5 ms·

Your definition is not correct, or at least it's incomplete. There are many retirees who call themselves an "expat", such as those at http://money.cnn.com/gall

by dalke 10y ago

Your definition is not correct, or at least it's incomplete. There are many retirees who call themselves an "expat", such as those at http://money.cnn.com/gallery/retirement/2014/10/14/expat-retirement/index.html 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-dto-htmlstory.html 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?

mc32 10y ago
There are definitely some social strata connotations to it. Migrant workers, who often have visas pre-arranged for them and are given housing, are typically called migrant workers because they do "rounds". Conversely the Mexican workers at the Mexican consulate would be Mexican ex-pats and so would Cemex workers sent by the company to their US offices. 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.
- dalke 10y ago
  And like keerthiko, I am disturbed by the easy acceptance of this distinction. 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".
  - mc32 10y ago
    People self-label all the time. Retirees are one of them. I wouldn't normally call them ex-pats, but if that's what they want to call themselves, I don't care. Same for migrant workers. They can call themselves ex-pats too, if they like. That said, poor immigrants will rarely mix with the less poor immigrants from the same country, regardless of nationality --for the most part. 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.
    - dalke 10y ago
      Yes, This is all about self-labeling as I don't think there are any laws which cover what "ex-pat" means. At that level I'm pointing out that your definition is only a partial fit to the existing use. 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".
      - 10y ago

by dalke 10y ago

mc32 10y ago

There are definitely some social strata connotations to it. Migrant workers, who often have visas pre-arranged for them and are given housing, are typically called migrant workers because they do "rounds". Conversely the Mexican workers at the Mexican consulate would be Mexican ex-pats and so would Cemex workers sent by the company to their US offices. 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.

dalke 10y ago
And like keerthiko, I am disturbed by the easy acceptance of this distinction. 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".
- mc32 10y ago
  People self-label all the time. Retirees are one of them. I wouldn't normally call them ex-pats, but if that's what they want to call themselves, I don't care. Same for migrant workers. They can call themselves ex-pats too, if they like. That said, poor immigrants will rarely mix with the less poor immigrants from the same country, regardless of nationality --for the most part. 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.
  - dalke 10y ago
    Yes, This is all about self-labeling as I don't think there are any laws which cover what "ex-pat" means. At that level I'm pointing out that your definition is only a partial fit to the existing use. 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".
    - 10y ago