This is simply American exceptionalism.
To wit, an American is an “expat” elsewhere, and derided accordingly, (immigrants are fine).
Conversely, immigrants in general are scum in America, the exception being a few of the white ones from across the pond who are designated “expat” on American soil so as to differentiate them from the rest of the hoi polloi.
HTH!
(But don’t think the exceptionalism is limited to Americans, most countries practice some form of it, they just tend to use different vocabulary.)
And as I mentioned above, I found articles by Hong Kong immigrants/expats (among others) who found the opposite to be true. That is, they found “expat” to be the negative term as opposed to “immigrant”. And as you say, thoughts of “exceptionalism” are not limited to any particular nationality.
“Expat” is negative because it implies someone who thinks they are better than the general population in their new country. So “expat” is negative because it is higher status. “Immigrant” is less negative because “immigrants” know their place.
(Of course, this is a simplification, but the whole positive/negative thing is not germane to the start of this thread, which is that non-whites rarely get labelled “expat.”)
Hong Kong expats in Vancouver and Toronto are an interesting case. Many of them moved to Canada using the “people with money welcome” clause in Canadian immigration law. They showed up as high status. And they get labeled as expats, somewhat negatively.
But that supports the theory that expats are high status. Furthermore, I have observed Chinese people being referred to as white in the last few years, and I suspect that in 20 years, they will simply be white. Just like the Irish went from being non-white to white. And many other groups who today are generically white.
The whole notion that if a term is negative and used on whites, it can’t be racist is tricky. Lots of things are good: being good at math, being good with money, being good at sex. But when used on minority groups, it’s a way to put them down. The whole superficially positive/negative thing interacts with racism in tricky ways.
I think it depends on context. If you’re framing a discussion based on where a person or group of people are from then “expat” might be more appropriate.
For example, if a news outlet was running a story about former Cuban citizens who now lived across various countries in North America then it would make more sense to write a headline along the lines of
Cuban expats weigh in on proposed reforms from Castro regime
Than
Cuban-born immigrants to Canada, U.S. and Mexico weigh in on proposed reforms from Castro regime
Good points. It’s been described to me like this as well: Expatriates, by definition, are people living in a place foreign to them, and some folks look upon the “expat” as a person unwilling to adapt to the local customs. Immigrants, on the other hand, have decided to leave their place of birth and live in a place foreign to them. That is, they’ve made the choice to move and stay, implying assimilation and some level of acceptance.
That definition came to me via a formerly British person who applied for and received citizenship in Hong Kong.
Read “But where are all the customers’ yachts?” by Fred Schwed, Jnr.
Every time I have an urge to play the stock market I re-read this book. And don’t.
Especially read what he has to say about “Wall Street Types”. I think it may go some way to explaining Mr. Trump.
