> only relevant to a tiny percentage of American immigrants who travel/work in conflict zones and unfriendly countries

I know a (thankfully small) handful of cases in which Americans' kids were arrested in a friendly country. The State Department provided invaluable support. (Recommendations on legal counsel, prudent next steps, relevant authorities' phone numbers...nothing nefarious, just context and support.)

I am under no illusion that I, with my resources, would get that sort of access. But it exists, and probably benefits U.S. international business concerns. Since this article concerns itself with rich overseas Americans, I think it's relevant.

I think you're under the impression this doesn't happen with other countries too. That's the job of embassies. Obviously the State Department has more funding and resources, but that's really only relevant to how big of a trouble you got yourself into.

One thing the US has is more bargaining power to force early release of some people accused of crimes (like Liangelo Ball in China, Anne Sacoolas in UK). That's significant leverage, but again: most people will never find themselves in that situation. But even then it's not like other countries will not imprison you if you're American.

> Since this article concerns itself with rich overseas Americans, I think it's relevant

Not many millionaires are getting arrested in general, due to the availability of lawyers and so on.

The US support might be very relevant for a war reported captured by ISIS.

But most millionaires are not going to be in those locations and/or able to afford good private security.

Ok, but they're also not very sympathetic. I don't feel sorry for anybody who can afford private security that he has to pay if he wants to hang on to the benefits of US citizenship.

So?

So "so?" is my reaction to wailing about their being taxed.

They're not wailing, they're leaving for better service elsewhere.

Great, then everybody's happy. What's the problem?