The Difference Between an Expat & an Immigrant
This article in The Guardian has been doing the rounds on my Facebook (lol) feed again, and it annoyed me even more now than it did 3 years ago.
For those who don't know, I considered myself a pure Left-leaning individual when it comes to politics (rather than my physical stature which is clearly right-leaning). As time went by, the left started to annoy me - as I'm sure it has the majority of the world - and push me more towards the centre.
I'm still a classical lefty by any means, but the growing phenomenon of Social Justice Warriors re-defining 'left' is something I abhor increasingly by the day. Here is such an example why.
Why are white people expats when the rest of us are immigrants?
This seems like a fair question that many might not actually know. When you Google Expatriate you get:
a person who lives outside their native country.
When you google Immigrant you get:
a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
Seems to be more or less the same right?
So the Guardian lays into this.
In the lexicon of human migration there are still hierarchical words, created with the purpose of putting white people above everyone else. One of those remnants is the word “expat”.
This seemed odd to me, since I quite often see dark-skinned expatriates here in Shanghai. Maybe I'm delusional and they don't exist? I'm not entirely sure.
To hammer this point home, The Guardian repeats:
...you should expect that any person going to work outside of his or her country for a period of time would be an expat, regardless of his skin colour or country. But that is not the case in reality; expat is a term reserved exclusively for western white people going to work abroad.
To hammer it again, The Guardian repeats:
Africans are immigrants. Arabs are immigrants. Asians are immigrants. However, Europeans are expats because they can’t be at the same level as other ethnicities. They are superior. Immigrants is a term set aside for ‘inferior races’.
To really hammer it home, The Guardian repeats:
Some arrivals are described as expats; others as immigrants; and some simply as migrants. It depends on social class, country of origin and economic status
Wait a minute. This, taken as a quote from Wall Street Journal, is not The Guardian's argument. It specifically says it depends on social class, country of origin and economic status. You can see it in the quote above. It doesn't mention skin colour/race.
Though the BBC is slowly morphing into The Guardian over the years, their (thankfullly more recent) article gives a definition that is less retarded (Oops, offensive word):
“It’s not about the colour of your skin, and it’s not about the salary that you earn... A business expatriate, she says, is a legally working individual who resides temporarily in a country of which they are not a citizen, in order to accomplish a career-related goal (no matter the pay or skill level) — someone who has relocated abroad either by an organisation, by themselves or been directly employed by their host country.
The BBC then points out that it's not always the way the connotation plays out. We typically refer to people as expats if they are elite, wealthy and well educated, they say.
Well... yeah! This is pretty accurate. We refer to qualified, college educated elites as expats. Fair enough. What about immigrants?
Well, we don't need a journalist to tell us this. An immigrant is often perceived as an individual who moves to a country first, and looks for a job later, or; the less elite, less educated and less wealthy individuals that come to a wealthy, developed nation.
Now you can, of course, find subjective nuance in these terms, but I have to ask... Why did the Guardian attach skin colour to this? Why aren't black people in Shanghai expats? Why is my currently illegal immigrant white friend not an immigrant? What about the white Polish immigrants coming to the UK to find work? Are they not white?
Why, I ask you, is skin colour involved? Is it:
A) Because skin colour actually has something to do with it
B) Because The Guardian among all the other SJWs want to set a narrative of professional victimhood to promote the defamation of white skinned people?
Maybe I'll rant about this stuff more later, but if an Immigrant with dark skin comes to England, they will find a female head of state - the Queen - a female Prime Minister, a Female Scottish First Minister, and a Muslim Mayor of London. The country is run by minorities (Because females are a minority, don't forget).
People with different skin colours are afforded the same opportunities regardless - it would be illegal to do otherwise in England, in the US, Europe, Australia and other white-majority locations.
The fact that white people happen to be the most numerous of the wealthy, educated elites is a story for another day, but it has little bearing on this evil, patriarchal grasp us whities have on the word 'Expat'.
In 2018, you'd think most people would have just kind of moved on from this whole skin colour narrative. At the very least, you'd imagine this discrimination would be dying out as people grow up to give less of a sh*t. For me, literally the only time I think about skin colour is when the far-left demonises white skinned people.
Journalists in papers like The Guardian are doing their damnedest to bring segregation back (no exaggeration), and they'll lie through their teeth in articles such as this one to make it happen.
I'm obviously not saying racism doesn't exist or whatever. Just... stop adding it where there is none. Let it die. Jeeze.
Maybe I'll make a series out of this. Ranting.
You are a fucking white male rapist. Do humanity a favour and either kill yourself or cut your dick.
Even if I did, I'd still be privileged, so then what?
Actually, in the latter case you will get + 1 privilege points for being white and - 2 points for being transgender, which would make you less privileged then a white female but yeah, you would still be quite high in the privilege ladder.
You sure know your privilege calculations
You can always identify as black or even better an Indian for extra minus points!
I actually do identify as a cuck, so I think I end up on top here
:D
As a German, I can confirm that.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Emigrant: Anyone who leaves his country.
Immigrant: Anyone who arrives in a foreign country.
Migrant: Anyone who moves from one country to another.
Expat is literally an emigrant synonym. If you are a Mexican in the United States for example. In the United States, you will be an immigrant. In Mexico you will be an emigrant or expatriate. And in general, for statistics, you will be a migrant.
It is evident that for the United States and Europe, expatriates are white, because they are mostly white, and that immigrants are multiracial, because other continents are multiracial. Africa is mostly black, and Latin America is mostly mestizo or Amerindian.
In Latin America, where I live, Europeans are called immigrants, because they are not from here, and Latin Americans who leave their countries are recognized as emigrants or expatriates. In Venezuela, it is said that expatriates must return, that is, to the Venezuelans who left the country due to the crisis. These expatriates are not necessarily white, only a minority is, because the word has no racial connotation.
It seems to me that the only ones who are being racist, and who are having a eurocentric vision of the world, are The Guardian and the MSM.
Bang on, logical and straight-cut comment!
Why? Because many journalists are idiots on several levels. Not very intelligent, not educated, without logic and lazy to actually do some research.
On the contrary I think they know exactly what they're doing because they know it gets views and fame and glory, pandering to an audience that will follow their every last word, providing that word is the exact narrative in demand
WHile this may be true in some cases, many journalists are quite intelligent and educated and also want to do their research.
However they also need money. Money from newspaper (or TV) companies for who research is costs and as such reduced to the absolute minimum.
In the newspaper market it means (exampel Germany) that nearly all the "regional" newspapers are owned by just 4-5 companies. And most of the content is made in central offices (mostly Berlin) and just branded.
German satire show "Anstalt" did a nice research job just in the last show.
Look at the many different newspapers at the start and then at time 4:23 and 7:07
I am surprised to read something from you that actually makes sense. You should try that when you write in German, as well...
My writing always has sense. And mostly does make sense (everybody fails sometimes). But, alas, communication always requires two sides ;)
The definitions don't sound the same at all.
If I immigrate to a country, then I am an immigrant. If I'm living outside my country, then I'm an expat. If I'm living outside of my country and migrated permanently to another country, then I am an expat and an immigrant. What the BBC is calling an expat is actually a migrant worker. Though technically they are a migrant and an expat.
You are only an immigrant if you intend on immigrating permanently.
You raise a good point - they are not mutually exclusive! Expat literally translates as 'Gone out from one's country' - but words are fluid and the more we can change them to be offensive, the better, I say.
Well, it comes from Latin "ex patria" and means from and/or out of the fatherland".
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
Expats in my country is defined as any skilled personnel that is not a citizen. So regardless of skin color or race, you are automatically an expat if you are a non resident skilled worker in my country.
Using the definition the way it's properly defined?? How ridiculous
The Guardian definition is weird.
Yes. Skin colour has a lot to do with the difference between these two words.It is defined that way since the time unknown. But the thing is the world has changed a lot and hopefully the difference is now continuously shrinking.
Nah it has never been about skin colour. People have added that on their own but the reality is it's about economic status of one individual in their temporary working residency. It just so happens that, for the most part, non-whites make up the majority of non-wealthy individuals (though whites are certainly not exempt from poverty, even in England or the US), and so stereotypes perpetuate this false idea that immigrant = dark skin. Time to get rid of that idea, imo!
I am a university educated, business owner who pays more tax and generates more wealth for my clients than the average. I am classed as an immigrant or a migrant, even by many people I know in Australia. In 15 years abroad, the number of times someone has referred to me as an ex-pat I can count on one hand.
The whole argument is ridiculous though and those that get victimized, polarized and affected by the words of others are generally weak of mind which is generally, anyone who thinks that MSM actually gives a shit about anything other than advertising sales.
Aren't 51% of children born, female?
Yeah, the minority of females is just an observation on how they often behave.
I'm not denying expats get called immigrants, as people's subjective and personal experiences shape words like these which is why it's so loaded to begin with, but to say it's a white-only word and whites are all expats is pretty absurd since a 4 second browse of nationalities will give you the idea that this simply isn't the case...
No, 51% are born male (actually close to 52% I think).
Males die more often young though and life less long, so you have more old woman, which may have confused you.
Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)
Relevance: The Media's Obvious Attempt To Push Racism.
Our Purpose