Hacker News Reader

The very fact they find it necessary to use a different word to describe themselves, "expats", than what they call foreigners who live in their countries, "immigrants", shows that they do not at all consider themselves to be in any way similar.

I've lived as part of a minority in other countries for half of my life. I try as much as I can to blend in, not because I think they are superior, but because I want to learn from their culture. But I have no illusion they will ever treat me the same way they treat their own. I can speak the local language perfectly and lots of people will still address me in English (not the local language) just because I look foreign. The locals never invite for anything. It's quite frustrating. I don't even have people from my own culture to socialize with, so I am mostly alone with my wife (who has another culture as well). It's frustrating for sure, but we learn to rely only on our own and enjoy life like that.

> The very fact they find it necessary to use a different word to describe themselves, "expats", than what they call foreigners who live in their countries, "immigrants", shows that they do not at all consider themselves to be in any way similar.

I was taught these are two words for different concepts. An immigrant expects to take permanent residence in a foreign country, an expatriate – temporarily. The former doing it nearly always out of his own volition, while the latter could very well be sent for duty, to varying degrees.

I do not have any sympathy for immigrants refusing to integrate, but I don't think that an expatriate should necessarily come to be held to the same standard.

Expat = white/pale skin immigrant. Racial entitlement continues to this day. Notice how only white people ever choose to consider themselves to be "expats"

That's certainly not my experience, as someone who relocated to a European capital for work. I work with people from all over with various skin colours, and pretty much everyone everyone self-identifies as an expat.

The main difference seems to be whether they're people moving there to make a new life in a new place, and the work is secondary vs. it's the work that gets them to move (and if you move for work, it's probable that you're being paid more, so have the luxury to have the option to move somewhere else in a comparatively short time.)

> everyone self-identifies as an expat

Of course they do. The question is how does everyone around you see you.

It does make a bit of a difference if the job lead to switching countries (mostly "expat"), or switching country lead to getting a job (mostly "immigrant"). But this detail is buried pretty deep, people will most likely first find out where you're from (by asking, or accent, etc.) and that will determine their first and longest lasting opinion.

Black Americans in the UK are considered expats while white Bosnians are considered immigrants.

I was addressing the original point which was "Notice how only white people ever choose to consider themselves to be "expats"", which in my experience is not true.

> people will most likely first find out where you're from (by asking, or accent, etc.) and that will determine their first and longest lasting opinion.

Perhaps. Where I live there are a lot of Turkish immigrants, for example (mostly they/their parents moved in the 60s/70s.) At the same time I work with people who are Turkish who moved here for work, often in the past several years. I suspect that given the situation, the latter would still be considered expats and the former immigrants.

> there are a lot of Turkish immigrants

This exemplifies my point perfectly. Even though you go on to write that some were born in the country, they are still "Turkish immigrants" not "expats" or [that country's] citizens. Some may be considered expats by you now but walking down the street I can assure you people see "immigrants".

Say "British immigrants", or "US immigrants", or "German immigrants" and see how that rolls off the tongue. Now say "Polish immigrants", or "African immigrants", or "Mexican immigrants".

English has this distinct connotation for the word "immigrant" and it's associated with individuals overwhelmingly based on their country of origin (the poorer the country, the more "immigranty" the person).

I am a white male coming from a reasonably developed and civilized second world country (literal and figurative definitions apply) to follow a high end job. Yet the second I open my mouth I am very much an "immigrant" in the eyes of most locals.

> English has this distinct connotation for the word "immigrant" and it's associated with individuals overwhelmingly based on their country of origin (the poorer the country, the more "immigranty" the person).

I was born in Australia, my mother was born in Scotland. In my mind, that makes me a second generation immigrant. I never thought of my mother, or her parents, as "expatriates".

A lot of Australians who immigrated from the UK and Ireland identified themselves as "immigrants" not "expatriates".

Australia is different from most other rich countries now receiving immigrants (and "expats") because its mainstream culture (not the native culture, which would be aborigine) is itself founded by immigrants from the UK in the relatively recent past... and there has been continuous immigration from many parts of the world since then... I guess that's the reason Australians still see people coming to Australia from rich countries, including the US and European countries, as immigrants... it's not a dirty word over there, as the majority of Australians are only third or fourth generation at most and therefore consider themselves descendants of immigrants. It would be kind of absurd to think of their grand-grand-parents coming to live permanently in Australia as "expats" (though I don't doubt some of them coming today might call themselves that)!

But in rich countries that are old enough to have a population that already forgot they probably also came from elsewhere (populations have always moved around, replacing, killing, and/or mixing with the locals), recent waves of immigration are always from poor countries with a very different culture/language (so that they have trouble assimilating, getting jobs, contributing and so on... and many end up giving up and start to feel marginalized, causing some to appeal to crime) which made the word immigrant have a very negative connotation... hence the need for people from other rich countries to distinguish themselves from those poor people and call themselves something more respectable like "expats".

> This exemplifies my point perfectly. Even though you go on to write that some were born in the country, they are still "Turkish immigrants" not "expats" or [that country's] citizens. Some may be considered expats by you now but walking down the street I can assure you people see "immigrants".

Yes, they're definitely not expats by the definition I gave earlier - those who move for work. Considering second+ generation residents as immigrants was really a mis-edit on my part, though they are seen by "natives" here as immigrants, often.

But you're kinda focussing on a point I wasn't making - that (in my experience, where I am), it's not only white people who self-identify as expats. Russians, Bangladeshis, Kenyans, USians, etc. are all generally expats if they moved for work.

> It does make a bit of a difference if the job lead to switching countries (mostly "expat"), or switching country lead to getting a job (mostly "immigrant").

Does this distinction actually exist in how people use the words "expat" and "immigrant"? A lot of the time, immigrants will have accepted their job offers already before entering the country, and if they did not switch countries, they would have the same kind of job in their home country anyway (e.g. immigrant nurses recruited by the NHS).

The dictionary definition (OED) talks about the immigrant being a person who enters a country to live there permanently, but in reality, even those who enter with the intention of leaving after a few years are considered immigrants by everyone around them if they are from a third-world country.

Yeah, you don't get a tourist visa and then get a job in a country. That's illegal in almost all countries. Usually, you get a job, get a work visa sponsored by the company, and then eventually get permanent residence, then citizenship.

It's not that uncommon to get a tourist visa to scope out a country, apply for a fixed term working visa to get a job, and then where possible transition that into residency and onwards. It's definitely not an easy path, but I know people who have done it.

> Does this distinction actually exist in how people use the words "expat" and "immigrant"? A lot of the time, immigrants will have accepted their job offers already before entering the country, and if they did not switch countries, they would have the same kind of job in their home country anyway (e.g. immigrant nurses recruited by the NHS).

Right, but the point is people who are generally called expats get a job offer in another country, and move because of that job.

People who are generally called immigrants want to move, and so try to get a job in another country (or maybe don't, depends on the relationship between the two countries and the status of the person.)

The expat causality is (typically) "job -> move", the immigrant causality is (typically) "want to move -> job".

The actual ordering of when the move happens and when the job is got aren't that relevant.

Also notable that there are plenty of exceptions, grey areas, regional differences, etc. involved. Which is why I don't like sweeping statements like the one I was originally replying to, because they're invariably wrong in some situation.

Both those you label as your "immigrants" and your "expats" ofter entertain the notion that they will eventuelly move back, but in reality often they don't.

Meanwhile, the "expat" gets a free pass for being a general douche.

> I was taught these are two words for different concepts.

These are stories we tell ourselves to persuade us we're not "like them".

Unsurprisingly, it's a term invented by the British Empire, when people with no prospects in the motherland (like George Orwell) would move to the colonies to make their fortune but wouldn't dream for a second of ever "going native". The amount of time they ended up spending there, or whether they even came back at all, was irrelevant.

After living for many years in another country and being called an "immigrant", while hearing other foreigners being called "expats" I realized that people just create a mental rule for what each word means: coming from a rich country = expat, coming from a poor country = immigrant.

So an American permanently living in the UK will be considered an expat. A polish will be called an immigrant. Despite the actual definition of the word, "immigrant" has a negative nuance artificially attached to it so people use it to this effect.

In Europe I noticed that skin color makes less of a difference than "source country". Many British people will still treat African-American individuals as expats, and an Albanian as an immigrant, once they find out where they came from.

> I do not have any sympathy for immigrants refusing to integrate?

what do you mean by integrate? are immigrants allowed to speak their native tongue, dress differently or act differently?

does Integration to you mean the complete erasure of their past identities? because that what the German in the pub seems to think.

I think he refers to self isolation. Those immigrant communities mentioned tend to never marry any locals (not for lack supply, but because they reject western values) or attend local social events, despite speaking German.

> what do you mean by integrate? […] what the German in the pub seems to think

Don't you have sociology classes or political education in school? I just looked up the word to make sure and it turns out its meaning is almost the same to what I remembered, and it certainly is not a complete erasure as you allude to.

Nice straw man, though. Man, must it be satisfying to topple it over!

> Don't you have sociology classes or political education in school?

yes, I've had an overly technical education but I fail to see how that's relevant.

> I just looked up the word to make sure

I feel like you misread my argument. "seems to think" means that I don't agree with him. Some people, including the person that this thread-tree is about (in my opinion) use integration when they mean cultural erasure. (aka assimilation)

if people speaking/dressing differently in a train implies that they are not integrated (according to him). Than integration (according to him) implies that people do not speak/dress differently which I see as cultural erasure.

And from my own experience, I've been told by a Turkish friend that he received cold stares and was yelled at for speaking Turkish with his daughter in public transportation (out of concern for her integration). Although, it's a common technique for each parent to speak a single language when you want to raise a bilingual child.

and honestly, it's not that novel of an idea:

- "In fact, integration has become a code word in some circles for intolerance and discrimination" - The Emerging Monoculture: Assimilation and the "model Minority" De William E et al

- 'the older völkish notion of German national identity lurks behind calls for acculturation as a condition for social acceptance.In contemporary Germany, "integration" is a codeword for cultural assimilation, with a strong emphasis on learning the majority language and history.' - From the Bonn to the Berlin Republic: Germany at the Twentieth Anniversary of Unification. Jeffrey J. Anderson. Eric Langenbacher.

*then

Anecdotal but I've lived in different Asian countries for the last 15 years and my experience is that expats who live in compounds geared toward their nationality, never eat local food and never bothered to learn the local language tend to also be very racist. You'll hear them non-stop complaining about the locals or making sarcastic comments about them, about them having no manners, not speaking English properly (ironic considering) etc...

And often enough, they'll say things like, "you know how Chinese/Malaysians/... are" as if that statement actually made sense...

I've even heard one express profound admiration for a British family that had been involved in the Opium war and had been in HK for a long time. He admired them for staying "pure" despite staying so long in HK...

It's really anecdotal but I've rarely seen a more toxic and racist culture than the Western expat communities in countries I've lived in...

As a migrant myself (although white-on-white, so to speak), I understand where they are coming from. I think I've actually come to value my "original culture" more highly, after more than a decade abroad, despite having integrated pretty comprehensively into local customs.

Nostalgia is a powerful and irrational sentiment. It doesn't excuse the racism, of course, but I can understand why it would reinforce it.

Why were they living there, if they despised those cultures? (Genuine question, not rhetorical.)

There are many possible reasons. For example lower cost of living, retiring in a place that has both lower costs and perfect weather or moving for business reasons only etc etc.

It happens even on a very micro scale when people move from cities to villages or the other way around. I quit a city life and moved to a village (~1200 inhabitants) but I also changed as many habits as I could to enjoy this life style. I met a lot of people early on and got to know them, developed some friendships, helped out and got some help. They are (edit: I would dare to say: we are, I feel part f the community now) very open, honest and inviting if you are as well. However there are people who move purely because property is way cheaper, but they want to maintain their city lifestyle and then try to contest the aspects of rural living that interfere with their idyllic vision of peaceful and silent sanctuary away from all civilization. There are noises and smells, tractors and cattle. Infrastructure is not up to par. Shops close early. And, worst of all, some treat the locals as uneducated dirty mass that is below their middle-class level. They tend to isolate and only seek company of other "expats". And in consequence are treated as suspicious, or even unwanted, element by the locals. It builds tensions and happens on the scale of ~50km between a village and the nearest city. On international or intercontinental scale it is probably amplified by orders of magnitude.

For work. To make money.

It is, by far, the main reason anyone anywhere moves to a new country.

Have you ever tried pointing out the obliviousness to your German friend?

I'am an ethnic Chinese living in Japan and essentially blend in. I've also spoken with a lot of other expats, often white who complain a lot about (sometimes positive) discrimination and just once, rather offhandedly, I replied that now you know what it feels like to be a minority. The instant reaction is to become defensive, but after a while, the bulb lights up.

This is - sadly - the norm for many British retirees who move to Southern France, Spain, or Portugal and then complain bitterly that the stupid backward locals can't speak English properly.

Living in a place obligates you to at least try and fit in. Working in a place for 1-2 years, I fully understand why people don't bother.

As a German, that seems to a somewhat German stereotype. And as stereotypes go, there is little bit of truth to it.

Points in case: Your friend. A couple of my friends back the day during holiday (Asia, Spain, you name it), same thing about food. My grandparents from what is now Tchechia. Born and raised there, never spoke anything else then German, only stayed in there social group.

Generally speaking, that Europeans have a tendency to not take a lesson from that looks like white privilege to me. Your an expat, but still can feel better because of it.

Counterpoint: Another friend of mine, lived in Bangkok for a while during and after his studies, lived in an upscale Appartment block, mostly under Thais. Learned the language as much ad possible, ate at local places. Unless it was a special occasion, then his girlfriend and him went to a European place.

Some folks travel to experience the world and be a part of it. Some travel to be like a visiting royal, to be treated their due of all of the exotic experiences.

It is pretty normal that you hold onto traditions of your original country as an expat, you can observe this everywhere in every culture. Sometimes that loyalty goes far beyond that of people still in their home countries.

That said, someone has to be the majority and I think minorities in general have no problem with it. It isn't necessarily a "privilege" or a problem. If it is too hard on you, perhaps relocation is a better option. Most people just don't give it a thought after a while and no society can adapt to every whim, it is on minorities to adapt to the present culture.

I don't think your German friend sees his current living situation as anything other than temporary.

It’s weird judging him condescendingly by saying he’s oblivious when at the end of the day, he’s happy.

Maybe it’s his happiness in the situation that leads him not to ponder it like you do. He’s not missing anything that makes his life richer.

I’ve been in both the majority and minority many times in my life and I like you have pondered it, but I also have the capacity to observe myself from the third person in a cold clinical way so I’m neither oblivious nor unhappy.

Given four choices: aware and content, unaware and content, aware and uncontent and unaware and uncontent, I would never choose the last two, awareness isn’t worth it for contentment.