Hey, I don't usually respond to vids but thought I would have to chip in here, given some of your dismissive responses to others. Firstly I watched the full three parts for this, and actually appreciate you taking the time to produce such content. I myself was first an 'expat and then became an immigrant: but this only existed in my mind. However, from my perspective this is an argument about semantics and cultural meaning. Frankly the immigration policies of most western countries do not create any distinction between the two - you are an immigrant or there on a temporary holiday or working visa etc etc - in the eyes of the law you are an immigrant. I feel your perspective has been coloured somewhat by the experience of living in Portugal and the other countries which have extremely receptive migration regimes for non-EU migrants (eg the PT digital nomad visa). In most of western and Northern Europe you can expect to be put in the same queue as those from Africa or Asia when it comes to arriving and staying beyond three months. Source; my own personal experience of living in Belgium and trust me, an American coming to work or study here is considered an immigrant. Full stop. What counts is your residency status (permanent or not). Debating over the meanings of word is all great until you have to deal with an immigration service or employment bureau. The only 'expat' status that exists in Belgium is for foreign executives working in international companies, and only means that they have to pay Belgian tax on their Belgian income. This regime is only applying to 20,000 or so high paid executives. Also, generally the term ex-pat is something very anglo specific and I think has its origins in the age of Empire. My Francophone friends would not use it and frankly the Dutch speakers will regard you as a new immigrant. Generally within the EU, there is a greater distinction between non-EU and EU migration, rather than some cultural focus on expat vs immigrant status. Thanks and keep up the good content.
Dismissive comments? I don't agree with the idea that there is not a distinction except in our mind. I understand that people don't like the way that some of these words have been utilized in popular culture, however that doesn't take away from the fact that some people move abroad temporarily and others permanently and these words help define those differences. Do those opportunities exist for some passport holders and not others? Absolutely, and that's how the words ended up being so loaded. But their distinctions still matter. I would also disagree with the idea that temporary visas are the same as long term ones. I've had Student, Work, Working Holiday, and Residencies in six countries now in Asia, Australia, and Europe - there are absolutely differences in the ones that were more temporary and the ones that were not. All of that being said, I don't think any of these words matter to your process of moving to another country. However, they are still useful. For example, I live in Portugal as an immigrant and I am a US expat. I do my US taxes as an expat - that is my relationship with the US, they don't care that I am an immigrant, as it doesn't define my relationship with the US. Ultimately, these words exist and are used and people get endlessly triggered by them but there are times when they all have their uses as we need language to help us define the world around us.
The Merriam-Webster definitions are not consistent, they lack the reference to permanence on the emigrant definition but then have a section explaining the difference between emigrant and immigrant where they say it’s only a matter of the point of reference: you're an immigrant in the destination country and an emigrant in the country of origin. They also say the following: "There is very little difference between immigrant and emigrant semantically; The main difference is that immigrant is used in reference to the country moved to, and emigrant is used in reference to the country moved from."
In your examples in the second video you have a lot of cases where you say someone is an emigrant but not an immigrant, because they're only temporarily abroad. It seems to me that when someone is an emigrant they are also an immigrant, but in your examples you have many cases where someone is an emigrant but not an immigrant because you dropped the "permanent or semi-permanent" characteristic of emigrant.
I've watched all 3 parts. What I see, at least in Portugal, is that the terms are not used according to the definitions in English. Most US and UK immigrants living permanently in Portugal (retired, applying for Portuguese citizenship, with Portuguese spouses, etc) call themselves expats. On the other hand, I know Brazilians who come to Portugal during the Summer to work in construction and are identified as "imigrante". This makes sense because, in Portuguese, it's not common to use the word "expatriado". The truth is that there is a definition, and then there is a connotation, the implied meaning. The word expat is, in reality (the implied meaning), not related to how long the person stays in the country but to economic security and lifestyle choices (as opposed to escaping difficult circumstances in their home country). It's like a prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar situation. Prescriptive grammar is useful to help maintain consistency, but it's the descriptive grammar that offers a realistic understanding of how the language works in everyday life.
I completely agree. But the other side of that is that there is a use for the word expat. And there are times we need to use it (i.e. I file my taxes in the US as an expat, not an immigrant). So we need to start using the word correctly. Or... find another one.
As someone who studied migration & immigration in the Mediterranean, these are quite accurate. In the movement of persons/people, there are a couple things to consider which are all based on the question “Why?”. This will bring statuses like refugee for example. A good example of an expat are those in a country for a contract job or for school. Peacecorps is an example of this. NGO workers that often travel to different countries can also be considered migrant workers. This is such a rich subject as there is historical importance to this facet of humanity. One other immigration term that isn’t talked enough as it is charge is the colonizer or imperialist which is another instance of movement of people & its power over the indigenous residents.
Thanks for this constructive comment! I give some examples of possible situations in part 2. Colonizer is such an interesting one, thank you for bringing it up! I feel that people think of it as a historical term when there are in fact very real modern colonizing powers.
@@thecountryjumper you're welcome! and yes, very much real. The one enlightening thing of migration studies is the intersection of history & human rights law. We get to a conversation about the interplay of power & demography. Another charged term is the settler (colonialism) which still exist today, the prime example is what is going on in Israel-Palestine and Countries that are external Territories/Colonies of another Country (France/US/etc).
I don't understand the point of this video. Why was it recommended to me? Also, as a mathematician, I feel that these definitions are kind of vague. But well, they are about real world concepts I guess...
@@thecountryjumper I'm actually not so negative. I don't "dislike" the video and I'm sorry if my comment came across like this. My intention was simply to express genuine confusion, without any judgemental undertones. Whatever you make of the fact that someone didn't understand the point of this particular video is for you to decide. As for me, I will actually click on the sequel, to try and find out, what this video is about.
Hey, I don't usually respond to vids but thought I would have to chip in here, given some of your dismissive responses to others. Firstly I watched the full three parts for this, and actually appreciate you taking the time to produce such content. I myself was first an 'expat and then became an immigrant: but this only existed in my mind.
However, from my perspective this is an argument about semantics and cultural meaning. Frankly the immigration policies of most western countries do not create any distinction between the two - you are an immigrant or there on a temporary holiday or working visa etc etc - in the eyes of the law you are an immigrant. I feel your perspective has been coloured somewhat by the experience of living in Portugal and the other countries which have extremely receptive migration regimes for non-EU migrants (eg the PT digital nomad visa).
In most of western and Northern Europe you can expect to be put in the same queue as those from Africa or Asia when it comes to arriving and staying beyond three months. Source; my own personal experience of living in Belgium and trust me, an American coming to work or study here is considered an immigrant. Full stop. What counts is your residency status (permanent or not). Debating over the meanings of word is all great until you have to deal with an immigration service or employment bureau. The only 'expat' status that exists in Belgium is for foreign executives working in international companies, and only means that they have to pay Belgian tax on their Belgian income. This regime is only applying to 20,000 or so high paid executives.
Also, generally the term ex-pat is something very anglo specific and I think has its origins in the age of Empire. My Francophone friends would not use it and frankly the Dutch speakers will regard you as a new immigrant. Generally within the EU, there is a greater distinction between non-EU and EU migration, rather than some cultural focus on expat vs immigrant status.
Thanks and keep up the good content.
Dismissive comments?
I don't agree with the idea that there is not a distinction except in our mind. I understand that people don't like the way that some of these words have been utilized in popular culture, however that doesn't take away from the fact that some people move abroad temporarily and others permanently and these words help define those differences. Do those opportunities exist for some passport holders and not others? Absolutely, and that's how the words ended up being so loaded. But their distinctions still matter.
I would also disagree with the idea that temporary visas are the same as long term ones. I've had Student, Work, Working Holiday, and Residencies in six countries now in Asia, Australia, and Europe - there are absolutely differences in the ones that were more temporary and the ones that were not.
All of that being said, I don't think any of these words matter to your process of moving to another country. However, they are still useful. For example, I live in Portugal as an immigrant and I am a US expat. I do my US taxes as an expat - that is my relationship with the US, they don't care that I am an immigrant, as it doesn't define my relationship with the US.
Ultimately, these words exist and are used and people get endlessly triggered by them but there are times when they all have their uses as we need language to help us define the world around us.
The Merriam-Webster definitions are not consistent, they lack the reference to permanence on the emigrant definition but then have a section explaining the difference between emigrant and immigrant where they say it’s only a matter of the point of reference: you're an immigrant in the destination country and an emigrant in the country of origin.
They also say the following:
"There is very little difference between immigrant and emigrant semantically; The main difference is that immigrant is used in reference to the country moved to, and emigrant is used in reference to the country moved from."
Yes, all that is accurate and consistent. I seem to not be seeing your point
In your examples in the second video you have a lot of cases where you say someone is an emigrant but not an immigrant, because they're only temporarily abroad.
It seems to me that when someone is an emigrant they are also an immigrant, but in your examples you have many cases where someone is an emigrant but not an immigrant because you dropped the "permanent or semi-permanent" characteristic of emigrant.
I've watched all 3 parts. What I see, at least in Portugal, is that the terms are not used according to the definitions in English. Most US and UK immigrants living permanently in Portugal (retired, applying for Portuguese citizenship, with Portuguese spouses, etc) call themselves expats. On the other hand, I know Brazilians who come to Portugal during the Summer to work in construction and are identified as "imigrante". This makes sense because, in Portuguese, it's not common to use the word "expatriado". The truth is that there is a definition, and then there is a connotation, the implied meaning. The word expat is, in reality (the implied meaning), not related to how long the person stays in the country but to economic security and lifestyle choices (as opposed to escaping difficult circumstances in their home country). It's like a prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar situation. Prescriptive grammar is useful to help maintain consistency, but it's the descriptive grammar that offers a realistic understanding of how the language works in everyday life.
I completely agree. But the other side of that is that there is a use for the word expat. And there are times we need to use it (i.e. I file my taxes in the US as an expat, not an immigrant). So we need to start using the word correctly. Or... find another one.
As someone who studied migration & immigration in the Mediterranean, these are quite accurate. In the movement of persons/people, there are a couple things to consider which are all based on the question “Why?”. This will bring statuses like refugee for example. A good example of an expat are those in a country for a contract job or for school. Peacecorps is an example of this. NGO workers that often travel to different countries can also be considered migrant workers. This is such a rich subject as there is historical importance to this facet of humanity. One other immigration term that isn’t talked enough as it is charge is the colonizer or imperialist which is another instance of movement of people & its power over the indigenous residents.
Thanks for this constructive comment! I give some examples of possible situations in part 2.
Colonizer is such an interesting one, thank you for bringing it up! I feel that people think of it as a historical term when there are in fact very real modern colonizing powers.
@@thecountryjumper you're welcome! and yes, very much real. The one enlightening thing of migration studies is the intersection of history & human rights law. We get to a conversation about the interplay of power & demography. Another charged term is the settler (colonialism) which still exist today, the prime example is what is going on in Israel-Palestine and Countries that are external Territories/Colonies of another Country (France/US/etc).
I don't understand the point of this video. Why was it recommended to me?
Also, as a mathematician, I feel that these definitions are kind of vague. But well, they are about real world concepts I guess...
Hot tip for a mathematician, if you don't like a certain type of video being recommend to you, don't comment on that type of video.
@@thecountryjumper I'm actually not so negative. I don't "dislike" the video and I'm sorry if my comment came across like this.
My intention was simply to express genuine confusion, without any judgemental undertones.
Whatever you make of the fact that someone didn't understand the point of this particular video is for you to decide.
As for me, I will actually click on the sequel, to try and find out, what this video is about.
@@IceQueenaliasIQ It was likely recommended to you because people who have watched other videos you've watched also watched this one.
Because they don't know the word "emigrant" which is a person who leaves their country for another. Emigrant and Immigrant look up the difference.😂
Did you not watch the video at all?