Expatriates Stack Exchange | Hacker News Reader

Expatriates Stack Exchange

expatriates.stackexchange.com

73 pointsnsaparanoid63 comments

Nice wealthy people from nice rich countries are "Expats". People from poor countries are "immigrants". It's an interesting language hack society developed.

Within the expat community I think there is a different distinction. Expats (to me, and to some of the people I know who use that term to describe themselves) are on a temporary assignment ("secondment") for work. People who move to another country on their own, without a company transfer, and/or who intend to stay there indefinitely, are not expats. There are also plenty of cases where an expat becomes "localized" and stays somewhere longer, but is no longer considered an expat by their company, and perhaps no longer by their local friends.

Different people use the term in different ways, unfortunately including what you said. But the above is how I look at it.

Depends on your area I guess. In North-Eastern Asia my experience is that 'expats' refers to those who have moved for good, and anyone staying temporarily is just a 'foreigner'.

My dongbei experience has it that all foreigners are referred to as expats if they are working for a real company and not just teaching English...but expat is actually a technical term that our HR uses to distinguish between packaged employees (many of whom are Chinese with green cards or us citizenship) and random locally hired foreigners (who have no packages and are more likely not Chinese).

> People who move to another country on their own, without a company transfer, and/or who intend to stay there indefinitely, are not expats.

That first part is a really strange criterion which I've never seen before.

As for staying indefinitely, that's why I don't necessarily consider myself an immigrant - I've been here for six years, but the future is always uncertain. I might have a different opinion if Germany allowed dual citizenship through naturalization, but they don't.

It's allowed but not for all nationalities.

Well, sure within the expat community, I'm sure they'd love to point out they aren't like them. Y'know, Them, the bad ones. Nonononono, we're the good ones.

> who intend to stay there indefinitely, are not expats.

because you think immigrants want to stay indefinitely? why because they are poor and you're rich?

The corporate component of your expat definition appears to preclude writers and artists from being expats.

If a writer is freelancing and moves somewhere on a temporary visa with the intention of leaving in a year or three, I'd probably call them an expat, sure. Obviously there's no bright line, and different people use the term for different things (even crypto-hate speech, as evidenced by other commenters in this thread!).

I suspect dfc refers in part to famous expats like Gertrude Stein, Henry James, and John Singer Sargent? They were part of the American expat community 100 years ago, and all lived in Europe for decades.

Obviously language changes, but doing a search for "expat artist" or "expat writer" easily finds things like:

http://juliedawnfox.com/2013/07/05/expat-artists-algarve/ - a British expat who lives full-time in Portugal

http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2014/02/27/expat-arti... - another British expat, 18 years in Spain

http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2013/11/meet-expat-writers-li... - various expat writers in Yucatan, including a Canadian who moved there in the 1970s for love

Also, take a look at the profiles at http://www.expatinfodesk.com/our-authors/ . While some moved because of work, others say things like "Her relocation to Barcelona happened almost by accident, after she and her daughter set off on a European adventure. The adventure turned into a settlement and the pair are now officially expatriates - at least for the time being." and "... came to Los Angeles originally as a student, with an intention of going home after completing her sociology studies in college. Now she finds herself still living in Los Angeles after a couple of decades"

Thus, while you can say "the above is how I look at it", you cannot really argue "Within the expat community I think there is a different distinction ... ", because the expat community doesn't seems to agree with your corporate, short-term qualifications.

Sometimes people talk about "British expats in Spain", but "Indian immigrants in UK". Which tells you everything.

In 2007, Al Jazerra did a short documentary about the British immigrants in Spain ( http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/2007/11/20085251... ), and it's brilliant. You can imagine an Indian show about Indian immigrants in UK ("Oh look they can't count to 10 in English, and know nothing of British history"), and it would be fodder for the far right in UK.

I completely agree with your analysis that the distinction between immigrant or economic migrant and ex-pat is class-based.

You keep finishing my sentences like this and people are going to talk;) This is the explanation that I should have included with my comment about expat writers/artists.

Sure, this is the sort of BS people use to post-rationalise the distinction between "immigrant" and "expat".

The (not so hidden) truth is that it is meant to convey a status distinction that many people are too hypocritical to acknowledge, and that has a lot to do with skin color and country of origin.

I grew up in Saudi Arabia, where my family had no inclination nor legal standing to gain citizenship. We were clearly, and regularly identified as expatriates.

In Dhahran, there were a large number of foreign workers from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal, who performed a variety of menial labors. These laborers would often have their passports held by Saudi nationals, go periods without pay with little food, or live without provided housing. They were clearly and regularly regarded by many in that town as 'lesser' in some degree or another, most likely because of their countries of origin.

Although some would call them 'migrant workers' or 'immigrants', these people were also referred to as 'expats' by the majority of the expatriates I knew, and their employers. I distinctly remember someone correcting me when referring to them as immigrants.

This is an argument over semantics, but not an insignificant one. you're claiming a particular word that I have used throughout my life to identify a great many people is an inherently bigoted instance of double-speak that masks the differentiation between classes of countries people come from.

the truth is, "expatriate" is a respectful way to refer to people working outside of their own country. What the word is "meant to convey" is as amalgamous as the people that decide to use it, as is true for all words.

If you see it is a differentiator between have-and have-not country origins, fine, but you are putting quite a bit of stock in someone's language choice reflecting a particularly heinous belief or acceptance. I assure you that there are a great many people that do not use this word as you have described it.

Thanks, that is interesting.

I should have added the caveat that I'm speaking from a western perspective (and the irony isn't lost on me that I missed this while making claims about xenophobia :).

see my comment to rmc below.

didn't mean to be argumentative, I appreciate the discussion!

Interesting perspective, but I'll point out that I was mostly talking about the Anglosphere / West when pointing out the expat/immigrant disctinction. Often words mean different things in different contexts.

It's a bit silly to only talk about the Anglosphere/West when the word is used in a global context.

Saudi expatriate culture, by and large, is a great example of Anglosphere/West culture. The majority of expatriates in Saudi (at least when I was there, moving target) were from Texas. Oil production experience, and all.

In all honesty, my experience with people correcting my usage could be a back-lash of the very usage of the words as you had described them. The culture there has been using the word 'expatriate' for decades, and there was probably a stigma avoiding using the word as a class designator that manifested itself in a gentle 'scolding' for my usage in the way you described.

I agree with you completely; for these words, context is everything. Intent in usage plays a big part as well.

As long as the USA makes me file a tax return and require prying into my bank accounts (FACTA/FBAR etc) when my income is entirely earned and spent in the UK, then I'm an "Expat", despite having lived here for nearly 30 years and the US gov doesn't consider me American 'enough' for my son to be allowed US citizenship...

I always thought the distinction between immigrant and expat was "desire of citizenship." Immigrants want to become citizens of the new country and expats do not.

I consider myself both an expat and an immigrant, as a U.S./Canada dual citizen (I immigrated to Canada from the U.S.). Until I give up my U.S. citizenship, I am an expatriate from the U.S. I am also an immigrant to Canada.

Other immigrants I know do not to have a problem with me calling myself an immigrant. I don't try to equate my experience with theirs—I had it easy.

I am disgusted with what the federal conservative government has been doing to immigration and citizenship in the decade since I got my Canadian citizenship, because it makes it harder for people different than me to immigrate and become productive citizens.

I'm disappointed that there has been no substantial effort made to unify certifications for doctors, engineers, teachers, etc. across the provinces and territories because we have too many doctors, engineers, teachers, etc. (usually from non-European countries) driving taxis or performing janitorial work. It's a horrific waste of human talent.

If a defining quality of your migration is moving away from your country, then you're an expat, or refugee in case of duress. Someone bored with the US moving to SE Asia is an expat. It's likely that they'll go elsewhere afterwards or come back.

When a defining quality of your migration is moving to a country, you're an immigrant. Someone who wants to live in the EU is an immigrant. It's likely that they will stay there indefinitely.

While people from the west are usually wealthier, many expats move specifically to escape the high cost of living.

That's not really a good definition. If you're a USAian moving to avoid high cost of living, and moving to SE Asia for the low cost, then why can't we say you're moving away from an area (due to high cost of living), and you have the desire to live in a region (SE Asia), and this clearly makes you an immigrant?

Because you don't have a desire to live in Vietnam. Just "somewhere warm and cheap where I can teach English for a living," even simply "not US," or "the farther away from my psycho family, the better." And perhaps Thailand next month, or back home in the summer, or Bali once you save up for a year's lease.

So someone who moves from say Syria, to Cork, Ireland, is looking just for "somewhere politically safe where I won't be shot at", even simply "not Syria", rather than having a desire to live in Cork City? Wouldn't they be an expat then?

Political violence certainly counts as duress, so, like I wrote in the very first sentence, they'd be a refugee.

And, unlike the informal immigrant/expat distinction, that is even recognized by legal systems in modern countries. We treat people seeking asylum differently than those who are just moving because of climate or job opportunities.

I wasn't aware of a specific "expatriate" legal definition for immigration. Refugee/asylum seekers is a category, certainly. "Artist" is another. "Self-employed" is a third. "Because of family connections" a fourth. "Au pair", "athletic coach", and "retired" are three more. Certainly "people who work for temporary periods as a specialist employee of an international company" is a category, but that's not the only way to be an ex-pat.

Consider Arthur C Clark. I believe you would consider him an immigrant. He specifically chose Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) because of its reefs (and likely other reason, but that's his main stated reason). But by all accounts, he was a British ex-pat in Sri Lanka. He was even recognized by the British royalty for his cultural services as a British person.

Since so many people consider him an ex-pat, and your definition doesn't, I suspect your definition isn't all that useful even in your informal sense.

Wow....expat is actually a technical term for an employee abroad at my company; they have housing/living packages from the company that us poor ole immigrants don't get.

This is definitely not true.

An immigrant comes to a new country with plans of making it their home permanently. --They emigrate from their home country with no plans to ever live there again. An expat is someone living outside of their home country, either for work, school, or sometimes due to family - or even because they decided to retire there - but who don't plan on becoming a citizen where they live.

Case in point: I met a guy from Mexico working in Greece as a cook for the Mexican embassy. He's an expat. I have coworkers from Sri Lanka who came for the job. Some of them might end up staying, others definitely plan on moving back home. They're all expats right now. People from offices in other parts of the world who come for short term stays (1 - 6 months) would also be considered expats, no matter what country they normally work in.

Many Mexicans come to the US to work temporarily, make good money, then go home to their families. Some of these do so without permission of the US government.

Yet many call them "illegal immigrants" even for those who don't want to settle. Is it your belief that the more correct term for these people is "illegal expats"? If you use the term "illegal immigrants", will you instead switch to "illegal immigrants and expats"?

Looking around now, Google finds only 150 or so pages using "illegal expat", and the vast majority concern Saudi Arabia or neighboring states.

I called myself an immigrant once in casual conversation. The people I was talking with -- who, ironically, would almost certainly describe themselves as pro-immigrant -- blew up at me for "appropriating the immigrant experience."

What does that even mean?

I'd interpret it to mean "White men don't get to claim minority group status!" (I understand there exist political worldviews under which membership in a minority group is occasionally a useful thing to have and under which "inappropriately" claiming it is anathema, but to be clear, I wasn't intentionally trying to troll anyone with the observation.)

I did some contracting work for a company in Vienna for about 5 weeks. (I am a US citizen living Sweden.) I stayed in a business apartment. I mentioned the name of the area to one of the employees at the company. He commented that I might not like it because there are a lot of immigrants. I pointed out that I should fit in then, since I'm an immigrant.

In this context, I knew that he meant "immigrant" as shorthand for "cultural minorities" (in this case, mostly from the Middle East), and I was being deliberately naive to help prevent expropriating the term "immigrant" in that fashion.

Imagine someone with ginger hair saying "Oh it's just like being gay and being bullied for who you are". That person is trying to claim that they have it just as bad as groups who have it bad. I suspect the person thought patio11 was claiming to be suffering horrible hardship due to being an immigrant

Now, patio11 is an immigrant/expat (being a USAian living in Japan), and who knows perhaps in Japan there are disadvantages/hurdles by looking like a white dude. So I have no idea if it was/is right for someone to say that to him.

I'll scratch it up to American social justice warriors having the common mistake of thinking everything is like the USA.

It kind of reinforces the fact that the distinction between "immigrants" and "expats" is largely income-based. It reminds me of the great animated film "Persepolis". When discussing leaving Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, the father of the main character replies to his wife "So that you can be a housemaid and me a taxi driver?" (they're both middle-class). If they left, they would be become immigrants. On the other hand, somebody in the western world from the middle-class migrating from one location to the other would expect to retain their social status and find an equivalent job. This kind of difference is pretty sad.

People like me from developed countries working in developing countries without packages are called half-pats.

To me at least being an "expat" is a choice, being an immigrant is a necessity. That's how I choose to define those terms at least, but of course the line is blurry.

"Immigrant" sort of suggests "immigration" as being part of the deal though, right?

Take me for example. If I was working on getting my French citizenship with the hope of living here indefinitely with my new French passport and (one day) French citizen grandchildren, I'd be an immigrant.

But I'm not. I'm an American citizen holding an American passport who just happens to spend half his time living here. They actually have a term for that. It's "Expat".

The difficulty is that "immigration" means many things. It can mean "to settle", with the emphasis in permanence. But it's not restricted to that. Consider this quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_law :

> Immigration regulation is the control of the people, and their numbers, who may enter a nation's sovereign territory. It applies both to persons seeking to live and work in a particular nation (or part of it) and tourists, persons on layover due to travel issues, and those wishing to study or otherwise make use of a country's facilities.

Here you see "immigration" used with a wider meaning than what you used.

Consider Mexican citizens who come to the US for short-term employment but without specific permission from the US government. Many use the term "illegal immigrants", even though for those who have no desire to live permanently in the US, and are only in the country to make money.

In your case, "half his time" probably means 180 days or less, and as a US national you are exempt from a Schengen visa? There many other terms for that, including "tourist". ("sportspeople playing in championships" and "artist on tour" are a few alternatives). When does a "tourist" become an "expat"?

If you were to stay longer than 3 months at a time, then you would need a long-stay visa, and "must, on arriving in France, register with the French Immigration and Integration Office (OFII) or, in some cases, apply to the relevant prefecture for a residence permit" - http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/coming-to-france/getting-a-... .

See the "immigration" in the name of the office?

It's hard to imagine how it could survive. Even the Startups site (supposedly) didn't meet the StackExchange criteria because it only averaged 4.9 questions/day:

http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6243/startup-busin...

StackExchange replaced Q&A sites that were completely backward in their approach (eg. requiring signups to see answers), but StackExchange itself is becoming a little bit backward. Questions that might involve some healthy discussion rather than a straightforward answer get shut down too easily, and they forfeit decent sites (eg. Startups, after 3 years!) just because they didn't meet some arbitrary minimum activity criteria. The data dump download doesn't even work, so now there's just a tonne of information that people contributed which is lost.

(edit: data dump download actually does work, but it's still such a waste to discard the momentum, Google indexing, etc.)

In what way does the data dump download not work? I'm no one who can fix it, but I'm curious if you have any more details which might shine more light on what could be a serious issue in need of fixing (given my understanding of the commitments made by the StackExchange folks, though I may not be up to date there).

Apologies - Chrome was initially giving me an error (I don't recall which type, except that it was suggesting visiting sstatic.net instead) when I was trying to download it.

I think comparing it to the startups one is a good example of why it could work. There are plenty of places to go to get information about startups. The places you can go to get information about government policies/procedures/etc… is a lot like searching for Q&A sites that were completely backward in their approach.

You could argue there's not a big enough audience… but I think the utility of it is there.

Startups wasn't shut down because of the number of questions per day. There are no hard rules for that, and some sites launched with fewer than 5 questions/day.

The Area 51 page certainly makes it look like it was shut down for that reason. It says it didn't have enough activity, and provides a summary of the activity that is all "Excellent" except for questions per day, which "Needs Work".

Perhaps it was shut down for another reason, but that's definitely not how the Area 51 page makes it look.

Your thesis is that "StackExchange itself is becoming a little bit backward", but the statements you use to back that up have been part of Stack Exchange from the beginning. Also, the things you point out that are 'broken' are part of the formula that makes the network succeed.

Stack Overflow was not built for discussion. The FAQ says: "Not all questions work well in our format. Avoid questions that are primarily opinion-based, or that are likely to generate discussion rather than answers." I understand that you may want those types of questions to exist there, but that's not the original purpose of Stack Overflow. (Sidenote: different sites, depending on their topic or maturity do allow more open ended questions, but I believe you may be referring to 'closing questions' on Stack Overflow). I sympathize with this point though because I believe that there are probably a class of questions that could exist on SO, that are currently closed, but may need to be treated in a different way than normal Q&A.

Your second point about closing sites that aren't working is also intentional. Some of your complaint was about the fact that the data dump was not available, which was actually not true. It's also intentional that the data dump exists so that if we decide the site is not a good fit for our goals, everyone else can still reuse that data ( i.e. http://www.brightjourney.com/ ) This might be related to your first complaint which boils down to 'It's not hurting anyone, why not just leave it there?' The answer to that is more complicated than I can summarize here, but there are many different things that go into making a successful community, and one of them is defining what 'successful' (and 'not successful') means. And there is a process for dealing with 'not successful' which is transparent. The criteria is not arbitrary. It's reasoned.

Joel Spolsky elaborates on this in the following talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpGA2fmAHvM

(I work for Stack Exchange.)

I understand that it's intentional and what StackExchange perceives as being necessary, appropriate, etc.

The problem is that this approach is under-serving the needs of StackExchange's users.

I don't think that SE needs to be transparent here. It's up to you guys to decide how you want to run your site. I just think the current approach will result in the success of competitors that are less trigger-happy on shutting down questions.

Disclaimer: WORK THERE. BIASED.

Now... I actually agree that we can do more to help with questions that are less black and white. It's harder than it sounds - being a little rigid, and downright intolerant of questions that descend into religious debate "which language is better overall?" is a key part of what makes SO and our other sites work. But, I completely agree that we could probably do more to help more with a lot of more subjective or nuanced questions, and we're devoting a lot of energy to figuring out how to do so without undermining what's working well today. In summary, I agree with your point. :)

As to Startups, the main issue wasn't just questions per day. We have a lot of sites with less activity that we think are doing really well for their communities.

Re: B&W <-> Religious debate spectrum, I agree with you. You don't want to host arguments, but the current approach is a bit overly rigid. The "which X is better?" is a question that probably should be shutdown, but "what are the differences or strengths of X versus Y?" is a question that hopes to be objective, might have higher-than-normal risk of descending into a debate (but won't necessarily), and from what I've seen, will probably get closed. I suggest tolerating such threads until they show signs of devolving.

Re: Startups issue, in that case, the Area 51 page for Startups is wrong. It says:

"This site has been Closed ... This proposal didn't have enough activity during the beta."

I have been both an "expat" and an immigrant (UAE, Qatar, Libya). Here is the difference. As an "expat" I never intended to stay in the country for long. As a young immigrant I went to South Africa settled bought a house had kids and businesses and eventually became a citizen.

I like to read /top/month or /top/year/ of many subreddits. With StackExchange there is only top, and I can't see a way to come back a long time later and see what's new in highly liked questions. Are there any third party sites that cater to this?

Relevant because I imagine I'll read the top questions now, and again in a year with many questions coming up both times.

My instincts are that country->country specific forums are more valuable. Americans in Italy, like me, or Australians in Germany, or Canadians in Spain, or whatever. Because a lot of the value in these things is helping navigate the local bureaucracy, culture, and lifestyle for someone who is new to it.

tags should help, but after browsing the site, I am not sure they do.

Stackoverflow works well because it is really easy to scan only questions about the topics I am interested about. The tags are quite precise and there is general consensus on what they should be. I look at the "perl" tag, often, or at the "XML" one... voilà!

With a "soft" subject, like expats, it's harder to filter interesting questions. It doesn't naturally lead to accepted categories, and most of the info I would be interested in wouldn't fit in a single one.

So either the site stays low-volume, and I can scan all questions, and rarely find one that I am interested in. Or it becomes successful and chances are that I will miss the threads I would have liked to read.

Bother...

The site _just_ came out of private beta, so tags are a bit of a mess. We're cleaning them up now, and working on conventions for location / country tags, which do make narrowing questions much simpler.

What's up with stackexchange menu bar? It is in unknown to me language (if language at all).

But if I view the source code or copy, I get plain English, what the hell?

Example: http://i.imgur.com/Gcyrwpe.jpg

You have any browser extensions that might be misbehaving? (I work for Stack Exchange). Nothing on our side could be sending that to you.

Using other stackexchange sites is fine.

I am no longer able to validate whether addon-less browser would work, as the issue is mysteriously resolved now.

I blame Cthulhu. Mystery solved.

Very nice, like it. Already came across some helpful questions and answers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com