BootsnAll Travel Community

A good friend of mine in the UK (American-Canadian, with a Scandinavian wife and new born child) told me on my recent visit to London that "we are no longer expats...we are immigrants". He had said something similar before ages ago, but now things are different...we both have since accomplished the bureaucratic feat of 'permanent residency' and he is deep into the naturalization process. I'm still a good five years off. But anyway...

Immigrant?

Yea, I guess so.

It just sort of happened, but the more I think about it the more I feel ex-expat. Now the concept of 'expat' equates to 'just blowing through town'.

The issue also comes up in not so stoo-centric discussions because certain members of my immediate family have problems with "them darn immigrants", but turn a blind eye to my status with a disturbing "but you are different". Yea...how does that work?

I'm still working through the issues and wonder what you all think.

I think it's all just relative to your home country. When you leave your home country your an expat (relative to them), but to the country you enter your an immigrant. I've always looked at it that way.

so where do 'expats' fit into that? I lived in the UK for 2.5 years, but never felt like i was an immigrant/emigrant, and nobody labeled me as such.

Alright, let me rephrase.

I would look at anyone entering my home country (my country of citizenship) and who either intends on having permanent residence or actually has permanent residence as an immigrant. Everyone else I'd classify as an expat. So, if your a short termer in my country or you're are a foreigner living in any country other than my own (regardless of time frame or residency status) I'd classify you as an expat.

My absolutely absurd opinion...

I think it depends on your intentions. If you plan on staying (forever?) and even getting citizenship, then I consider you an immigrant. But I think the word "immigrant" DOES have a certain connotation....leaving a land of poverty for a land with more opportunities. And "expat" has a more glamourous image, someone (temporarily) working for a multi-national company, or someone pursuing artistic endeavors in Paris or Berlin.
I'm in Brazil trying to get permanent residency, but I don't consider myself an immigrant because I'm not going to apply for citizenship. Also, I wonder something: if I DID become a Brazilian citizen, would I ever be considered Brazilian by Brazilians? Probably, because Brazil is a nation of immigrants. But let's say I applied for Italian citizenship. Would Italians ever consider me Italian? I'm curious because European nations are receiving such an influx of immigrants. And most European nations (Britain excluded) weren't shaped by immigration.

My old boss who left London when he was 25 and lived and worked in HK, Tokyo, Singapore, KL, Brussels, and now Bonn is a expat...not an immigrant.

I'm one of those darn immigrants to the US and it just so happened..never knew where 15 years went by. I will always be a "Indian American" here. Indian Americans born here consider themselves as Amerians but the Americans do not consider them Americans..they will always be Immigrants to them. 6th generation Mexican in Texan still is considered a mexican immigrant.

Since you are from the US you might be considered an expat but a carpenter from Poland in Europe will be considered a immigrant..even though he might have the same intentions as you.

Personally its a hard one for me too...I'm no longer an Indian citizen but neither am I'm considered a American. I have each one of my foot on one land...physically and mentally.

I've seen this conversation before, but never much paid attention to it because it didn't really have anything to do with me. Now that it's beginning to, let the navel-gazing begin!

I also think it has a lot to do with "intent", in combination with the length of time you've been living in the same country that isn't your original country of citizenship.

If someone leaves their country, lives somewhere else for a few years, then goes to somewhere else for a few more, and keeps moving (or returns to their original country), I'd classify that lifestyle as ex-pat. If, on the other hand, someone leaves their home country with no intention of returning, and successfully stays over xx length of time with still no intention of returning or going elsewhere, I'd say that enters into immigrant territory.

Me? I'm just a "visitante rentista", which is what it says on my shiny new, five-year migratory visa. Good enough for me.

And Madhu, with all respect:

quote:

Indian Americans born here consider themselves as Amerians but the Americans do not consider them Americans..they will always be Immigrants to them.

Hmmmm. Not sure about that. I don't doubt for a second that some people, probably a lot of people, think that way, but....that's a pretty broad brush. I'm probably being naive, but I certainly hope that's not the case. (Same with the sixth generation Mexican in Texas. But I claim no understanding of Texas and things could be entirely different there, so I have no idea.) That said, I grew up in Southern California, and I certainly considered my friends of Mexican descent to be Americans.

NTFT: point taken..it was a broad brush. Perhaps I should have said "some americans" or maybe even those who have a problem with Immigration in general.

its a whole another topic...who would folks consider "American". Don't want to derail the thread.

No worries, Madhu! I suspect your observation is more right than wrong. And besides, heck, if I bothered to look into it - and I don't - I'm probably only a third- or fourth-generation English-Danish-German-American.

EuroMutt!

(Plus whatever else is going on in that un-researched background...)

It's interesting that this topic is here today. This morning at work, when I was avoiding my job by doing some other, funner, stuff, the word "immigration" appeared on my paper. And I thought, "Wait! I'm not going to be an immigrant! My grandparents immigrated. I'm just..........."

Just what? I'm definitely trying to emigrate, and so doesn't that make me an immigrant?

That thought makes me smile. I've always had such a huge issue with people (co-workers, complete strangers, my immigrant grandparents) who separate society into US (meaning, people who look like me and speak my language) and THEM (meaning "them foreigners who come in and STEAL OUR JOBS!!!"). I mean, seriously, is there really a "them"? Only if you make it so.

For me, it's kind of exciting to think I'm a part of the "them" now. Or at least, I'm trying to become one of Them. And Stoo, I just bet I'd get the same responses were I to press the issue: "Oh, we don't mean you. You're different."

Why? Why am I different? Is it because my first language is the same as yours? Is it because my only accent is Yankee? Is it because you know me?


Okay, enough of that. I'm just pondering. And since my ultimate goal IS citizenship in my intended country of residence, I guess I'll be just another one of the immigrant masses.

Good times.

The specific denotations of expat, immigrant, and emigrant are clear to me, and we all seem to be in agreement there. They're in the dictionary, ffs. But emotionally, they are more vague. Their connotations get people wound up. I'll just throw some out, even though I don't necessarily agree with them, as they are inherently subjective and individually defined.

Ex-pat: white-collar, carefree, western
Immigrant: opportunists, hard working, cheating the natives some how, foreign
Emigrant: unpatriotic, escapist

Feel free to share your own connotations, or those you think others have!

quote:

Originally posted by Not the first Travis:
I also think it has a lot to do with "intent", in combination with the length of time you've been living in the same country that isn't your original country of citizenship.

If someone leaves their country, lives somewhere else for a few years, then goes to somewhere else for a few more, and keeps moving (or returns to their original country), I'd classify that lifestyle as ex-pat. If, on the other hand, someone leaves their home country with no intention of returning, and successfully stays over xx length of time with still no intention of returning or going elsewhere, I'd say that enters into immigrant territory.

Of which I fit smartly in between. And I guess that is what prompted this thread. I started out just sorta of blowing where the wind took me, but then the nesting instincts set in...and I realized how happy I was here. It was not a snap awakening, but a gradual process. Maybe two or three years in the making with many influential events.

quote:

And Madhu, with all respect:

quote:

Indian Americans born here consider themselves as Amerians but the Americans do not consider them Americans..they will always be Immigrants to them.

Hmmmm. Not sure about that. ...that's a pretty broad brush. I'm probably being naive, but I certainly hope that's not the case. (Same with the sixth generation Mexican in Texas. But I claim no understanding of Texas and things could be entirely different there, so I have no idea.) That said, I grew up in Southern California, and I certainly considered my friends of Mexican descent to be Americans.

It's all relative, me thinks. 1) Indian immigration to America is relatively new, Mexican immigration to America is as old as America is. 2) The more culturally homogeneous an American's origin is, the more "not American" another American (native or naturalized) seems.

quote:

And Stoo, I just bet I'd get the same responses were I to press the issue: "Oh, we don't mean you. You're different."

Why? Why am I different? Is it because my first language is the same as yours? Is it because my only accent is Yankee? Is it because you know me?

It just sort of pisses me off. The people I get that from also grind my goose on other, related family issues. (E.g.: My sister's husband's parents are immigrants and the subject to these judgments.) And now I more disturbed by it because it means either they truly have a problem with the decisions I've made, based on the critical comments of my brother-in-law's family, or they are dressing up their racism in anti-immigration clothing. Either/or it is pretty darn ugly.

Stoo, why is it so important for you to label yourself?

But yeah, I think you're probably right about this....

quote:

1) Indian immigration to America is relatively new, Mexican immigration to America is as old as America is. 2) The more culturally homogeneous an American's origin is, the more "not American" another American (native or naturalized) seems.

I mean, I grew up in a town called San Buenaventura. No wonder I'm currently in Mexico.

quote:

Originally posted by Not the first Travis:
Stoo, why is it so important for you to label yourself?

(This question? Coming from the 'token dork'?)

It's not the label that is important, per se, but the abstract meaning when communicating with others and myself about where I am and where I am going. Hence why I delve into the fuzzier semantics.

Hahahaha! As soon as I hit "post", I new I was skeeeerude with the karma title thingy. Oooops. Beer?

I struggle with how to classify myself as well. I still spend at least 3 months a year in the US for work. And then the rest of the time I work from abroad wherever the girlfriend has an expat gig. Lately, that's been about 3-6 months a place. So, not really long enough anywhere to be an expat. And, definitely not a traveler. I've heard people referring to it as a Modern Nomad or LIP (location independent professional). But, nobody knows what the hell that is. Myself included.

Have a book recommendation...Read the "Global Soul" by Pico Iyer. He talks about some of this stuff...

I say we are "global citizens".

I think (in my own opinionated way) there's two major differences:

1. an immigrant is dealing with "arriving" in a certain place and makes a life there. an expat is always having "left" home and somewhere else, but the somewhere is by comparison far less important.

2. an immigrant truly lives in the society they have arrived in, makes their living there and is in that social/tax/welfare system for better or worse. an expat get extra pay for the "hardship" of being away from home because his/her employer assumes that it is of course a hardship to be anywhere but the home country.

Oh, and then I have this image in my mind that's stuck with me ever since I met a few expats in Senegal way back: Jetsons. Local life takes place outside, come inside the home and everything is from their homecountry except the maid. Completely detached from the surrounding territory and its people.

I’ve always subscribed to the following definitions:

Immigrant: a non-native who will stay in the country.
Expat: a non-native who is temporarily staying in the country.

I call myself an expat because I cannot stay here for good without breaking the law. So I cannot be an immigrant and must be an ex-pat.

Which causes me some problems with the previous post: I think the implied “expat bad, immigrant good” in this analysis is a gross oversimplification.

“1. an immigrant is dealing with "arriving" in a certain place and makes a life there. an expat is always having "left" home and somewhere else, but the somewhere is by comparison far less important.”

I like (and often love) where I live now and do not consider Australia any less important than my home country and in some ways it is better.

“2. an immigrant truly lives in the society they have arrived in, makes their living there and is in that social/tax/welfare system for better or worse. an expat get extra pay for the "hardship" of being away from home because his/her employer assumes that it is of course a hardship to be anywhere but the home country”

Expats pay social/tax/welfare costs here and can’t pick and choose where to pay – and that’s the law everywhere, my friend. But we will not get any return on the social security system into which we pay, as me must depart before we qualify for social welfare (I consider this as my gift to the land of Oz in return for its hospitality and sunshine in January). Furthermore, I and many others get no “hardship” pay and in fact due to exchange rate movements often make less money.

Some assumptions in the comments about ex-pats are quite contrary to my experience, and I do know quite a few expats here and around the globe (we expats are a chatty bunch and love to network instead of work). First, as mentioned above, we’re not all living off some MNC trust fund. Many of us have taken the expat opportunity only because it gives us a chance to live in a new culture - the company is just supplying the job. Which leads to my second point: while the whole “Jetsons” analogy is funny and certainly applies to some, the vast majority of expats I’ve encountered are spending their limited time trying to experience the local culture and meet people. That is, they are "truly living in the society". Which leads to my next point: the majority of those few expats I’ve encountered that are Jetsons-like have kids and they are trying to create a familiar environment in the home for their children. That's just good parenting. Which brings me to my fourth point: some ex-pats are just plain jerks who have no interest in the local culture and are only ticking a box to get ahead in their particular rat race, but they are few and far between in my experience. Which leads me to my final point: what the hell to I know? This is just my experience. Your mileage may vary.

PS: Global Soul is a fantastic book. But so are all Pico Iyer’s books.

quote:

Originally posted by Aliantraveler:
Expats pay social/tax/welfare costs here and can’t pick and choose where to pay – and that’s the law everywhere, my friend. But we will not get any return on the social security system into which we pay, as me must depart before we qualify for social welfare

Not true. (I'm hearing that you mean everywhere in the world.) This is something that is highly dependent on home country-host country agreements. Some people get fucked, some people can cash out, some people take benefits, some people have a choice. And there are strange, fuzzy things in between, like "totalization". Depends on the countries involved.

You mean my sweeping statement isn't true??? Sorry Stoo - you're right there. I just meant that the laws, and not individual coice, determine who gets your payments - unless the law allows you to choose. And you wonder why tax lawyers get rich?


Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread....