Because US and EU citizens think that "immigrant" is a dirty word for people from poor countries.
To all the other people talking about intent to settle or not: read the post. The author lived in China for 20 years and built a family there. They're not an "expat" under any technical definition of the word.
> To all the other people talking about intent to settle or not: read the post. The author lived in China for 20 years and built a family there. They're not an "expat" under any technical definition of the word.
And yet he's leaving. He calls the US "home". So evidently he was an expat.
He repeatedly talks about abandoning his plans to build a life in China. Changing plans when the government decides you're the enemy doesn't invalidate decisions taken before that.
EU citizens mostly don't think in English at all... In most languages you would call someone who moves abroad an emigrant or something similar. From the point of view of the new country, they are obviously an immigrant. The word for people from poor countries is refugee or "economic migrant".
That's true in their native language, but it's common for high status Europeans to use the term expat when speaking English as well. And in my experience, most European immigrants speak English to a conversational level.
It's likely not an intentional choice, but a learned one, since other westerners around them use that term.
This is silly. I migrated to the US from a wealthy country and I am an immigrant. I've also lived temporarily in other countries, and therefore was an expat.
Well yes, going by the dictionary definitions that's true, and I commend you for adopting the immigrant term. I'm an immigrant too, and proud of it.
At the same time, it's also clear that the status of the country determines whether people call themselves immigrants or expats. In the US people are immigrants, in Japan they're expats, for example. US citizens in particular very rarely refer to themselves as immigrants in my experience.
>Emigrants (the word I think you were looking for)
Emigrants leave and immigrants come. It's two sides of the same coin. You can't emigrate without immigrating. Except if you manage to become stateless and remain on international territory.
Migrants is just the term without the direction. Which is unnecessary if you're not talking about the country they leave or move to.
An immigrant has an intent to settle, an expat doesn't. In America, one could theoretically lose work authorization should he refer or present himself as an immigrant.
Technically yes. The legal term for someone on temporary work authorization without an intent to immigrate would be something like "non-immigrant alien resident". The common term would be... expat.
The common term, yes. But the legal definition of expat is:
2) Expatriate The term “expatriate” means— (A) any United States citizen who relinquishes his citizenship, and (B) any long-term resident of the United States who ceases to be a lawful permanent resident of the United States (within the meaning of section 7701(b)(6) ).
That's what I've read, too, i.e. intent to settle, or not.
Maybe wanting to move forever (i.e. migrant) is more common, if one is from a poorer country, which could explain why some others here thought that "immigrant" implied "poor and less educated".
While there are very jaded views about cultural superiority and other things like that. I think the truth is probably less cynical.
I can move to japan and marry a Japanese wife, work for a Japanese company, pay Japanese taxes, and speak fluent Japanese, but I will never be Japanese because my skin is white.
People can move to America, and as long as you speak English without an accent, there is an assumption that you are American.
If the place you move will assimilate you, then I would call that migrancy. If the place you move will never accept you, then I would call that ex-patriotism.
People who move to civil societies migrate, people who move to ethnic societies become ex-patriots.
Not the person you are replying to, but I have experience here. It’s both. For most Japanese, nationality is intrinsically tied to ethnicity, and cannot be changed.
I don't doubt your experience. I was projecting myself onto others, probably too much...
America is a big place. If you don't have that experience in big west coast cities, I would be a bit surprised. Likewise, I would expect well educated folks to also assume that lack of accent means American, not in an intentional way, but an automatic one.
There are large swathes of the US that I doubt would see anyone who isn't a white evangelical christian as American.
My intention was not to be black and white or absolutist, though I see how what I said reads that way.
> without accent?
Yes
> are you saying "Japanese" to mean "fit in as japanese" or "japanese nationality"?
In a way, I meant both. I meant for a Japanese person to apply the word "Japanese" to me casually. To see me as part of "us" when a Japanese person says "us" to mean Japanese.
I think if you read the article I linked, what I am trying to express will be clear. It is an extremely meaty read, but I feel like it is somewhat like taking the red pill when it comes to understanding politics and the political forces that govern us. American education has poked at the ideas in that article without providing the philosophical basis. I've heard "diversity" so many times, but never a real, non hand-wavy, explanation of why diversity is important or why we apply energy to it.
I would argue that the path to Japanese citizenship is easier than being seen as Japanese. One is a pre-defined legal process, the other one depends on the complexities of what is cultural identity.
Thank you for the correction. I think I typed "expatriot" and used the closest suggestion from the right click menu without thinking about it too much. Embarrassing, but such is life.
funnily, foreigners can never acquire chinese citizenship unless some chinese ancestry and/or enough connection in high places. Legal Naturalizations are a few hundreds a year, on a foreign population of 850 thousands
Why, you can still be useful but only marginally so.
For instance the demand for ESL classes is largely driven by school curriculum, which in China is set by the government rather than organic market forces. Welding, on the other hand, is necessary for physical production of certain goods. It can be argued about second order effects from learning a language but from purely libertarian economic POV a welder creates more added value.
All those immigrant tech workers in the US are assuredly adding more to the economy than they are taking. (And yes, they are immigrants on the path to US citizenship, not expats.) Your argument makes no sense.
