Post by Tony CooperOn Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:13:44 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn CPost by occamPost by Jerry FriedmanPost by LewisWhat is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
I'm inclined to agree with Horace, though I might say "identification
with" rather than "allegiance to". I haven't checked whether I'm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/zd5yoc_OZQI/JMzkjxV-AwAJ
Thank you for that link. I thought that the issue was well thrashed out
at that time.
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
I don't think that's the case at all in the US. We have so many that
are here as "asylum seekers", and I don't think they have much of a
formal education.
Are you talking about legal immigrants only?
FWIW, there are also (resettled) refugees, whom I am not sure
if you count as asylum seekers who have been granted asylum.
Refugees tend to have minimal education as well.
I tend to restrict the term "refugee" to those recognized by
the UNCHR (UN High Commissioner for Refugee)[1]. The re-
settlements of refugees in the US are typically brokered en
bloc by the UNCHR. I would use "asylum seeker" for the rest
whose cases are dealt with more on an individual basis.
I wonder if a distinction can/should be made between asylum
seekers who have actually experienced persecution and those
who asked for asylum opportunistically as a last resort to
get legal immigration status.
Btw, many immigrants who came on the basis of family reunion
are poorly educated as well. It varies quite a lot based
on the country of origin.
[1] In the UK, there is a concept of granting "status of
refugee" which is more or less the same as granting asylum.
I don't think this special usage should change the general
definition of a refugee being a person displaced because of
political turmoil.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
] A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted
] for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a
] particular social group or political opinion, is outside the
] country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear,
] is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country;
] or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country
] of his former habitual residence as a result of such events,
] is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Post by Tony CooperThe question is about numbers because you have said "on average".
There's no argument that many immigrants are highly educated, and many
are unable to get employment in the US that their education would
qualify them for. However, that "on average" statement is questioned.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr