to complete, and all can be ranked by urgency, etc. If it’s not a list of things, but a one-off, maybe the negotiation would be something like, “I have a lot to get through over the next few days—could we make it Thursday?” The goal there is to get them to grasp that they’re taking your time from you, while still making it clear you’re willing to help. It’s possible, especially the first time you try something like that, that if they’re not coping well, they may feel like just giving up, and you may feel like backing down and doing what they want when they want it. That’s valid—and you’ve set the stage for trying again to set boundaries the next time they ask.

The next stage is to shift more of the responsibility back onto the person seeking the help. People who ask too much and/or too often sometimes have trouble setting goals. Faced with a big task, especially if they feel they’re in crisis, they might not be able to see that big tasks can always be broken down into smaller ones. If you help them to do that, and to prioritise tasks, you’re training them to do more themselves, as well as setting some boundaries: “How about you work on item X and Y while I do Z?” That approach is less overwhelming or intimidating for them than doing the whole big task alone, and it lets you avoid doing it all, too.

I suspect—but obviously don’t know—that at least some of the folks depending on you have no idea the burden they’re creating for you. My advice here is to try and tell them that—when they’re not asking for help. Reinforce how important those people and their well-being are to you, and that you want to help when you can, but doing so is taking a toll. Some people find such honest conversation too hard to start or too hear. So, one tactic could be to let them think you’re talking about someone else, because they should be able to think about how their own behaviour is causing the same problems.

You didn’t mention this specifically, but it could be that the problem isn’t just people asking too much, but also that others who could help may not be doing enough. That’s particularly difficult to deal with because different people have different—and often many—reasons for not helping.

There’s no way to make someone help if it’s not in their nature, but there’s no harm in expressing to them the extent you’re overwhelmed. You don’t have to be blunt and tell them “you’re not doing enough!” but, instead, you could be honest about how overwhelmed you are and how you need more help. Moat people will get the message, and those who don’t are unlikly to have been of any any help, anyway.

To be honest, I don’t know that any of this will help at all. People are unique and unpredictable, and what works with one person may fail utterly with someone else. The point is to try a few subtle ways of setting limits and putting the word out that you need support. Good people will absolutely rally around—and maybe those who don’t deserve a bit of distance? Only you can be an advocate for you, hard as that is. You’re of course welcome to continue the conversation, either through the comments or privately, and others are welcome to speak up in the comments, too—many hands make light the work, which is my real message in this answer.

Thanks to Anonymous for today’s question! Next time, the final answer in this series,something completely different again.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-23”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:

”Let the annual inquisition begin” – The first post in this year’s series.
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 1: Get here from there”
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 2: Measuring and measured”
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 3: US political stuff”

Ask Arthur 2023, Part 3: US political stuff

Politics has always been a part of this series, and this year is no different. This makes sense: Time was I wrote about politics a lot, but now I hardly ever say anything. Things have changed in so very many ways.

Nevertheless, I still have my lifelong interest in politics, even if I don’t say much about it. After studying it formally in university, and informally ever since, and with hands-on experience in two countries, it’s fair to say that I have some opinions about political stuff.

Today’s post is about a series of related questions from Roger Green, and I’ve numbered my answers to make them easier to follow. Here are the questions:

Here are a few softballs for you about the US 2024 election cycle:
1. Who will be the Republican presidential candidate? Who should be?
2. Who will be the Democratic presidential candidate? Who should be?
3. Will djt have a lock on the GOP nom after Super Tuesday in early March?
4. Will there be a viable third-party candidate, and will Joe Manchin be on the ticket?
5. While we're at it, who will win the House and Senate?
6. Finally, if djt is elected, are we doomed?

1. “Who will be the Republican presidential candidate? Who should be?” I don’t see any Republican capable of preventing the party’s Dear Leader from winning the nomination, much as sane people would hope there could be. He has a stranglehold on the his base, and every Republican candidate is a distant also-ran because they’re trying to be just like their Dear Leader, which raises two questions: If they’re so busy praising him, why are they even running? And second, why on earth would cultists choose an imitation when they can stick with the real thing? The only candidate not running with his lips pressed to the orange posterior is Chris Christie, which is precisely why he’ll just be a footnote in the history of the 2024 campaign.

Who “should” the nominee? Who cares? All Republican politicians are now vassals of their Dear Leader, or hypocritical cowards too frightened to be honest about the existential threat their Dear Leader truly is to the USA. The party as a whole is fast sliding downhill into full-blown fascism, so does it really matter who they nominate? Nobody else could possibly win the nomination.

2. “Who will be the Democratic presidential candidate? Who should be?” The Democratic candidate will be President Joe Biden. I have no opinion about who “should” be the party’s nominee, mostly because it’s academic: The decision is made. Also, without credible opposition in the primaries, no candidates are being vetted, so there’s no realistic way to evaluate and compare non-existent rivals. It’s worth nothing that Joe wasn’t my first choice, and he probably wouldn’t be right now, were he not president, and that doesn’t matter: He wasn’t my first choice, but he’s my only choice.

3. “Will djt have a lock on the GOP nom after Super Tuesday in early March?” I haven’t looked at the Republican nomination process for 2024—mostly because the end result is all but over before it begins—however, it’s certain that the party’s Dear Leader will have the nomination locked up very early on. Having said that, I’m sceptical it’ll be officially over by March. It’s entirely possible, though unlikely, that Haley could gain enough votes in early states to drag the process out a bit more.

4. “Will there be a viable third-party candidate, and will Joe Manchin be on the ticket?” The first part is easy: No, there won’t be any viable third-party candidates. That’s because the system is set-up to ensure only a Republican or Democrat can possibly win enough Electoral College votes. If “viable” is used to mean syphoning off enough votes to deny either the Republican or Democratic candidate enough votes to have an Electoral College majority, then, sure, that could happen.

There’s an important point here: A third-party candidate who’s viable in this sense is most likely to take votes from the Republican nominee because the people who have the most desperate need for a third party candidate are Republicans who cannot bring themselves to vote for any Democrat, but don’t want to vote for their party’s nominee. Also, most of the expected third-party candidates so far skew Right, at least in some important ways. Disaffected Democrats, on the other hand, skew Left, and if they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for President Biden, they’d be most likely to stay home or throw their vote away as a protest vote for the Green candidate. However, I don’t see that happening.

Democrats outperformed expectations in 2018, 2020, and 2022, precisely because the same voters the newsmedia claims are disaffected now voted Democratic to stop the fascistic tendencies and agenda of the Republican Party and its Dear Leader. Those voters aren’t stupid, and they know the huge uphill battle that still remains to preserve US democracy and the Constitution, and they’re not going to throw up their hands because of Republican propaganda or shallow and lazy newsmedia commentary.

5. “While we're at it, who will win the House and Senate?” Democrats will re-take the US House, and will retain the US Senate. The reason for the House is that Republicans' gerrymandered maps are being thrown out all over the country, and 2024 will have a much fairer district boundaries, and fair maps always help Democrats—and democracy itself, for that matter. The Senate will be because of the same over-performance by Democrats that we saw in 2018, 2020, and 2022. The stakes are too high, and voters understand that Republicans persistently refuse to stand up for democracy and the rule of law, and the few policy ideas they promote—like a total nationwide ban on all abortions—are opposed by a massive majority of voters. And, of course, Senate races can’t be gerrymandered like House races, all of which which puts Republicans at a disadvantage.

6. “Finally, if djt is elected, are we doomed?” Absolutely. 100%. No doubt whatsoever. He has taken off his mask (hood?) and shown everyone the actual fascist beneath it, and the Republican Party that is now his personality cult is absolutely okay with him becoming a dictator. People often say, “the Supreme Court will stop him.” Yeah, right. It’s not just that the Court is itself under far-right Republican control, it’s that he’s made clear he plans to act unilaterally and outside the Constitution. If the Court rules against him, he’ll just ignore it and do what he wants: The Supreme Court has absolutely no means to enforce its rulings and depends entirely on the Executive Branch for enforcement. With the Executive Branch controlled by a fascistic dictator, there’ll be no one to enforce their orders. Congress could impeach him again and this time convict him—and he’d ignore it. Who would stop him? Who could stop him? Secession and civil war could then be a possibility, but his ego would probably have him nuke Los Angeles or some other major city run by Democrats.

That’s the nightmare scenario, obviously, but I think it’s also the unlikely outcome. As I’ve said, it’s more likely than not that he loses yet again, and he’d be left to spend the rest of his life, or at least until his dementia gets even worse, railing about—well, everything he’s been railing about for the past three years.

Rather than ending this post with such a dark subject, here’s one more question from Roger that’s—well, not lighter, exactly, but far less dire:

Suppose you are an American university president testifying before Congress, answering questions about antisemitism. How would you answer the committee's questions?

Perhaps by definition, university presidents are terrible at anything but marketing. They spend so much time selling their university to big donors and corporate sponsors that they don’t really know how to give a straight answer to any question. Having said that, Republicans in Congress almost never ask a question in good faith: They intend every question as an attack and an opportunity for a gotcha. The university presidents should have had some coaching before their appearance to prepare them to deal with the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the Republicans pretending to question them.

That said, how hard could it be to answer directly, rather than talking about violations of university policy? There’s no conflict between condemning hate speech, or speech veering close to it, and upholding people’s right to say offensive things. I have no idea how I’d answer the questions because I didn’t watch them being delivered, but that’s pretty much the point I’d try to make. I have no illusions that there’d be anything whatsoever that anyone could say that would satisfy the grandstanding Republican politicians—who miraculously!—only just started caring about anti-semitism when they saw an opportunity to attack others. Sure, they might have wanted to first look at some of the anti-Semitic things their own party caucus mates have said, were they honest in their outrage. It also might have been entertaining to see a university president point that hypocrisy out to them, but it would’ve made the politicians’ already frenzied performative outrage rise to an even higher level of intensity—and stupidity.

The bottom line, though, is that whole charade was nothing but political theatre, and there was absolutely no answer the presidents could’ve given that would have stopped the Republican attack, no matter how good and on point their response was. But those folks clearly really needed coaching.

Thanks to Roger for today’s questions! Next time, something completely different, though Roger will return later in the series.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-23”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:

”Let the annual inquisition begin” – The first post in this year’s series.
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 1: Get here from there”
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 2: Measuring and measured”

Ask Arthur 2023, Part 2: Measuring and measured

After looking at the questions remaining in this series, and comparing them to the maximum days left in the year, and then subtracting Christmas (because I didn’t want to post anything heavy around then), I calculated that today’s questions should be somewhat lighter. It’s all about the numbers.

And that brings me to today’s first question from my pal Roger Green, who asked:

What things are you now fluent in (such as Celsius temperature) that you weren't in 1995? And what have you forgotten (such as MPH)?

You are assuming I’m fluent in any of that—including MPH. Nothing depending on to arithmetic has ever been easy for me, but, it turns out, it doesn’t need to be: Nowadays, a smartphone alone can make any calculations or translations needed, so I don’t really need to be truly fluent in any of them, and that means that my lack of mathematical ability isn’t a barrier to successfully doing something. I talked about my adaptation to metrics after I moved to New Zealand in a post back in October 2006, in the earliest days of this blog, and again ten years later.

It turned out that familiarity wasn’t even remotely the same as understanding, and to this day I can’t visualise length in millimetres or centimetres except for small sizes (and that’s because the ads I produced for publications were in mm or cm). I’ve never had any ability whatsoever to visualise long distances, whether a football pitch or some point in the distance. For those, it makes no difference if we’re talking metres or yards, miles or kilometres, because I have absolutely no way to visualise or comprehend distance measured in them.

Similarly, I’ve also never had a good sense of speed, and I just went whatever the posted speed was, keeping the speedometer on that speed. In that sense, it, too, makes absolutely no difference what the measurement system is because all I’ve ever done is get the car’s display to show the proper speed—and nowadays when I reach it I put on the cruise control, something that also makes sure I don’t get too close to the car in front of me, which is a great bonus.

All that aside, I couldn’t think of anything from the USA that I’ve forgotten, apart from the names for some things that aren’t used here, and sometimes the spelling of American words, but, um, I've forgotten what those are. The latter is easy enough to check, but the first? Sometimes even Google can’t help, not if I can’t remember anything about the American name.

On Christmas day, one of the guests was visiting from the UK, and one of the Kiwis wanted to know what they called the sort of sleeveless shirt that might be an undershirt or maybe an athletic uniform shirt. Kiwis call it a singlet (it turns out that the Brits call it a vest, and what Americans call a vest they’d call a waistcoat). I could only remember pejorative terms from the USA, like wifebeater (which is apparently sometimes used in England, too), and the even worse dago tee. I completely forgot that the last such shirt I ever bought in the USA (in 1995) was labelled “athletic t-shirt”, and I also forgot that I’d also seen it called, rather boringly, “a sleeveless t-shirt”. And, I completely forgot that there was also possibly the most common name, “tank top”. I’ve lived in New Zealand for 28 years, and to me those things are now called “singlets”, end of story. This shirt thing just one example of many.

Over all, the things I’ve forgotten—and the stuff I don’t remember I’ve forgotten—come mainly from lack of use and the usual age-related CRS (“Can’t Remember Shit”) syndrome. That means that I’m blissfully unaware of what I’ve forgotten until it suddenly pops up, as it did on Christmas Day.

Interestingly, the answer to Roger’s next question is similar. He asked:

Did you always think the seasons changed on the month, such as when you were in Illinois, or is this a New Zealand thing?

There’s a theme of confusion developing here, because I really didn’t think of either one back then. Pre-1995, I wasn’t aware that things like “Meteorological Summer” even existed—that didn’t happen until after I moved to New Zealand, and even then it was some time after I arrived (I was busier with more important adjustments…). However, while I lived in the USA, I also had absolutely no idea, in those pre-Internet days, of when, precisely solstices and equinoxes arrived, although—and Roger would appreciate this—I certainly could have looked it up in one of my many annual almanacs—had that ever occurred to me. Maybe I didn't care? I just knew that they were somewhere around the third week of the relevant month, and I just let the evening TV news tell me what the first day of [whatever season] was. I can’t imagine being that passive now, not when there are resources like the one I’ve used for many, many years, the “Seasons” page of timeanddate.com (Fun fact: I started relying on that site just because I could remember its website address, something that was useful when people asked me what time it was at that moment back in Illinois; nowadays my phone tells me that instantly).

Thanks to Roger for today’s questions! Coming up, some kinda serious questions.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-23”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:

”Let the annual inquisition begin” – The first post in this year’s series.
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 1: Get here from there”

Ask Arthur 2023, Part 1: Get here from there

And so it begins: Today I is my first post answering the questions for the 2023 “Ask Arthur” series. I’m carrying on with “tradition” and starting with the first question asked, and then going more or less in order, unless some have similar subjects/themes, in which case I’ll group them together, which I decide this as I go.

I did very little promotion of this year’s series because I simply kept forgetting, though I did a last-minute reminder yesterday. Anyone can still ask new questions, of course: Leave a comment to this post, or see the other options down below, at the end. I’ll call time on new comments in a later post in this series.

So: This year’s first question, as is usually the case, is from my pal Roger Green, who asked:

How difficult would it be for American to achieve resident status in 2023 cf with what you had to do c 1995? How about citizenship, comparing it with your process?

I suppose I could just say “I have no idea” and stop there, but that’s not how I do things—even if it’s literally true. The short version is it’s much more complicated now than back then, but it also offers some opportunities that didn’t exist back then.

Before I dive into the topic too far, I need to state up front that I’m absolutely NOT in any way an expert on migration and I’m not trained or authorised to talk about New Zealand immigration law or policies. I can talk about what I experienced 28 years ago, and I can offer my opinions about current policies (which are always subject to change), but for authoritative information, one should check on the website of Immigration New Zealand or talk to a licensed immigration consultant—and be aware that immigration consultants outside of New Zealand may not be licensed by the New Zealand Government. Definitely a caveat emptor situation.

That out of the way, here’s the short version of my experience. When I was applying for a work visa/permit, New Zealand still used a straightforward and very simple points system for permanent residence (not just a work permit/visa) that awarded points based on things like age, education, job offers, etc. Had I been able to submit my application immediately, I’d have (probably) qualified for permanent residence under that system, however, there was a delay (I don’t remember what or why), and I had to use the new, somewhat tougher system to apply. Nevertheless, I was granted a work permit/visa and I arrived to New Zealand—permanently, it turned out—on November 2, 1995.

I sarcastically referred to what I had as “indentured servitude” because my permit was linked to my specific employer, and when that company shut down in 1997, I could’ve been forced to leave New Zealand, however, I had options that allowed me to stay. There were also rule changes that helped.

Originally, I needed a work permit because Nigel couldn’t sponsor me for permanent residence as his partner until after we’d been together for four years (at the time, it was two years for unmarried opposite-sex couples, and six months for married couples, who back then could only be opposite-sex). However, I was able to get a new temporary permit with him sponsoring me, rather than an employer, and that meant I could work for anyone. In June, 1999, I got a Permanent Residence Permit, again as Nigel’s partner, and that removed all worry about being forced to leave New Zealand. That great day only happened, by the way, because the Minister of Immigration at the time, Tuariki Delamere, ended the discrimination against same-sex couples (something I wrote about back in 2011). I recently had an opportunity to thank Mr Delamere for changing everything for Nigel and me.

This brings us up to more recent times. In the years since I immigrated, things have changed many times. In general, that’s been done to focus on what New Zealand needs, such as, investment (favoured by the rich because they can buy their way in), or to attract workers with skills New Zealand lacks. Who, specifically, the NZ Government is looking to recruit, and what, precisely, the immigrant gets (including how long they can stay), changes from time to time. Immigration NZ has an area of their website about what work visas are currently available,”Visas that allow you to work”. It’s also worth noting that there are usually ways to extend permits and visas, but that varies from visa to visa and the rules themselves are often changed, too, but there’s generally no specific restrictions or benefits that people get for being from a particular country, but even that may change from time to time.

Young people from various countries can apply for a “Working Holiday Visa”. The age limits and maximum permitted stay varies from country to country, depending on the agreement NZ and the other country make. To Roger’s question, there’s currently a Working Holiday Visa for Americans 18-30, something that allows a young American to work in New Zealand for up to a year or study/train for six months (as an example of differing rules, for UK citizens, the age range is 18-35 and can last for up to 36 months). In my opinion, the main benefit of the Working Holiday scheme is that it gives young people a chance to “try out” living and working in New Zealand before committing to the country, and that’s actually a really good idea (but one that couldn’t have been an option for me in 1995, had it existed).

Overall, then, there are far more options than were available when I migrated to New Zealand—but having so many options also increases complexity. Applicants who have a partner are no longer discriminated against based on their sexual orientation—it's equal now. I must add, though, that the whole reason I was able to stay in New Zealand was that this country DID allow a New Zealander to sponsor their same-gender partner, something the USA didn’t do at all in 1995, and still doesn’t do unless the couple is legally married (for now—possibly subject to change beginning January 2025).

One final note on work-permits/visas: They become harder to get the older one is, and the cut-off has often been when one is over 40-45. However, that, too, could change, and there also may be other residence permits available, however, I don't personally know anything about that because I never used any options other than the work permit, and later the Permanent Residence Permit.

The rules and requirements for New Zealand citizenship appear to be essentially the same as when I applied. The New Zealand Government's official website has a specific section about citizenship, "Check you meet the requirements for NZ citizenship", which includes a self-test and descriptions of the requirements. In my day, things were much more paper-based (I first talked at some length about me becoming a New Zealand Citizen in a blog post back in 2014). 

I’m well aware that the political situation in the USA (in particular) has made some people feel they should investigate escape options. I think it’s always good to have options, and it’s not my place to judge people’s reasons for considering emigration. In fact, there are American-born supporters of the orange senior citizen from Florida who have migrated to New Zealand (though I’m certain that the vast majority of his few hundred fans in NZ were born here).

Having said that, I do think that migrating solely to escape a political situation one doesn’t like isn’t a great idea. No country on earth is perfect, and that’s true of New Zealand, too. People who come here because they’re moving FROM something rather that TO something may find that their choice isn’t as happy as they anticipated (and there are consequences American citizens face for living overseas, like potential double taxation, for example—a topic I’ll talk about in a future AAA-23 post). My advice to anyone seeking to migrate to another country—any country—is to consider whether the potential new home is a good fit, whether lifestyle, values, weather, shopping—basically anything and everything about daily life—feels right all by itself, putting aside what one wants to get away from.

When I moved to New Zealand in 1995, it was absolutely and completely about moving TO something, namely, a new life with Nigel. He and I always kept moving toward something for the rest of out time together, and that was a critical reason for our happiness. So, when I tell would-be immigrants to only contemplate moving toward something, it’s based completely on my—our—personal experience.

Thanks to Roger for today’s question!

It’s not too late to ask a question: Simply leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are allowed). Or, you can email me your question (and you can even tell me to keep your name secret—though, why not pick a nom de question?). You can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page, though keep in mind that all Facebook Pages are public, just like this blog. To avoid being public there, you can send me a private message through the AmeriNZ Facebook Page.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-23”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:

”Let the annual inquisition begin” – The first post in this year’s series.

Let the annual inquisition begin

Another year, another go at what’s now a more than decade long series of blog posts. Back in 2012, I began an end-of-year series of “Ask Arthur” posts (skipping 2019, of course), and now it’s time for the 2023 version. Or not—it’s entirely up to others. As I put it in last year’s series introduction post:

The “Ask Arthur” series of posts is a chance for people to ask me nearly anything, and I try to answer whatever I’m asked. I’ve never had a question about a topic that was “off limits”, however, I’ve always said that if I couldn’t answer a question for any reason, I’d say so. It turned out that I've never had a question that I wouldn’t answer. It also turned out that I haven’t yet met a topic I don’t have an opinion on. Who’d have guessed that?

Yes, who could or would have guessed that there doesn’t seem to be any topic on which I don’t have an opinion? Over the years, questions have been about me, my personal history, about life in New Zealand—mine or in general—about being an expat, and what I think about various topics or events in the news. The possibilities seem to be endless.

To ask questions, simply leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are allowed). Or, you can email me your question (and you can even tell me to keep your name secret, although, why not pick a nom du question?). You can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page, though keep in mind that all Facebook Pages are public, just like this blog. To avoid being public there, you can send me a private message through the AmeriNZ Facebook Page.

Finally, as I always note, this idea is stolen from inspired by Roger Green’s “Ask Roger Anything” (“ARA”) posts. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of thievery flattery. Or, something like that. In fact, Roger’s already passed on a couple topics I haven’t gotten to yet, so they’re my backup plan in case there are no questions this year—I mean, it’s bound to happen sooner or later.

So, over to you: Ask your question whatever way works best for you, and I’ll do my best to answer.

All posts in this series will be tagged “AAA-23”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:

What do you want to know? (December 2012)
Ask Arthur (July 2013)
Ask Arthur – Again (December 2013)
Ask Arthur Again, again (December 2014)
Ask Arthur yet again (July 2015)
It’s that time again (December 2015)
It’s ‘Ask Arthur’ time again (December 2016)
Let the 2017 asking begin (November 2017)
Let the 2018 asking begin (November 2018)
There was no “Ask Arthur” series in 2019.
Sure, why not ask again? (December 2020)
Yes, ask again (November 2021)
AAA 2022: A decade-long inquisition (November 2022)