An Expat Has Time to Reflect, Now That the Party’s Over

Whenever you hear something batshit insane about Missouri, it's probably safe to assume it happened in St. Louis County. Since splitting from the City in 1877, but especially since the Depression, the County has been an ongoing experiment in racism, poor governance, and predatory enforcement. There is no square meter of the County that isn't already oppressed by so many cities and villages and districts and commissions that it couldn't be split up for additional oppression. For decades, the first response to any political dispute has been to create another tiny little village or district or whatever. It's no surprise to find that one of these tin-pot dictators has been inspired to send people to jail for landscaping he doesn't like.

I'm not saying that we don't have problems in the rest of the state, but somehow we generally avoid reports like the following:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/03/...

(I don't feel about disclaiming St. Louis County: just ask them if they'd like to be associated with us hillbillies in the Ozarks.)

> 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.

An expat in British English generally means a British or similar professional person who is temporarily (estar) working in a country, but expects to return home (maybe their whole working life until retirement). It implies you identify yourself with your birth country.

An immigrant is someone who has permanently (ser) moved - who now defines their identity as being from their new county.

That said, there is a nice article on The Guardian (a socialist UK newspaper) which agrees with the racial bias: https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/global-de...

An expat in American English can now mean someone who has moved to a country e.g. I heard a retired couple call their mostly American community "expats" in Mexico.

It definitely has overtones of a white professional job. The meaning is obviously in the process of changing, and has country specific divergences (home country, and away country).

It is a loaded term of group identity, so yes, it will exclude some people with bias.

Where have you seen anyone use expat "as a way to differentiate between living in another country while remaining primarily a U.S. citizen (and still paying U.S. taxes, etc.) vs. renouncing your U.S. citizenship and leaving forever"?

Because as a US citizen living overseas I've paid very close attention to this topic and have never heard anyone connect the two together.

By this definition, almost every American overseas is an expat, yes? Including US military currently based overseas? If so, it's very far from any definition I'm used to. Perhaps you can point to one of your sources?

> Depends how you are using the term

No, it doesn't. What definition are you using where an expat is something other than an immigrant? Or at the very least, a temporary immigrant.

> though again, a significant percentage of American expats are retirees living on social security

Yes, those retiree expats are immigrants. What else can they be? They immigrated to another country to retire.

I think you are confusing "immigrants" with "foreign workers"?

Seems like you just want to argue, so I'm not sure anything I say matters. You continue to harp on one or two words while ignoring the main points I am making (even though I point out explicitly "these are the main points I am making").

Anyways, to address the issues you raised...

> Where have you seen anyone use expat...

I see the term almost exclusively in researching possible foreign locations to live and work remotely as a U.S. citizen. It is a fairly rare event for me to see it used elsewhere, but I rarely read about U.S. citizens employed onsite in other countries, so that is really not surprising. My concerns are generally what types of residency options are available, and what they might mean for the U.S. side of things (taxes, citizenship, etc.).

>> Depends how you are using the term

> No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does, and again I feel like you are really just trying to argue here. What I meant by "Depends" is that your post was not clear as to which parties were in which country to determine economic ramifications, so said another way "whether your statement is true depends on specifically what your statement is saying". I don't see how you could have read the sentence that followed and not have gotten that. The point is, a country receiving immigrants that increase the labor pool will thereby experience lower demand for workers.

> I think you are confusing "immigrants" with "foreign workers"?

I'm not confusing anything, and I have no issue with the definition of expatriate and immigrant meaning the same thing. I've stated some of what I've seen as an anecdote that may or may not shed some light on why some people may use the word the way they do.