An immigrant is someone who moves overseas or to a foreign country on their own accord without the help of a company. You're getting visas and residency on your own.
So for example, a Kiwi working on the production lines in Toyota city is likely an immigrant. A Kiwi manager in finance in Toyoda city is likely an ex-pat. It's also likely these two don't run in the same circles.
They indicate that it can be a noun, but without further definition.
Note the implication that it's not voluntary, or at least under duress (a la Snowden), and not necessarily with the intent of returning.
Second version is an adjective, meaning "living in a foreign land."
There are many retirees who call themselves an "expat", such as those at http://money.cnn.com/gallery/retirement/2014/10/14/expat-ret... .
Arthur C. Clarke was a British expat in Sri Lanka. He was not sent there by a company.
Here's the owner of a company which hires Mexican agricultural workers for 10 months of the year - http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-guest-worker-20130331-dt... :
> He spends $1,000 per worker for visas, consulate fees and transportation to North Carolina. He's required to pay for their housing, and he estimates he has spent more than $80,000 building a house on his property, plus $36,000 to buy a mobile home and $5,000 a year to rent an apartment for the 48 workers he employs during the growing season. The government makes him pay them $9.68 an hour, which is about one-third higher than the minimum wage in the state, and he spends thousands of dollars on workers' compensation insurance.
Oddly, people rarely call those Mexican's "ex-pats." The only difference from your definition is that they work outside, and not in an office, no?
If so, isn't that the sort of socioeconomic class discrimination that keerthiko pointed out?
As I mentioned above, ex-pats and immigrants from country A living and working in country B typically will not be found in the same social circles --be they American or British or Brazilian or Chinese.
The example I mentioned was not a migrant worker doing "rounds". It was under an H-2A agricultural visa to work for a single company in North Carolina. Is that specific Mexican, Rodolfo Benito Coy Garcia, an ex-pat? It sounds like your answer is "no, because he isn't in the right social circles."
I say, if someone's on a 5-year rotation in London, call them a guest worker. That's what they are. Why do you think we should maintain the class distinction in calling people from the more economically advantaged social circles to be "expats", while those from others are "guest workers" or "migrant workers" or other less socially accepted terms?
I'll again point out that your definition excludes all the other people who call themselves "expats", who live more or less permanently in another country, and are self-employed or retired. But who just happen to be from a rich country, and seemingly don't want to be called an "immigrant".
To me, and not everyone has to agree, colloquially an ex-pat is someone sent to work abroad by their company where the company pays incidentals, COLA, and does the visa legwork.
The underlying question I have is, why do some people want to self-label as "ex-pat"? Why not use "guest worker" or "immigrant"?
Personally, I think the term ex-pat became in vogue post-WWI when rich Americans and (poor) artists and writers were part of the European social scene, like Gertude Stein's "Lost Generation". The modern self-employed authors and artists who live overseas still use that term.
After WWII, when US companies started to have European offices, and when it was cheaper and easier for US citizens to work overseas, they re-used the term "expat", in part for the romantic ties to the stories they read while growing up. Since business makes a lot more money than writing, that new term has come to dominate.
And these American guest workers, like British guest workers in China, India, etc., considered themselves better than other guest workers, so preferred the term "expat" over "guest worker." Then, to make it easy to tell the two apart, insist that the term "expat" is the correct one to use for office workers. And it just happens that guest workers in multinational business offices are mostly drawn from white people in rich countries.
I think US and British retirees living overseas call themselves "expats" for similar reasons; to consider themselves apart and above immigrants from poorer countries.
I believe your observations are consistent with my belief that the distinction is based on class terms. If so, by using that term don't you support classism? Of course, as the beneficiary of classism your answer might well be "yes".
> That said, poor immigrants will rarely mix with the less poor immigrants from the same country, regardless of nationality --for the most part.
This has nothing to do with who mixes with who. Why did you choose to call those associated with "poor" as immigrants, but feel like calling the ones who call themselves expats expats?
[I truly mean no personal attack or offense here, I'm just using your comments as a case-in-point]
Media (including articles such as OP) have always associated immigrant with people from poorer (less-white) countries, and expat with the others. This is understandable, since "expat" is what everyone prefers to call themselves with the connotations that have grown to be associated with the two terms, but the rich white strata of the world are in command of most of the media. But a kid can wish that the world recognized this and didn't try to defend it.
Let me tell you a little secret, noone wants to be called an immigrant. It's an exclusionary term meant to identify an outgroup, against whom it is ok to practice some discriminatory behavior. As a first-gen US resident brown person, people laugh if I refer to myself as an expat in context rather than an immigrant. If you're from a rich country (usually == if you're white) then you can call yourself an expat and everyone nods their heads solemnly. This is the reality.
Note that none of these people care whether either me or said white person is planning to stay in the US permanently or not, brought over by an overseas company or not.
Regarding the "anti-immigrant" sentiment, this has nothing to do with things like using the term expat instead of immigrant. As much as everyone wants to demonize and vilify, it is probably best to actually understand where these feelings are coming from. It comes from the wage-lowering and job loss that is associated with immigration, and those feeling build up over time. No matter which side of the aisle you fall on, the data is clear, less immigration leads to lower unemployment and higher wages within a region, and more immigration leads to the opposite. The tradeoff is that growth is more difficult and limited with less immigration.
In theory, we try to find the right balance between growth and standard of living for the existing population. In practice, however, only the people at the top have control of the politicians, and that balance will continue to slide towards lower labor costs.
Things are so polarized in this country, and it has become standard to label anyone we disagree with as some sort of "*ist", in order to marginalize them and prevent further discussion on the topic. No matter the issue, when a group feels strongly that they are on the receiving end of unfair behavior, many times there are actual justifiable underlying issues.
Expats are immigrants, so if more immigration leads to higher unemployment then more expats leads to higher unemployment.
> Expats are immigrants, so if more immigration leads to higher unemployment then more expats leads to higher unemployment.
Depends how you are using the term. In any case, a larger labor pool in the U.S. means less demand for workers (lower wages and higher unemployment). U.S. expats/emigrants working in another country would have that same effect on the host country as immigrants to the U.S., though again, a significant percentage of American expats are retirees living on social security, and I just don't think there is enough data to identify net results on either the host country or the U.S. (since healthcare costs or lack thereof would be the real differentiator there).
Because as a US citizen living overseas I've paid very close attention to this topic and have never heard anyone connect the two together.
By this definition, almost every American overseas is an expat, yes? Including US military currently based overseas? If so, it's very far from any definition I'm used to. Perhaps you can point to one of your sources?
> Depends how you are using the term
No, it doesn't. What definition are you using where an expat is something other than an immigrant? Or at the very least, a temporary immigrant.
> though again, a significant percentage of American expats are retirees living on social security
Yes, those retiree expats are immigrants. What else can they be? They immigrated to another country to retire.
I think you are confusing "immigrants" with "foreign workers"?
Anyways, to address the issues you raised...
> Where have you seen anyone use expat...
I see the term almost exclusively in researching possible foreign locations to live and work remotely as a U.S. citizen. It is a fairly rare event for me to see it used elsewhere, but I rarely read about U.S. citizens employed onsite in other countries, so that is really not surprising. My concerns are generally what types of residency options are available, and what they might mean for the U.S. side of things (taxes, citizenship, etc.).
>> Depends how you are using the term
> No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does, and again I feel like you are really just trying to argue here. What I meant by "Depends" is that your post was not clear as to which parties were in which country to determine economic ramifications, so said another way "whether your statement is true depends on specifically what your statement is saying". I don't see how you could have read the sentence that followed and not have gotten that. The point is, a country receiving immigrants that increase the labor pool will thereby experience lower demand for workers.
> I think you are confusing "immigrants" with "foreign workers"?
I'm not confusing anything, and I have no issue with the definition of expatriate and immigrant meaning the same thing. I've stated some of what I've seen as an anecdote that may or may not shed some light on why some people may use the word the way they do.
Honestly, I don't get the distinction.
It's purely a "us vs them" distinction.
Emigrant is what an immigrant is relative to their home country. The verb is "emigration", which mirrors "immigration".
Don't take my word for it, refer to a dictionary, or this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals...
Expat somehow has the connotation that you will return, which is the equivalent of migrant worker. Immigrant assumes one wants to make the new host country a permanent one.
England has a long colonial history, wherein they sent colonists, soldiers, merchants, engineers, diplomats, bureaucrats, etc. to far flung parts of their world, inside and outside their empire. Some of these folks moved around from country to country, or migrated seasonally back to their homeland, while a few settled down in their adopted countries.
Some of these folks are unquestionably emigrants, while others are transients, but their minority enclave communities can be easily summed up by calling them expatriates. A description like expatriate community is more informative than emigrant enclave or whatever.
The word expatriate emphasizes that these folks are (in general) not intending to assimilate, and see themselves as foreigners in the countries where they are living.
The same word could equally be applied to “non-white” migrants to “white” countries, if you wanted. I have heard such usage before, and it was not controversial or confusing in context.
But of course any words related to migration have racial/class overtones. We’re talking about humans here. Pretty much everything people do involves some amount of social posturing.
being white has nothing to do with it. Its wealth.
I did so because I agree with keerthiko. I think "expat" is mostly a code phrase for "I come from a rich country" or "I come from the professional or upper class".
It isn't simply a fancier word but I think also a snobbier word. Some expats will 'react violently' if you call them an immigrant, quoting madaxe_again at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12332279 .
An expat could be a migrant worker, but not necessarily. For instance, one could go to a foreign country for university, and then decides to stay after graduation. He'd probably have to find a job, yes, but I wouldn't call him a migrant worker because he didn't emigrate for employment reasons.
Obviously, words are imprecise and there are overlaps, though this is the first time I've heard that expat could have a negative association.
If so, you are one of the very few. People don't usually talk about, say, "Mexican ex-pats in the Central Valley", even to describe those who are planning to return to their family back home, and sending money home to support that family.