3 ms·

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

by 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".
  - mc32 10y ago
    I don't support classicism --and occasionally recoil from it. But I also see the same people decrying classism decry "ugly [Americans]" --which is an interesting juxta. That said, I don't feel I need to proscribe usage. People can call themselves what they like and may label as they choose. This attitude may further classism, but to me it's a better alternative than telling people who they are or should think they are.
- keerthiko 10y ago
  > but if that's what they want to call themselves, I don't care. > 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.

by dalke 10y ago

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".
- mc32 10y ago
  I don't support classicism --and occasionally recoil from it. But I also see the same people decrying classism decry "ugly [Americans]" --which is an interesting juxta. That said, I don't feel I need to proscribe usage. People can call themselves what they like and may label as they choose. This attitude may further classism, but to me it's a better alternative than telling people who they are or should think they are.
keerthiko 10y ago
> but if that's what they want to call themselves, I don't care. > 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.