|
|
Post by lagatta on Jun 29, 2009 17:26:14 GMT
"Rootless cosmo", for short.
There were many US immigrants to Canada, first draft-resisters refusing the Vietnam war, and a whole series in their wake, who want no part of the US, similar as the two societies (except perhaps Québec) seem to people outside English-speaking North America.
I have friends from the US who have lived in Amsterdam for about 30 years now, and I doubt they'd move back to the States. They are a gay couple, and yes, legally married now, mostly for pension/inheritance reasons. One has a professional civil service job in the Hague, and both are Dutch citizens.
And obviously there are a lot of Europeans who have wound up in other European countries with similar standards of living and have no intention of leaving. Thinking of an Italian friend (from the prosperous north of Italy) in Paris. His wife is French, and he has a professorship at a French university. Though I don't think he has bothered to apply for French citizenship, as it would make practically no difference in his life except being able to vote in French elections.
|
|
|
|
Post by rikita on Jun 29, 2009 21:22:44 GMT
hm if it is about the intention to stay in the new country, then what about seasonal migrants? are they expats? what about people who do indeed move country for financial reasons, but with the plan to return home in a few years, when they saved up money to build a house and start a business there? what about asylum seekers who might hope to return home as soon as the war is over/the regime changed?
the tax reasons make some more sense - though i would say financial ties is too general - as sending money home could be seen as a financial tie too...
but interestingly, even if an american or canadian or similar cut all ties with their home country, tried to get a german passport, worked and paid taxes only here, people probably wouldn't think of them as an immigrant...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2009 21:50:17 GMT
You're right, rikita. Somehow, the concept of an immigrant "downgrading" or even "grading to the same level" is not acceptable to most people.
|
|
|
|
Post by traveler63 on Jun 29, 2009 22:40:00 GMT
To me, a transplant is someone who gives up their citizenship in the home country and becomes a citizen of the adopted country. Otherwise, one is living in one country while being tied to the home country. I haven't explored what would happen financially, i.e. what the U. S. government would require if one severs their U. S. citizenship. PS: K2 what is binational?  |
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 29, 2009 23:12:22 GMT
Well, "transplant" as was intended in the OP is simply anyone who is not living in the ole home town. I don't think it's as official a term as expatriate or immigrant.
|
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jun 29, 2009 23:49:03 GMT
A binational is simply someone who has two nationalities (or citizenships). Binational has another meaning when referring to states, a state made up of two nations in the ethnocultural/historic sense. I had a young student rooming in my old place who was Swiss; his father was Swiss, his mother French and he was born in Canada, so he had three desirable passports.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Jun 30, 2009 0:38:55 GMT
From my point of view expats are people who haven't permanently emigrated and retain citizenship of their original country. They usually still have financial ties to their original country - pension or paid by an employer based there, so you get expat tax & healthcare issues. Immigrants on the other hand plan on staying permanently and usually have to get citizenship of their new country, do not have financial ties with their original country and are taxed at that end on income. This sounds good. But, I think the emotional difference is the key difference. I never feel that ex-pats love their new country and want to make it their home. Somehow, it seems to be expedient. In Toronto we have a many immigrants. In 2006, they made up 49.9% of our population and these numbers have grown by the day since then. Today, it is probably 65%. My own immediate neighborhood is probably 70% immigrant and I enjoy this. Here, our ethnic groups tend to retain a very distinct identity yet are somehow a strong part of our culture. When I travel, I avoid ex-pats whenever possible. If you are going to speak your original language, retain your original culture, socialize with others 'just like you' and whine about the old country...I simply don't understand why you came and why you don't go home. I am fascinated by those of you who immigrated and wish that I was one of you. I love 'rootless cosmopolitan'. |
|
|
|
Post by tillystar on Jun 30, 2009 8:59:16 GMT
Yes, I agree the emotional thing is more relevant, but the tax thing is just me being boring as I have to deal with ex-pat contracts at work, which are different from immigrants who have normal UK contracts.
Lil Star is binational - she has Spanish and British citizenship, but when is 18 she has to choose one nationality over the other. At the moment it doesn't make much difference but I thought best to leave it open as you never know the political/economic climate in 18 years might make one more desirable than the other. Also she may want to study in one over the other and citizenship may make it easier.
I think immigrant/ex-pat are kind of out of date for people moving within Europe because of the freedom of movement none of the issues in either case really apply. Transplants is more suited. Mr Star is a transplant. I might start calling him that when he annoys me "Bloody transplants!"
|
|
|
|
Post by tillystar on Jun 30, 2009 9:00:21 GMT
I do too but it throws up an image of a martini glass with a sprouting bulb floating in pink liquid in my mind. Warped.
|
|
|
|
Post by rikita on Jun 30, 2009 9:48:32 GMT
some more thoughts...
as for the emotional ties mentioned, i would suppose those vary for each individual. a lot of people that get called immigrants rather than expats probably have emotional ties to their countries too, and imho in their case it is their right, they didn't move for the cultural experience after all, but in search of better living conditions. i understand it much less in the case of those people who indeed claim to have moved to get to know another country if they stay with their own people speaking their own language only... but as a point of difference it doesn't seem to make sense, as that seems to happen in both groups...
and as for the aspect of citizenship - what about all those, who would like to get citizenship but can't? this is of course more of an issue for the poor immigrants coming to a richer country - in many cases they can't get the citizenship of their new country, or they have to wait many many years for it, or they get sent away again before the waiting time is over...
|
|
|
|
Post by gringalais on Jul 2, 2009 16:27:07 GMT
and as for the aspect of citizenship - what about all those, who would like to get citizenship but can't? this is of course more of an issue for the poor immigrants coming to a richer country - in many cases they can't get the citizenship of their new country, or they have to wait many many years for it, or they get sent away again before the waiting time is over... Interesting point. Here it is generally not possible to get citizenship without giving up your other citizenship. There is talk of changes in that law, but it remains to be seen what will happen. The main exception is people from Spain because of an agreement between the two countries. Also, I belive kids with one Chilean parent can have Chilean citizenship and the other parent's citizenship as well. I have been here for seven years and have permanent residency, which gives me nearly all the same rights as a Chilean. I can even vote here since I have been here over 5 years now. The main difference is that I don't have a Chilean passport. I am allowed to travel to Argentina and Uruguay on just my Chilean ID card, just as Chileans do, but I have to use my US passport to go to other countries in South American, and have to get visas in some cases like Brazil. For most of of South America Chileans can travel with just their ID card, not a passport and they don't need visas. That would be the main benefit of citizenship. Also, if I am out of the country for over a year, I could lose my right to residency, but you can usually extend that for up to 4 years. I really can't see myself giving up US citizenship. First of all, it sounds like it is pretty hard to do. Also, it would be a major pain to have to apply for a US visa just to go there to visit family and friends. And, while I have no plans to move back to the US to live, you never know what might happen in the future, so I prefer to keep my options open. |
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Jul 2, 2009 19:49:30 GMT
Canada doesn't require giving up citizenship. In fact, they encouraged me to keep it and to ask for Canadian citizenship for my kids It's just much easier to live in France if you have citizenship, so I did apply for it right away when I arrived. But of course, I was married to a Frenchman, so it was easier. And now I can travel to Chile without paying $132 entrance fee! = ))
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2009 20:00:42 GMT
I have always kept two nationalities as well, but my American passport appears to be much less useful than my French passport in most countries.
It's that terrible "reciprocity" clause. The U.S. doesn't like the concept very much.
|
|
|
|
Post by gringalais on Jul 2, 2009 20:39:19 GMT
I am lucky that at least with permanent residency, I don't have to pay that fee any more and it was only US$61 the time I had to pay it. Argentina is supposed to be instituting a fee on some nationalities too, but who knows when it will take effect. Supposedly I don't have to pay as long as I show my Chilean ID card.
|
|
