Talk:Expatriate

With increasing globalization the numbers of expats flaoting around the world are certainly increasing. Does anyone have some ideas about the numbers? May be numbers can be given by different categories of expats.

There is nothing 'blurry' about the difference between an expatriate and an immigrant. Expatriates owe no allegiance to their host countries, and they are not citizens of those countries. Comparing Asians in Britain (most of whome are British citizens) with British expatriates in Asia (who, by definition, are not citizens of those countries), is not comparing like with like! A British expatriate in Saudi Arabia can be repatriated tomorrow- not so a British Asian in the UK, who has as much right to be there as a returned British expatriate.

I disagree - for some people the distinction between expatriate and immigrant is non-existent. International mobility is such (for people who have the necessary resources) that it is possible to be both. Natgoo 18:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

one would be an expat of where one comes from and an immigrant of where one goes to. i am also under the impression that to be an expat you must renounce citizenship in your former country; therefore, all expats are immigrants, but not all immigrants are expats.

Sorry, that's not the case at all. Note the first line of the article - "a person temporarily or permanently...". A citizen leaving a country temporarily doesn't renounce her citizenship. See [1]. Natgoo 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

being an expat has nothing to do with renouncing your citizenship, although you could renounce your citizenship and still perhaps be considered an expat. Plus many countries allow dual citizenships or even more simultaneously. Some countries do require just one citizenship...129.132.239.8 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely mystified by the article. Is somebody from the UK, now living in Spain, an expat or not? Surely an expat is always an emigrant/immigrant, even if only a temporary one? How about somebody from the UK, now retired in France, who has no intention to return to the UK? Tangerine Cossack 11:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember the definition isn't all inclusive. Immigrants are foreign persons who go to a country to take up perminent residence. Expats are individuals who leave their home country to live elsewhere. They're still immigrants, as they're foreign persons relocating to a country, however they're not necessarily renouncing allegiance or citizenship to their former country. Shadowrun 03:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand it. Take a look at the Wiktionary article. An expatriate can be somebody who has renounced their former citizenship and country. As far as I can see, nearly every migrant is an expatriate of some other country. The exceptions would be migrants who have no memory or documentation of former countries. This makes parts of the current article nonsense. Tangerine Cossack 19:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to apply an overly technical definition to it. The term "immigrant" denotes a large group of people whom I see the term "expatriate" being a definition sub-divided therein. Not all immigrants choose to leave their countries, but expatriates do. Shadowrun 03:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"not all immigrants leave their countries?"...thats nonsense, the very definition of an immigrant is someone that has left their country to settle in another. It tends to imply intention of permanent settlement. Anyways an expat can be temporary or permanent foreign resident, with or without intention of permanent settlement...129.132.239.8 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that one can give the kind of 'hard' definition that appeals to scientists to determine the difference between an expatriate and an immigrant. But they are definitely not the same thing; the words have very different connotations. For instance, my parents live in Moscow because my father works in the British Embassy there. They have no intention of staying there, they aren't particularly integrated into Russian society, and they certainly don't think of it as home. They are expatriates, part of the "ex-pat community" in Moscow.

On the other hand, the wife of a former boss of mine was born in Russia but has moved to the UK. She's married (obviously) a British man, had children here, and has no intention of living in Russia, though she does go back occasionally to see family. As far as she is concerned, Britain is now her home. She is thus an immigrant.

Those are kind of ends-of-the-spectrum cases, and there's bound to be some blurring in the middle. But that doesn't mean the words are interchangeable, even if you have a case where they could both arguably apply. By picking one, you're implying which of the two situations above you think that person is closer to; if you don't want to make such an implication you have to choose your phrasing very carefully, not just choose "immigrant" or "expat" at random and claim they're equivalent. Such are the joys of the English language. PeteVerdon 18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this debate is quite old.. but consider the following.. (1) An American moves to Japan to teach English for at least 5 years. Is she an expat or a migrant worker? (2) A Mexican comes to California for seasonal farm work. She has no intention of staying there permanently, and she isn't particularly integrated into American society. Is she an expat or an immigrant? (3) A Chinese student gets hired by a multinational corporation after graduating from a US college, but his intention is to go back to Shanghai after 3 years. Expat, immigrant, or migrant worker? The answer is as follows (1) She is an expat, as no American will ever identify himself/herself as a migrant worker. That's not something that Americans do. (2) She is a seasonal migrant worker. While she has all the intentions to go back home after the season, Mexicans aren't commonly labeled "expats." (3) Same as the answer number two. the term "expat" only applies to the Westerners and (sometimes) the Japanese (even the Wikipedia article says so). What can be the problem with this way of classifying people? Hmmmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.234.2 (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, somebody made a comment above "i am also under the impression that to be an expat you must renounce citizenship in your former country; therefore, all expats are immigrants, but not all immigrants are expats.". This is exactly the opposite of what you say. If a word can't be defined, I don't see how it can be used, except in situations where the author is only trying to seed confusion. Tangerine Cossack 20:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like to say it, but I'm afraid that other person is simply mistaken. He did indicate that he wasn't sure of himself ('under the impression').PeteVerdon 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries seem to favour something along the lines of "a person who lives outside their native country." Tangerine Cossack 20:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By this definition, the Russian woman above would be an immigrant to the UK and also an expatriate of Russia. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Tangerine Cossack 21:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expatriates are not immigrants, they technically don't migrate either. They're just the peculiar guests that never go home, mostly because they are uncomfortable when they are home. You must consider the fact that the expatriate lifestyle is rather much older than you think. In the days before passports (a development after WWI with the League of Nations), especially in Europe, people didn't consider divisions by national boundaries (even in the days of the emerging nation-state) and felt divided only in terms of class. The upper classes, across national division, were actually well connected. See for instance Renoir's movie Grand Illusion (1936) for a prime example of this. The entire principle of the expatriate today is very similar in sentiment to the cosmopolitan nature of the upper classes in pre WWI society. The lifestyle is seen as more unique now, only because the lower classes have fallen around this notion of "nationality" that perverts and limits the extent of their worldview. In order to understand expatriates, you have to understand the Cosmopolitan Sensibility. —ExplorerCDT 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you cant generalize so much about expats, there are all sorts, some always do have the intention of returning to their "home" country at some point, some dont. some are just on work assignment abroad so fall into the expat community of their home nation, some are visiting for medium to long durations, some have left because they arent happy living in their home country...129.132.239.8 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so would it be fair to say that only the upper and middle classes can be expats? The working classes become economic immigrants or guest workers instead? I'm still trying to work out whether I'm suposed to be an expat myself: I don't life in my country of birth. Tangerine Cossack 10:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rarely seen lower classes do so. Initially, living abroad as an expat does take some startup capital, which often the lower classes cannot muster. Sure, in the long run, the life is cheaper than say living in the US, or UK, as a native, but that first year or so, setting up a new life abroad, is make or break...and usually the lower classes are broke before they would have a chance to start. Secondly, the lower classes usually don't have the expansive education needed to appreciate such a lifestyle. If you notice in history, most of the expats that are rather famous (like the Lost Generation folks in the 1920s), are either Ivy Leaguers, intellectual, or pseudo-intellectuals. Usually upper class. I won't say it's impossible, but it is very infrequent. Perhaps part of the bias is that lower classes are not generally thought of doing anything but emigrating as steerage (the new form of which seems to be Hispanics crossing the desert southern border of the U.S.). —ExplorerCDT 16:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know about that, its specifically the lower classes that form large parts of the expat communities as well as more wealthy citizens, a lower class american can still easily muster the cash to buy a plane ticket somewhere and live for a while, plus they may find some work in the new locale, in europe we have large expat communities of africans that were truly in desperate poverty more than the poorest american ever could be, yet manage somehow to travel here, and then settle either temporarily or long term, there are vast expat communities in europe of people that were the lowest of the lower classes...129.132.239.8 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that far from all ex-pats 'never go home'. My parents, and all their various Air Force and Army friends who've lived abroad from time to time, have all gone (or will go) home. On the other hand, I also have some relatives living in Africa who I think are unlikely to come back here before they die. They'd regard themselves as ex-pats, though - I'm quite certain they don't see themselves as even partly African, so they can hardly be immigrants. As far as they're concerned they're British people who just happen to live in Africa. They'd fit very well into ExplorerCDT's 'Cosmopolitan Upper Classes' model. PeteVerdon 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a lot of the last few years abroad, ex-patting. But I still can't explain it (adequately, that is). Yeah, eventually they do go home, but when expats go abroad, the end of their adventure abroad isn't usually planned out, never a thought. I was comparing them to guest that never leave. Eventually, being guests, they have to, but it just drags on and on and on. When they do go home, it's "Well, when I was..." and the nostalgia trip and "well, they do things better over there" is just as odious as their guest-ship. If an ex-pat is from country a, and travels to country b, it's because they don't fit into the mold of country a, and they never do fully assimilate into country b. In order to be an immigrant, there has to be an attempt and a desire to integrate into country b (even if not complete), and expats just don't seem to attempt or desire. It's like a benign growth. Though, the cosmopolitan aspect is an identification above national identities. They're just there. The entire concept of third-culture kids fits well with the parents. They're an altogether different culture. —ExplorerCDT 23:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know, i think everyone is trying to generalize way too much, there are all sorts of expats, some just want to be an expat for a year or two, some never planned on being an expat but end up liking their new situation and stay many years or forever, many do try and gain citizenship and status to their new locale, yet may maintain connection to their home or original country, expat implies they do have some connection to another country whether or not they like that country or are in allegiance to it anymore, they spent some time their at least and have some characteristics of that older country they were living in or they have parents from their or something, after enough generations i suppose a US family living abroad would not necessarily be considered expat anymore, yet they could be and still could have US citizenships even many generations later, they could even be most loyal to that original land, or to the new one, or some combination...129.132.239.8 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military and government personnel stationed in a foreign country are not seen as expatriates because they work for their home country.

This isn't entirely accurate. While I would agree that certain military personnel stationed in a foreign country would not be seen as expatriates, particularly those involved in active military operations, other such personal may be considered expats. For example, many of the American military stationed in Germany in locations such as Ramstein, Kaiserslautern, and Baumholder (and their dependants) view themselves as expats. Likewise, as a diplomat stationed abroad for my country, I consider myself to be an expat, and socialize extensively within the expat community in my locations of assignment. I think the salient distinction is where the government personnel live. Military personnel that live on a military base, or diplomatic personel that live on a compound, may view themselves less frequently as expats than those that live "on the economy."

Category:Ethnic groups

I've removed Category:Ethnic groups, seeing no reason for including it in this article. Does anybody disagree? -- Itai 14:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the first line is missing the verb

I've added one in. Natgoo 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1920s

Could someone expand this article to talk about historical expatriates? I'm thinking a mention about Gertrude Stein and the rest of the American expatriates in Paris in the 1920s would be nice. I would do it, but I don't know nearly enough. the iBook of the Revolution 22:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to virtual expat communities

I added the other day:

....."home" is. As a result of clashing cultures a lively blog culture evolved in the last years (see also below).

and

Spam?

What exactly is the motivation for the {{spam}} tag? Angr (talk • contribs) 11:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to your question, but considering there are no external links on this article I have removed the tag. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 16:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"expats" and "morals":

The "patriotic values" of an expat deminish.

New values "still do not fully aply"... (but they have an influence)

"Human rights" still seem true! Except for the "right of ownership" ... and therefor the right to kill others (.. except the right to kill killers) .

So: where in all this chaos is it, that the right to make some "influence for the better" vanishes ... ?

No external links still and I removed it again. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 15:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are colonials expatriates?

I'm trying to categorize some German nationals who lived in Cameroon while it was a German colony. Would they be considered expatriates? This would allow me to use Category:Expatriates and its subcategories. However, if being a colonist does not make one an expat, perhaps I should create a category for colonials? — Amcaja 19:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current use of the term expatriate is quite recent, only appearing in the last fify years or so. The original correct use is as a transitive verb meaning to banish from one's native land, or reflexively, to withdraw from one's native land and renounce citizenship. The modern usage only appears in the OED in the coloquial form expat, with a reference from 1962.

I don't see any problem in referring to such people as expatriates. Even if the term wasn't in use at the time, it doesn't mean we can't use it now. They didn't use the word 'German' either.

I do; simply on the basis that historically colonies were still the property and the territory of whatever country controlled them. Going to a colony, you weren't really leaving that country per se as much as transferring to another place controlled by that country. You're still subject to common laws therein.

In any case, though, I'd add at least another sixty years and maybe a lot more onto the date claimed above. A couple of extracts from the full OED:

1818 Q. Rev. XIX. 55 Patriots and expatriates are alike the children of circumstances.

1902 Daily Chron. 26 Feb. 3/5 ‘The Expatriates’ is a novel by Miss Lilian Bell... Its principal characters are rich Americans and titled Parisians, and the action takes place largely in Paris.

Both of these use the word as a noun, and the second one implies the meaning then was pretty much the same as it is now. PeteVerdon 19:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As colonials, they are NOT expatriates. However, if the colony is liberated from the mother country, the colonials become expatriates of the mother country, particularly those who were born and raised in the mother country and came to the colony as grown adults.

expat votes!

as their is a large american expat community abroad, 3-7 million, if they got together and organized, they could have heavy impact on american elections, especially if they registered from a couple swing states and last resided in those states before moving abroad, they could then vote in those states close elections and radically influence american election outcomes...currently it seems most expats dont vote, just mainly republican orientated military personnel, the civilian american expat community could become the most poowerful american election block if they merely organized and kept registered to a few key states 129.132.239.8 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

expats - american only?

The 'example' expats are all American - the expatriots (kind of obvious) but also artists, musicians, etc ... I think either link to "expatriots" from a disambiguation page, have some real examples of famous expats, or remove the section altogether. Any thoughts? 194.42.237.144 (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Usage

Added a section. Feel free to expand, the term expatriate is also used on unskilled labour from developing nations by many nations. It is not excusively used for Americans or Westerners living abroad.Some opinions and sections of the article actually represent sectarian or even racist views, at least they are xenophobic views. These are not political correct and can potentially be detrimental. Some of the cited countries have a more then 50% foreign workforce, many of whom are permanent residents. Expatriate can be a respectfull way of addressing these groups, regardless of their educational or cultural backgrounds.