Discussion:
Expat or Immigrant?
Add Reply
Lewis
2019-10-31 17:49:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?

There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.

I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
--
I WILL NOT EXPOSE THE IGNORANCE OF THE FACULTY Bart chalkboard Ep. 8F15
Horace LaBadie
2019-10-31 19:33:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
Expats don't give up allegiance to their native country, however
well-acclimated they have become in the new country?
Lanarcam
2019-10-31 20:25:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
Expats don't give up allegiance to their native country, however
well-acclimated they have become in the new country?
Just to show bad spirit:

Expats are uebermenschen, immigrants are untermenschen.
Paul Carmichael
2019-11-01 10:30:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lanarcam
Expats are uebermenschen, immigrants are untermenschen.
Here, have one of these: Ü. :-)
--
Paul.
Sam Plusnet
2019-10-31 19:50:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
As in emigrate & immigrate.
It all depends on your viewpoint.
--
Sam Plusnet
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-31 20:44:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
As in emigrate & immigrate.
It all depends on your viewpoint.
For me it's perfectly clear. For people in France I'm an immigrant; for
people in the UK I'm an ex-pat.
--
athel
Paul Carmichael
2019-11-01 14:13:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
For me it's perfectly clear. For people in France I'm an immigrant; for people in the UK
I'm an ex-pat.
But what are you for you?  Could you talk about meeting some "other expats" or the
difficulties you face "as an immigrant", or both?
I don't get called an immigrant here in Spain. And until the you-know-what is sorted, I'm
just another european citizen. Then I'll be an immigrant. I'll have a British passport,
without the right to free movement around Europe. But living in Europe. Hell in a handcart
anyone?

Difficulties? Well, I get parking tickets where natives don't.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-01 15:38:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
I don't get called an immigrant here in Spain. And until the you-know-what is sorted, I'm
just another european citizen. Then I'll be an immigrant. I'll have a British passport,
without the right to free movement around Europe. But living in Europe. Hell in a handcart
anyone?
Difficulties? Well, I get parking tickets where natives don't.
Can you not register your car locally without becoming an ES citizen?

When I moved from NY to NJ I had to change my car registration many months
before the old registration expired, in order to get a local on-street
parking permit. The State of New York had to refund the pro-rated fraction
of the less than $50 annual fee -- and I had to return my old NY license
plates in person after affixing the new NJ ones.
occam
2019-11-02 08:39:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
I don't get called an immigrant here in Spain. And until the
you-know-what is sorted, I'm just another european citizen. Then I'll be
an immigrant. I'll have a British passport, without the right to free
movement around Europe. But living in Europe. Hell in a handcart anyone?
Difficulties? Well, I get parking tickets where natives don't.
I'm sorry, how does that last bit work? How do police know you have a
British passport by your parked car - unless you park illegally. If you
mean "When I'm stopped and have to show my ID by the police... " then
that's another matter. (I am assuming you drive a car with Spanish
license plates. If you still have your UK license plates after x years,
you are most probably breaking the law.)
Paul Carmichael
2019-11-02 11:43:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Paul Carmichael
I don't get called an immigrant here in Spain. And until the
you-know-what is sorted, I'm just another european citizen. Then I'll be
an immigrant. I'll have a British passport, without the right to free
movement around Europe. But living in Europe. Hell in a handcart anyone?
Difficulties? Well, I get parking tickets where natives don't.
I'm sorry, how does that last bit work? How do police know you have a
British passport by your parked car - unless you park illegally. If you
mean "When I'm stopped and have to show my ID by the police... " then
that's another matter. (I am assuming you drive a car with Spanish
license plates. If you still have your UK license plates after x years,
you are most probably breaking the law.)
I got fined 200 euros for having 2 wheels on the kerb. My Spanish neighbours do this all
the time. In exactly the same spot.

We live in a small village. Everybody knows each other. I personally know the person that
wrote the ticket. The car was across the road from my house. He could have knocked the
door or phoned me. Oh, and that bit of footpath is never used as such. Never has been.

There is another Brit couple a few doors down the street. They got fined for parking on
the wrong side of the street. The other neighbours do this regularly.

This same policeman stood by and watched a British bloke (pensioner) get beaten up for
feeding the stray cats.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-02 13:24:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by occam
Post by Paul Carmichael
I don't get called an immigrant here in Spain. And until the
you-know-what is sorted, I'm just another european citizen. Then I'll be
an immigrant. I'll have a British passport, without the right to free
movement around Europe. But living in Europe. Hell in a handcart anyone?
Difficulties? Well, I get parking tickets where natives don't.
I'm sorry, how does that last bit work? How do police know you have a
British passport by your parked car - unless you park illegally. If you
mean "When I'm stopped and have to show my ID by the police... " then
that's another matter. (I am assuming you drive a car with Spanish
license plates. If you still have your UK license plates after x years,
you are most probably breaking the law.)
I got fined 200 euros for having 2 wheels on the kerb. My Spanish
neighbours do this all the time. In exactly the same spot.
We live in a small village. Everybody knows each other. I personally
know the person that wrote the ticket. The car was across the road from
my house. He could have knocked the door or phoned me. Oh, and that bit
of footpath is never used as such. Never has been.
There is another Brit couple a few doors down the street. They got
fined for parking on the wrong side of the street. The other neighbours
do this regularly.
This same policeman stood by and watched a British bloke (pensioner)
get beaten up for feeding the stray cats.
It's different in France, or at least in Marseilles. Not long after we
came here I parked in a place I wasn't supposed to, and the car was
towed away. When the policeman supervising the tow lorry realized that
I was foreign he was incredibly apologetic and asked the driver of the
tow lorry to take me to the pound. (Normally I should have had to take
a taxi or a bus.) On reaching the pound I was supposed to show my
documents and pay for the tow. I didn't have the documents with me, or
enough money to pay the fee. The man there said I could take the car
but I should come back later and show the documents and pay for the tow.

A year or two later we were celebrating the Revolution, when our
daughter was five and needed a revolutionary hat. I was ill in bed and
my wife went to the only place where one can buy such things. She
double-parked across the street from the shop in a place where single
parking was forbidden. While she was in the shop someone came in and
said that illegally parked cars were being towed away, so she rushed
out after paying and saw that the car was still there. The problem was
that she was pointing into the city and she needed to go in the
opposite direction and wasn't sure how to do that. She asked the
policeman in charge of the tow lorries for advice. "Where are you
parked?" he asked. She gestured vaguely in the direction of the car,
but he was insistent, so she showed him the car. He told her to get in
the car and give him a sign when she was ready to drive off. After she
had done this he stopped the traffic in both directions (on a major
street) and signalled her to do a U turn. That was the end of the
story: no fine, no little lecture about the importance of not parking
illegally.
--
athel
Tak To
2019-11-02 16:19:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by occam
Post by Paul Carmichael
I don't get called an immigrant here in Spain. And until the
you-know-what is sorted, I'm just another european citizen. Then I'll be
an immigrant. I'll have a British passport, without the right to free
movement around Europe. But living in Europe. Hell in a handcart anyone?
Difficulties? Well, I get parking tickets where natives don't.
I'm sorry, how does that last bit work? How do police know you have a
British passport by your parked car - unless you park illegally. If you
mean "When I'm stopped and have to show my ID by the police... " then
that's another matter. (I am assuming you drive a car with Spanish
license plates. If you still have your UK license plates after x years,
you are most probably breaking the law.)
I got fined 200 euros for having 2 wheels on the kerb. My Spanish neighbours do this all
the time. In exactly the same spot.
We live in a small village. Everybody knows each other. I personally know the person that
wrote the ticket. The car was across the road from my house. He could have knocked the
door or phoned me. Oh, and that bit of footpath is never used as such. Never has been.
There is another Brit couple a few doors down the street. They got fined for parking on
the wrong side of the street. The other neighbours do this regularly.
This same policeman stood by and watched a British bloke (pensioner) get beaten up for
feeding the stray cats.
It looks like you are persecuted politically. You can apply
for asylum in the US.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tony Cooper
2019-11-01 14:15:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 07:31:56 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
As in emigrate & immigrate.
It all depends on your viewpoint.
For me it's perfectly clear. For people in France I'm an immigrant; for
people in the UK I'm an ex-pat.
But what are you for you? Could you talk about meeting some "other
expats" or the difficulties you face "as an immigrant", or both?
I would say that an immigrant to this country comes here with the
intent of eventually becoming an American. An ex-pat will always
consider him/herself to be what they were before they came here.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-01 15:41:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 07:31:56 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
For me it's perfectly clear. For people in France I'm an immigrant; for
people in the UK I'm an ex-pat.
But what are you for you? Could you talk about meeting some "other
expats" or the difficulties you face "as an immigrant", or both?
I would say that an immigrant to this country comes here with the
intent of eventually becoming an American. An ex-pat will always
consider him/herself to be what they were before they came here.
There are more categories than that. Migrant farm workers are neither
"immigrants" nor "ex-pats." They retain their (typically) Mexican
citizenship and cross the border as the harvest seasons call.

If France calls someone an "immigrant" who has no intention of settling
permanently (they do make it harder to become a citizen than the US (at
least until the last couple of years), don't they?), then they have a
gap in their lexicon.
Paul Carmichael
2019-11-01 16:20:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 07:31:56 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
As in emigrate & immigrate.
It all depends on your viewpoint.
For me it's perfectly clear. For people in France I'm an immigrant; for
people in the UK I'm an ex-pat.
But what are you for you? Could you talk about meeting some "other
expats" or the difficulties you face "as an immigrant", or both?
I would say that an immigrant to this country comes here with the
intent of eventually becoming an American. An ex-pat will always
consider him/herself to be what they were before they came here.
I was recently talking to some fellow (Brit) translators that live in Europe. Most of them
are changing nationality for brexit. I haven't decided yet.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-01 18:00:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 07:31:56 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
As in emigrate & immigrate.
It all depends on your viewpoint.
For me it's perfectly clear. For people in France I'm an immigrant; for
people in the UK I'm an ex-pat.
But what are you for you? Could you talk about meeting some "other
expats" or the difficulties you face "as an immigrant", or both?
I would say that an immigrant to this country comes here with the
intent of eventually becoming an American. An ex-pat will always
consider him/herself to be what they were before they came here.
I was recently talking to some fellow (Brit) translators that live in
Europe. Most of them are changing nationality for brexit. I haven't
decided yet.
We have decided, and applied, but it takes a long time. I could become
Irish quite quickly, but my wife couldn't.
--
athel
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-11-01 18:23:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 01 Nov 2019 18:00:29 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 07:31:56 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure
out what it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in
Mexico do not call themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and
another in Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats"
but neither knows why when I asked.
As in emigrate & immigrate.
It all depends on your viewpoint.
For me it's perfectly clear. For people in France I'm an
immigrant; for people in the UK I'm an ex-pat.
But what are you for you? Could you talk about meeting some "other
expats" or the difficulties you face "as an immigrant", or both?
I would say that an immigrant to this country comes here with the
intent of eventually becoming an American. An ex-pat will always
consider him/herself to be what they were before they came here.
I was recently talking to some fellow (Brit) translators that live in
Europe. Most of them are changing nationality for brexit. I haven't
decided yet.
We have decided, and applied, but it takes a long time. I could become
Irish quite quickly, but my wife couldn't.
Would that be (as far as UK stats are concerned) a surge in emigration;
and therefore a net loss in immigration; an UKIP/Brexit win!


P.S. why, FFS one 'm' in one and not the other? to confuse immigrants?
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-01 18:42:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Fri, 01 Nov 2019 18:00:29 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 07:31:56 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure
out what it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in
Mexico do not call themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and
another in Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats"
but neither knows why when I asked.
As in emigrate & immigrate.
It all depends on your viewpoint.
For me it's perfectly clear. For people in France I'm an
immigrant; for people in the UK I'm an ex-pat.
But what are you for you? Could you talk about meeting some "other
expats" or the difficulties you face "as an immigrant", or both?
I would say that an immigrant to this country comes here with the
intent of eventually becoming an American. An ex-pat will always
consider him/herself to be what they were before they came here.
I was recently talking to some fellow (Brit) translators that live in
Europe. Most of them are changing nationality for brexit. I haven't
decided yet.
We have decided, and applied, but it takes a long time. I could become
Irish quite quickly, but my wife couldn't.
Would that be (as far as UK stats are concerned) a surge in emigration;
and therefore a net loss in immigration; an UKIP/Brexit win!
P.S. why, FFS one 'm' in one and not the other? to confuse immigrants?
Are you comparing immigrant with emigrant? If so, one is in-migrant
(from Latin "in"), the other is e-migrant (from Latin "e", sometimes,
but not necessarily "ex").
--
athel
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-11-01 20:36:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 01 Nov 2019 18:42:41 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Fri, 01 Nov 2019 18:00:29 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 07:31:56 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure
out what it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in
Mexico do not call themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and
another in Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats"
but neither knows why when I asked.
As in emigrate & immigrate.
It all depends on your viewpoint.
For me it's perfectly clear. For people in France I'm an
immigrant; for people in the UK I'm an ex-pat.
But what are you for you? Could you talk about meeting some "other
expats" or the difficulties you face "as an immigrant", or both?
I would say that an immigrant to this country comes here with the
intent of eventually becoming an American. An ex-pat will always
consider him/herself to be what they were before they came here.
I was recently talking to some fellow (Brit) translators that live in
Europe. Most of them are changing nationality for brexit. I haven't
decided yet.
We have decided, and applied, but it takes a long time. I could become
Irish quite quickly, but my wife couldn't.
Would that be (as far as UK stats are concerned) a surge in
emigration;
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
and therefore a net loss in immigration; an UKIP/Brexit win!
P.S. why, FFS one 'm' in one and not the other? to confuse immigrants?
Are you comparing immigrant with emigrant? If so, one is in-migrant
(from Latin "in"), the other is e-migrant (from Latin "e", sometimes,
but not necessarily "ex").
Thanks; but it's nearly as bad as flamable and inflamable, or insolation
v. insulation and hyperthermia v. hypothermia.

English is a bastard language.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
occam
2019-11-02 08:45:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Thanks; but it's nearly as bad as flamable and inflamable
...also known as flammable and inflammable. Are you economising on "m"s?
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-11-02 11:52:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Thanks; but it's nearly as bad as flamable and inflamable
I don't need no steenkin spellchecker!
Post by occam
...also known as flammable and inflammable. Are you economising on
"m"s?
aybe. eo to self: check the otion of the key.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Quinn C
2019-11-01 22:49:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Fri, 01 Nov 2019 18:00:29 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Paul Carmichael
I was recently talking to some fellow (Brit) translators that live in
Europe. Most of them are changing nationality for brexit. I haven't
decided yet.
We have decided, and applied, but it takes a long time. I could become
Irish quite quickly, but my wife couldn't.
Would that be (as far as UK stats are concerned) a surge in emigration;
and therefore a net loss in immigration; an UKIP/Brexit win!
P.S. why, FFS one 'm' in one and not the other? to confuse immigrants?
Turns out there are very few such pairs around: imminence & eminence,
but they're not strongly connected, meaning-wise; innervation and
enervation. That's all I could find quickly.

If it wasn't clear yet, the answer is that the opposing Latin prefixes
are in- and e-. In other cases, they are in- and ex-, which gives e.g.
import/export or influx/efflux. So it's been confusing this way since
Roman times.

| ē-
|
| Alternative form of ex- (combining with b-, d-, g-, j-, l-, m-, n-, r-, and v-initial words).

(Wiktionary)

Ok: irruption/eruption; illocution/elocution.
--
...an explanatory principle - like "gravity" or "instinct" -
really explains nothing. It's a sort of conventional agreement
between scientists to stop trying to explain things at a
certain point. -- Gregory Bateson
occam
2019-11-02 09:00:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 07:31:56 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
For me it's perfectly clear. For people in France I'm an immigrant; for
people in the UK I'm an ex-pat.
But what are you for you?  Could you talk about meeting some "other
expats" or the difficulties you face "as an immigrant", or both?
I would say that an immigrant to this country comes here with the
intent of eventually becoming an American.  An ex-pat will always
consider him/herself to be what they were before they came here.
I was recently talking to some fellow (Brit) translators that live in
Europe. Most of them are changing nationality for brexit. I haven't
decided yet.
We have decided, and applied, but it takes a long time. I could become
Irish quite quickly, but my wife couldn't.
Thereby answering the question. You were an expat ("European citizen")
and now are in the process of becoming an immigrant. The fact that it
took you so long to apply for French citizenship means you did not think
of yourself as an immigrant. Neither did your colleages at CNRS, in all
probability.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-01 17:58:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
As in emigrate & immigrate.
It all depends on your viewpoint.
For me it's perfectly clear. For people in France I'm an immigrant; for
people in the UK I'm an ex-pat.
But what are you for you? Could you talk about meeting some "other
expats" or the difficulties you face "as an immigrant", or both?
Good question. If the conversation happened in France I'd probably say
"immigrant"; if it happened anywhere else I might say "ex-pat", but I'm
not sure. As it happened, I was talking yesterday to someone I'd just
met who was also British and living in France, but I don't think we
discussed your point.
--
athel
Jerry Friedman
2019-10-31 19:52:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
I'm inclined to agree with Horace, though I might say "identification
with" rather than "allegiance to". I haven't checked whether I'm
agreeing with what I said in this thread on the subject:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/zd5yoc_OZQI/JMzkjxV-AwAJ
--
Jerry Friedman
occam
2019-11-01 07:54:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
I'm inclined to agree with Horace, though I might say "identification
with" rather than "allegiance to". I haven't checked whether I'm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/zd5yoc_OZQI/JMzkjxV-AwAJ
Thank you for that link. I thought that the issue was well thrashed out
at that time.

The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence. Brussels
is full of expats who work for European institutions. No one in their
right mind would refer to them as "immigrants" - not even the Belgians.
Cheryl
2019-11-01 10:03:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
I'm inclined to agree with Horace, though I might say "identification
with" rather than "allegiance to". I haven't checked whether I'm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/zd5yoc_OZQI/JMzkjxV-AwAJ
Thank you for that link. I thought that the issue was well thrashed out
at that time.
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence. Brussels
is full of expats who work for European institutions. No one in their
right mind would refer to them as "immigrants" - not even the Belgians.
While "immigrant" may sometimes have a negative connotation, I don't
think it always does, or is always applied to working class people. At
the time, we didn't use "ex-pat" but when my father lived in Canada, he
wasn't considered an immigrant because he came as an employee of an
American company and was expected to move on to another country sooner
or later. When my parents moved to the US, my mother was considered an
immigrant - although people generally didn't realize she was a pretty
reluctant one - because the assumption was that she was moving there
permanently. Both my parents were more or less of the same social
status, and although they both worked for pay, were probably not what is
meant by "working class". There were many war brides in my parents' day
- they were immigrants, not ex-pats or temporary workers, whatever their
social class.
--
Cheryl
Lewis
2019-11-01 12:05:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
I'm inclined to agree with Horace, though I might say "identification
with" rather than "allegiance to". I haven't checked whether I'm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/zd5yoc_OZQI/JMzkjxV-AwAJ
Thank you for that link. I thought that the issue was well thrashed out
at that time.
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence. Brussels
is full of expats who work for European institutions. No one in their
right mind would refer to them as "immigrants" - not even the Belgians.
Interesting.
--
Last night I stayed up late playing poker with Tarot cards. I got a full house and four people died.
Quinn C
2019-11-01 16:13:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
I'm inclined to agree with Horace, though I might say "identification
with" rather than "allegiance to". I haven't checked whether I'm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/zd5yoc_OZQI/JMzkjxV-AwAJ
Thank you for that link. I thought that the issue was well thrashed out
at that time.
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
Post by occam
Brussels
is full of expats who work for European institutions. No one in their
right mind would refer to them as "immigrants" - not even the Belgians.
Yes, but those are actually likely to go back to their country when
their job is done. Of course if they were staunch Europeans, they
wouldn't consider themselves either.
--
It was frequently the fastest way to find what he was looking
for, provided that he was looking for trouble.
-- L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen
Tony Cooper
2019-11-01 16:39:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:13:44 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
I'm inclined to agree with Horace, though I might say "identification
with" rather than "allegiance to". I haven't checked whether I'm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/zd5yoc_OZQI/JMzkjxV-AwAJ
Thank you for that link. I thought that the issue was well thrashed out
at that time.
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
I don't think that's the case at all in the US. We have so many that
are here as "asylum seekers", and I don't think they have much of a
formal education.

The question is about numbers because you have said "on average".
There's no argument that many immigrants are highly educated, and many
are unable to get employment in the US that their education would
qualify them for. However, that "on average" statement is questioned.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Cheryl
2019-11-01 21:22:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:13:44 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
I'm inclined to agree with Horace, though I might say "identification
with" rather than "allegiance to". I haven't checked whether I'm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/zd5yoc_OZQI/JMzkjxV-AwAJ
Thank you for that link. I thought that the issue was well thrashed out
at that time.
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
I don't think that's the case at all in the US. We have so many that
are here as "asylum seekers", and I don't think they have much of a
formal education.
The question is about numbers because you have said "on average".
There's no argument that many immigrants are highly educated, and many
are unable to get employment in the US that their education would
qualify them for. However, that "on average" statement is questioned.
In my part of Canada, which however is often atypical, immigrants used
to be mostly well-educated. The stereotypical immigrant in my youth was
working as a university professor, doctor or nurse. More recently, the
category has broadened to include refugees from all kinds of education
backgrounds who are engaged in a wider range of activities - improving
their language skills while on government assistance, moving into
lower-skill jobs like cleaning, fast food etc, working through the
sometimes arcane processes to get their credentials recognized (if they
have any), and starting small businesses. We've even had a couple
farmers from the middle east work on farms here in spite of the very
different climate and the conviction of most locals that almost any job
is easier and pays better than farming. I would not consider illegal
asylum seekers to be immigrants. I suspect most of them head for more
urban areas anyway, as do most of the immigrants and a great many of the
native-born.
--
Cheryl
Tony Cooper
2019-11-02 02:16:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:13:44 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
I'm inclined to agree with Horace, though I might say "identification
with" rather than "allegiance to". I haven't checked whether I'm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/zd5yoc_OZQI/JMzkjxV-AwAJ
Thank you for that link. I thought that the issue was well thrashed out
at that time.
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
I don't think that's the case at all in the US. We have so many that
are here as "asylum seekers", and I don't think they have much of a
formal education.
The question is about numbers because you have said "on average".
There's no argument that many immigrants are highly educated, and many
are unable to get employment in the US that their education would
qualify them for. However, that "on average" statement is questioned.
In my part of Canada, which however is often atypical, immigrants used
to be mostly well-educated.
All well and good, but Quinn's assuming the same is true in the US. I
challenge that.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tony Cooper
2019-11-02 02:14:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:20:45 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:13:44 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
I don't think that's the case at all in the US. We have so many that
are here as "asylum seekers", and I don't think they have much of a
formal education.
The question is about numbers because you have said "on average".
I see. We have different perspectives.
For one, I work in a field - research and high tech - where the US is
reliant on a constant stream of highly-educated immigrants, because it
can't produce as many workers as are needed.
If I was to make an observation on the average immigrant based solely
on my perspective, it would be that the average immigrant speaks
Spanish. I would not make that observation, though, because one's
personal perspective is not a valid indicator.
Secondly, when I hear "immigrant", I primarily think of people who
apply for immigration, get accepted ("green card") and then move, and
secondarily people who come for work and stay. Refugees and asylum
seekers are in a separate category to start with, although I can see
that they do end up being immigrants eventually if they stay.
What's the difference? The asylum seeker applies for immigration,
gets accepted, and stays. They all would like to work, and most end
up in some form of employment.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tak To
2019-11-02 15:53:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:20:45 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:13:44 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
I don't think that's the case at all in the US. We have so many that
are here as "asylum seekers", and I don't think they have much of a
formal education.
The question is about numbers because you have said "on average".
I see. We have different perspectives.
For one, I work in a field - research and high tech - where the US is
reliant on a constant stream of highly-educated immigrants, because it
can't produce as many workers as are needed.
If I was to make an observation on the average immigrant based solely
on my perspective, it would be that the average immigrant speaks
Spanish. I would not make that observation, though, because one's
personal perspective is not a valid indicator.
Secondly, when I hear "immigrant", I primarily think of people who
apply for immigration, get accepted ("green card") and then move, and
secondarily people who come for work and stay. Refugees and asylum
seekers are in a separate category to start with, although I can see
that they do end up being immigrants eventually if they stay.
My usage of the terms is very similar to Quinn's. (See
my earlier reply to another of your message.) That is
probably because both of us have gone through a
governmental immigration process.
Post by Tony Cooper
What's the difference? The asylum seeker applies for immigration,
gets accepted, and stays. They all would like to work, and most end
up in some form of employment.
The difference, from the perspective of governmental
policy, lies in how "worthy" each category of new comers
are. Worthiness can be measured by economical, cultural
as well as moral considerations. (And by practicality
and enforceablilty as well, perhaps on a secondary level.)

Note that I am not advocating any particular policy here.
I seek only to delineate the different categories of new
comers. I have noted in the past that people are wont to
conflate these categories because of their own political
views.

Now back to your question. I think there it makes a big
difference what kind of a job the new comer can fill. It
is not clear to me that admitting someone who can fill
only a low paying job is beneficial to the society as a
whole in the long run. And the term "asylum seeker" is
a bit broad for me, for the current usage includes both
people who suffer from genuine political prosecution as
well those get caught being inside the country illegally
and then ask for asylum as a Hail Mary effort to avoid
being deported.

A couple of weeks ago John Oliver had an episode on
immigration. Have you seen it? What do you think?
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tony Cooper
2019-11-02 19:45:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tak To
The difference, from the perspective of governmental
policy, lies in how "worthy" each category of new comers
are. Worthiness can be measured by economical, cultural
as well as moral considerations. (And by practicality
and enforceablilty as well, perhaps on a secondary level.)
Theoretically.
Post by Tak To
Note that I am not advocating any particular policy here.
I seek only to delineate the different categories of new
comers. I have noted in the past that people are wont to
conflate these categories because of their own political
views.
Now back to your question. I think there it makes a big
difference what kind of a job the new comer can fill. It
is not clear to me that admitting someone who can fill
only a low paying job is beneficial to the society as a
whole in the long run.
That's not at all true in this state. Florida is one of the states
that does not require E-Verify. In some states, an employer must
follow the E-Verify laws and determine that any prospective employee
is a legal immigrant.

That is not done in Florida because the agricultural and hospitality
industries require cheap labor, and illegal immigrants are cheaper to
hire. A great deal of lobbyist money is thrown at our legislators to
convince them that E-Verify is not good for Florida.

Without those undocumented, illegal, unskilled workers, those two
industries don't feel they can continue to operate.

This has been discussed earlier in this group, and people said they'd
be willing to pay more for an orange or a hotel room if better wages
were paid to the workers.

A survey determined that 70% of Floridians agree with that and want
E-Verify put into effect. However, a small number of lobbyists with
big checkbooks outnumber that 70%. It's not like our legislator wants
to follow the people's choice.
Post by Tak To
A couple of weeks ago John Oliver had an episode on
immigration. Have you seen it? What do you think?
I saw it. While I rate his program as a "must watch" show, no one in
Tallahassee (our capital) is going to be influenced by John Oliver or
the public's opinion.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tak To
2019-11-03 17:02:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Tak To
The difference, from the perspective of governmental
policy, lies in how "worthy" each category of new comers
are. Worthiness can be measured by economical, cultural
as well as moral considerations. (And by practicality
and enforceablilty as well, perhaps on a secondary level.)
Theoretically.
All government policies are based on theories of some
sort.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Tak To
Note that I am not advocating any particular policy here.
I seek only to delineate the different categories of new
comers. I have noted in the past that people are wont to
conflate these categories because of their own political
views.
Now back to your question. I think there it makes a big
difference what kind of a job the new comer can fill. It
is not clear to me that admitting someone who can fill
only a low paying job is beneficial to the society as a
whole in the long run.
That's not at all true in this state. Florida is one of the states
that does not require E-Verify. In some states, an employer must
follow the E-Verify laws and determine that any prospective employee
is a legal immigrant.
That is not done in Florida because the agricultural and hospitality
industries require cheap labor, and illegal immigrants are cheaper to
hire. A great deal of lobbyist money is thrown at our legislators to
convince them that E-Verify is not good for Florida.
Without those undocumented, illegal, unskilled workers, those two
industries don't feel they can continue to operate.
This has been discussed earlier in this group, and people said they'd
be willing to pay more for an orange or a hotel room if better wages
were paid to the workers.
Yes, there is a disagreement on how to assess "benefits to
society in the long run".
Post by Tony Cooper
A survey determined that 70% of Floridians agree with that and want
E-Verify put into effect. However, a small number of lobbyists with
big checkbooks outnumber that 70%. It's not like our legislator wants
to follow the people's choice.
Floridians' feeling may not matter in the long run, as
there is and has been for a long time federal law, however
under-enforced, that forbids people to hire aliens who are
not authorized for employment. If the federal government
wants to step up on the enforcement, it can do so without
the cooperation of state government.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Tak To
A couple of weeks ago John Oliver had an episode on
immigration. Have you seen it? What do you think?
I saw it. While I rate his program as a "must watch" show, no one in
Tallahassee (our capital) is going to be influenced by John Oliver or
the public's opinion.
(Sorry, it was only a segment and not the main topic of the
episode.)

I was kinda hoping that you would comment on how widely known
the facts on immigration laws (as presented on the show) are
among Floridians. It is my impression that most Americans are
fairly ignorant with immigration laws (and thus "immigrants")
regardless of political orientation.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tony Cooper
2019-11-03 17:34:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tak To
Post by Tony Cooper
A survey determined that 70% of Floridians agree with that and want
E-Verify put into effect. However, a small number of lobbyists with
big checkbooks outnumber that 70%. It's not like our legislator wants
to follow the people's choice.
Floridians' feeling may not matter in the long run, as
there is and has been for a long time federal law, however
under-enforced, that forbids people to hire aliens who are
not authorized for employment. If the federal government
wants to step up on the enforcement, it can do so without
the cooperation of state government.
Yes, and there are federal laws about marijuana sales that are ignored
or not enforced in many states.

The federal government, at this time, is under the thumb of people who
are influenced by lobbyists and organizations who are the ones I
describe as being against E-Verify.
Post by Tak To
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Tak To
A couple of weeks ago John Oliver had an episode on
immigration. Have you seen it? What do you think?
I saw it. While I rate his program as a "must watch" show, no one in
Tallahassee (our capital) is going to be influenced by John Oliver or
the public's opinion.
(Sorry, it was only a segment and not the main topic of the
episode.)
I was kinda hoping that you would comment on how widely known
the facts on immigration laws (as presented on the show) are
among Floridians. It is my impression that most Americans are
fairly ignorant with immigration laws (and thus "immigrants")
regardless of political orientation.
Of course they are. Most Americans are ignorant about any set of laws
on any subject they have no personal involvement with. That's why we
have immigration lawyers, tax consultants, criminal and civil defense
lawyers, and informed people on specific laws to go to when it
involves us.

How much do you think I need to know about immigration law to escape
your charge of "ignorance"? When my now-daughter-in-law came here
from Russia I was ignorant about the laws regarding the process of
going from immigrant to citizen. I'm now better informed because I
observed the process first-hand.

Is your statement unique to Americans? Are "most" citizens of (pick a
county) totally informed about all the laws in that country?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Lewis
2019-11-03 20:20:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tak To
Floridians' feeling may not matter in the long run, as
there is and has been for a long time federal law, however
under-enforced, that forbids people to hire aliens who are
not authorized for employment. If the federal government
wants to step up on the enforcement, it can do so without
the cooperation of state government.
Until the Federal Government start jailing CEOs for hiring ineligible
workers, this will not change.
--
Mussolini made the trains run on thyme.
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-03 20:57:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Tak To
Floridians' feeling may not matter in the long run, as
there is and has been for a long time federal law, however
under-enforced, that forbids people to hire aliens who are
not authorized for employment. If the federal government
wants to step up on the enforcement, it can do so without
the cooperation of state government.
Until the Federal Government start jailing CEOs for hiring ineligible
workers, this will not change.
They'll never jail CEOs, of course. But if they did enforce the laws
governing illegal workers, wouldn't they disturb an underground economy
that keeps prices low for a lot of goods, especially agricultural goods?

bill
Tony Cooper
2019-11-03 23:19:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Lewis
Post by Tak To
Floridians' feeling may not matter in the long run, as
there is and has been for a long time federal law, however
under-enforced, that forbids people to hire aliens who are
not authorized for employment. If the federal government
wants to step up on the enforcement, it can do so without
the cooperation of state government.
Until the Federal Government start jailing CEOs for hiring ineligible
workers, this will not change.
They'll never jail CEOs, of course. But if they did enforce the laws
governing illegal workers, wouldn't they disturb an underground economy
that keeps prices low for a lot of goods, especially agricultural goods?
Publix Supermarkets is one of the largest chains of supermarkets in
Florida. In 2016, they donated $1,710,672 to various politicians and
political parties.

One of the subjects of interest to Publix is keeping the price of
produce low. One of the ways to keep the price of produce low is to
keep the cost of harvesting the produce low. It doesn't take a genius
to know what labor force will keep the cost of harvesting low.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Lewis
2019-11-04 07:18:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Lewis
Post by Tak To
Floridians' feeling may not matter in the long run, as
there is and has been for a long time federal law, however
under-enforced, that forbids people to hire aliens who are
not authorized for employment. If the federal government
wants to step up on the enforcement, it can do so without
the cooperation of state government.
Until the Federal Government start jailing CEOs for hiring ineligible
workers, this will not change.
They'll never jail CEOs, of course. But if they did enforce the laws
governing illegal workers, wouldn't they disturb an underground economy
that keeps prices low for a lot of goods, especially agricultural goods?
Not really. There's certainly not enough personnel for effective
enforcement at the low levels and the only people who get punished are
the workers, so there is zero incentive for any company to follow the
law.

That said, Alabama lost billions of dollars a few years back when they
tried to lock down the migrant workers in the state.

<https://reut.rs/2pHADtN>

And they could not find any legal workers (including the slave-labor
prisoners in the state) to bring in the crops, so that entire year's
harvest rotted in the fields.
--
'But it'll kill him!' 'It could have been worse.' 'What?' 'It could have
been us.'
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-04 07:28:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Lewis
Post by Tak To
Floridians' feeling may not matter in the long run, as
there is and has been for a long time federal law, however
under-enforced, that forbids people to hire aliens who are
not authorized for employment. If the federal government
wants to step up on the enforcement, it can do so without
the cooperation of state government.
Until the Federal Government start jailing CEOs for hiring ineligible
workers, this will not change.
They'll never jail CEOs, of course. But if they did enforce the laws
governing illegal workers, wouldn't they disturb an underground economy
that keeps prices low for a lot of goods, especially agricultural goods?
Not really. There's certainly not enough personnel for effective
enforcement at the low levels and the only people who get punished are
the workers, so there is zero incentive for any company to follow the
law.
That said, Alabama lost billions of dollars a few years back when they
tried to lock down the migrant workers in the state.
<https://reut.rs/2pHADtN>
And they could not find any legal workers (including the slave-labor
prisoners in the state) to bring in the crops, so that entire year's
harvest rotted in the fields.
I think that was my point. If you fuck with an underground economy
that arose to fill a need, the need goes unmet.

bill
Richard Heathfield
2019-11-04 09:07:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Lewis
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Lewis
Post by Tak To
Floridians' feeling may not matter in the long run, as
there is and has been for a long time federal law, however
under-enforced, that forbids people to hire aliens who are
not authorized for employment. If the federal government
wants to step up on the enforcement, it can do so without
the cooperation of state government.
Until the Federal Government start jailing CEOs for hiring ineligible
workers, this will not change.
They'll never jail CEOs, of course. But if they did enforce the laws
governing illegal workers, wouldn't they disturb an underground economy
that keeps prices low for a lot of goods, especially agricultural goods?
Not really. There's certainly not enough personnel for effective
enforcement at the low levels and the only people who get punished are
the workers, so there is zero incentive for any company to follow the
law.
That said, Alabama lost billions of dollars a few years back when they
tried to lock down the migrant workers in the state.
<https://reut.rs/2pHADtN>
And they could not find any legal workers (including the slave-labor
prisoners in the state) to bring in the crops, so that entire year's
harvest rotted in the fields.
I think that was my point. If you fuck with an underground economy
that arose to fill a need, the need goes unmet.
Temporarily.

The solution is to offer higher wages for harvesting. You keep cranking
up the wage until it becomes an attractive enough job for local people
to do. And obviously that means you'll have to put up your prices.

And then, when people realise that they're going to have to live with
higher prices, they'll either pay them (likely in the case of farm
crops) or decide they can do without those goods, and the economy will
adjust itself automatically.

If an agricultural product is so unprofitable that it cannot sustain a
price commensurate with the need to pay its production costs (including
a decent wage for its harvesting staff), it's time to stop producing it
and turn the land over to a more profitable use.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Lewis
2019-11-04 09:51:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
The solution is to offer higher wages for harvesting. You keep cranking
up the wage until it becomes an attractive enough job for local people
to do.
That's a fantasy that is not supported by the facts.
--
I WILL STOP TALKING ABOUT THE TWELVE INCH PIANIST Bart chalkboard Ep.
3F07
Tony Cooper
2019-11-04 13:44:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:51:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Richard Heathfield
The solution is to offer higher wages for harvesting. You keep cranking
up the wage until it becomes an attractive enough job for local people
to do.
That's a fantasy that is not supported by the facts.
Dunno about it being a "fantasy", but it is a fallacy. There are two
pools of possible local workers: the currently employed and the
unemployed.

To induce the currently employed, a wage higher than they are
currently making must be offered. However, their current employers
want to stay in business, so they would counter the offer to retain
those employees.

The unemployed are usually unemployed for a reason: no jobs available
for their skill-sets, chronic problems like alcoholism or drug use, or
contentment to live on social benefit programs. Higher wages don't
offset those reasons.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Rich Ulrich
2019-11-04 16:11:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 08:44:46 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:51:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Richard Heathfield
The solution is to offer higher wages for harvesting. You keep cranking
up the wage until it becomes an attractive enough job for local people
to do.
That's a fantasy that is not supported by the facts.
Dunno about it being a "fantasy", but it is a fallacy. There are two
pools of possible local workers: the currently employed and the
unemployed.
It seems to me that denigrating "high wages for harvesting"
as either a fantasy or a fallacy is a too-casual way of justifying
the status quo. "It will never happen" is the underlying idea
for both.
Post by Tony Cooper
To induce the currently employed, a wage higher than they are
currently making must be offered. However, their current employers
want to stay in business, so they would counter the offer to retain
those employees.
The unemployed are usually unemployed for a reason: no jobs available
for their skill-sets, chronic problems like alcoholism or drug use, or
contentment to live on social benefit programs. Higher wages don't
offset those reasons.
Well, "usually" is a slippery word here. And harvesting is notable
for requiring physical endurance rather than educated skills.
Whole immigrant families took part, historically.

When the unemployment rate was higher, there were periodic
stories about thousands of applicants showing up when some
company announced a few dozen jobs available that had decent
pay and few explicit qualifications.

For decent pay, I suspect that some of those jobless alcoholics and
drug abusers could be lured into harvesting, where some of them
would do okay.
--
Rich Ulrich
Lewis
2019-11-04 18:16:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 08:44:46 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:51:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Richard Heathfield
The solution is to offer higher wages for harvesting. You keep cranking
up the wage until it becomes an attractive enough job for local people
to do.
That's a fantasy that is not supported by the facts.
Dunno about it being a "fantasy", but it is a fallacy. There are two
pools of possible local workers: the currently employed and the
unemployed.
It seems to me that denigrating "high wages for harvesting"
as either a fantasy or a fallacy is a too-casual way of justifying
the status quo. "It will never happen" is the underlying idea
for both.
The "Fantasy" is that you will be able to hire people to do the work at
any price. This has not been the case. And the other half of the fantasy
is that this is simplistic work that anyone can do because its unskilled
work that requires no experience or training.
Post by Rich Ulrich
Well, "usually" is a slippery word here. And harvesting is notable
for requiring physical endurance rather than educated skills.
It requires a great deal of experience to do it well.
Post by Rich Ulrich
Whole immigrant families took part, historically.
Yes, people who grow up doing a job tend to be rather good at it.
Post by Rich Ulrich
For decent pay, I suspect that some of those jobless alcoholics and
drug abusers could be lured into harvesting, where some of them
would do okay.
And there is the fantasy write large.
--
'It's a lovely morning, lads,' he said. 'I feel like a million dollars.
Don't you?' There was a murmur of reluctant agreement. 'Good,' said
Cohen. 'Let's go and get some.' --Interesting Times
CDB
2019-11-04 20:34:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Lewis
Post by Richard Heathfield
The solution is to offer higher wages for harvesting. You keep
cranking up the wage until it becomes an attractive enough job
for local people to do.
That's a fantasy that is not supported by the facts.
Dunno about it being a "fantasy", but it is a fallacy. There are
two pools of possible local workers: the currently employed and
the unemployed.
It seems to me that denigrating "high wages for harvesting" as
either a fantasy or a fallacy is a too-casual way of justifying the
status quo. "It will never happen" is the underlying idea for both.
Post by Tony Cooper
To induce the currently employed, a wage higher than they are
currently making must be offered. However, their current employers
want to stay in business, so they would counter the offer to retain
those employees.
The unemployed are usually unemployed for a reason: no jobs
available for their skill-sets, chronic problems like alcoholism
or drug use, or contentment to live on social benefit programs.
Higher wages don't offset those reasons.
Well, "usually" is a slippery word here. And harvesting is notable
for requiring physical endurance rather than educated skills. Whole
immigrant families took part, historically.
When the unemployment rate was higher, there were periodic stories
about thousands of applicants showing up when some company announced
a few dozen jobs available that had decent pay and few explicit
qualifications.
For decent pay, I suspect that some of those jobless alcoholics and
drug abusers could be lured into harvesting, where some of them
would do okay.
Those jobs are uncomfortable and physically demanding, as I found when I
was a teenager in need of cash. Some younger people who dislike being
on welfare (inwels) might still take them if both pay and clawback
threshold were raised -- especially in this country, where small-time
drug-dealing is probably on the way out.
Tony Cooper
2019-11-04 21:23:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 11:11:33 -0500, Rich Ulrich
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 08:44:46 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:51:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Richard Heathfield
The solution is to offer higher wages for harvesting. You keep cranking
up the wage until it becomes an attractive enough job for local people
to do.
That's a fantasy that is not supported by the facts.
Dunno about it being a "fantasy", but it is a fallacy. There are two
pools of possible local workers: the currently employed and the
unemployed.
It seems to me that denigrating "high wages for harvesting"
as either a fantasy or a fallacy is a too-casual way of justifying
the status quo. "It will never happen" is the underlying idea
for both.
My understanding of the word "justify" is "to prove right or
reasonable". To observe what is is not justifying what is.

If I observe that Trump is an embarrassment to this country, but add
that I do not expect him to change, I am not justifying his persona.
It has turned out to be a fallacy that he would become Presidential
once in office.
Post by Rich Ulrich
For decent pay, I suspect that some of those jobless alcoholics and
drug abusers could be lured into harvesting, where some of them
would do okay.
How would that work? In many cases, the alcoholic or drug addict is
so strung out on whatever he/she is using that they wouldn't get
around to applying for the job, let alone perform it.

It does not seem to me that a person addicted to alcohol or drugs is
going to give up alcohol or drugs for a wage of any level.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Rich Ulrich
2019-11-05 06:51:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 16:23:48 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 11:11:33 -0500, Rich Ulrich
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 08:44:46 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:51:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Richard Heathfield
The solution is to offer higher wages for harvesting. You keep cranking
up the wage until it becomes an attractive enough job for local people
to do.
That's a fantasy that is not supported by the facts.
Dunno about it being a "fantasy", but it is a fallacy. There are two
pools of possible local workers: the currently employed and the
unemployed.
It seems to me that denigrating "high wages for harvesting"
as either a fantasy or a fallacy is a too-casual way of justifying
the status quo. "It will never happen" is the underlying idea
for both.
My understanding of the word "justify" is "to prove right or
reasonable". To observe what is is not justifying what is.
Your observation is a cariciacature of the workforce, From that,
you conclude that it is a "fallacy" that higher wages could work.
Post by Tony Cooper
If I observe that Trump is an embarrassment to this country, but add
that I do not expect him to change, I am not justifying his persona.
It has turned out to be a fallacy that he would become Presidential
once in office.
Post by Rich Ulrich
For decent pay, I suspect that some of those jobless alcoholics and
drug abusers could be lured into harvesting, where some of them
would do okay.
How would that work? In many cases, the alcoholic or drug addict is
so strung out on whatever he/she is using that they wouldn't get
around to applying for the job, let alone perform it.
That is not a realistic picture of the unemployed addicts, either,
for most of the arc of whichever addiction. There are some
difference between addictions. Alcohol is the most prevalent
of the devastating ones.
Post by Tony Cooper
It does not seem to me that a person addicted to alcohol or drugs is
going to give up alcohol or drugs for a wage of any level.
I didn't say anything about giving up the addiction. A lot of
addicts can't keep good jobs because of episodes across days
or weeks or months. They may stay sober for weeks at a time.

The addiction means that they can't stay clean, when faced
with too much temptation or personal depression.

In times and places, a large fraction of pimps and prostitutes
are addicts; or vice-versa. I read a report about 15 years ago,
that one sort of typical low-level drug dealer deals drugs to
support his own habit, earning something close to a minimum
hourly wage. They do put in hours. I don't know what is
happening in addiction now that the pharmacies are the
main dealers.
--
Rich Ulrich
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-05 07:08:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 16:23:48 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 11:11:33 -0500, Rich Ulrich
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 08:44:46 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:51:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Richard Heathfield
The solution is to offer higher wages for harvesting. You keep cranking
up the wage until it becomes an attractive enough job for local people
to do.
That's a fantasy that is not supported by the facts.
Dunno about it being a "fantasy", but it is a fallacy. There are two
pools of possible local workers: the currently employed and the
unemployed.
It seems to me that denigrating "high wages for harvesting"
as either a fantasy or a fallacy is a too-casual way of justifying
the status quo. "It will never happen" is the underlying idea
for both.
My understanding of the word "justify" is "to prove right or
reasonable". To observe what is is not justifying what is.
Your observation is a cariciacature of the workforce, From that,
you conclude that it is a "fallacy" that higher wages could work.
Post by Tony Cooper
If I observe that Trump is an embarrassment to this country, but add
that I do not expect him to change, I am not justifying his persona.
It has turned out to be a fallacy that he would become Presidential
once in office.
Post by Rich Ulrich
For decent pay, I suspect that some of those jobless alcoholics and
drug abusers could be lured into harvesting, where some of them
would do okay.
How would that work? In many cases, the alcoholic or drug addict is
so strung out on whatever he/she is using that they wouldn't get
around to applying for the job, let alone perform it.
That is not a realistic picture of the unemployed addicts, either,
for most of the arc of whichever addiction. There are some
difference between addictions. Alcohol is the most prevalent
of the devastating ones.
Post by Tony Cooper
It does not seem to me that a person addicted to alcohol or drugs is
going to give up alcohol or drugs for a wage of any level.
I didn't say anything about giving up the addiction. A lot of
addicts can't keep good jobs because of episodes across days
or weeks or months. They may stay sober for weeks at a time.
The addiction means that they can't stay clean, when faced
with too much temptation or personal depression.
In times and places, a large fraction of pimps and prostitutes
are addicts; or vice-versa. I read a report about 15 years ago,
that one sort of typical low-level drug dealer deals drugs to
support his own habit, earning something close to a minimum
hourly wage. They do put in hours. I don't know what is
happening in addiction now that the pharmacies are the
main dealers.
Over here in Canada, and I think in the U.S., the deadly stuff
continues to be black-market, usually opiods manufactured in illegal labs,
and often laced with something called fentanyl, which has been
killing hundreds of people around here. The last thing I
heard about it was that the death rate was starting to slow.

bill
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-04 20:43:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Lewis
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Lewis
Post by Tak To
Floridians' feeling may not matter in the long run, as
there is and has been for a long time federal law, however
under-enforced, that forbids people to hire aliens who are
not authorized for employment.   If the federal government
wants to step up on the enforcement, it can do so without
the cooperation of state government.
Until the Federal Government start jailing CEOs for hiring ineligible
workers, this will not change.
They'll never jail CEOs, of course. But if they did enforce the laws
governing illegal workers, wouldn't they disturb an underground economy
that keeps prices low for a lot of goods, especially agricultural goods?
Not really. There's certainly not enough personnel for effective
enforcement at the low levels and the only people who get punished are
the workers, so there is zero incentive for any company to follow the
law.
That said, Alabama lost billions of dollars a few years back when they
tried to lock down the migrant workers in the state.
<https://reut.rs/2pHADtN>
And they could not find any legal workers (including the slave-labor
prisoners in the state) to bring in the crops, so that entire year's
harvest rotted in the fields.
I think that was my point. If you fuck with an underground economy
that arose to fill a need, the need goes unmet.
Temporarily.
The solution is to offer higher wages for harvesting. You keep cranking
up the wage until it becomes an attractive enough job for local people
to do. And obviously that means you'll have to put up your prices.
And then, when people realise that they're going to have to live with
higher prices, they'll either pay them (likely in the case of farm
crops) or decide they can do without those goods, and the economy will
adjust itself automatically.
If an agricultural product is so unprofitable that it cannot sustain a
price commensurate with the need to pay its production costs (including
a decent wage for its harvesting staff), it's time to stop producing it
and turn the land over to a more profitable use.
In the real world, the current producers will be unable to afford the
labour to harvest their crops, so the Supermarket chain's buyers will
seek alternative supply at a price they're prepared to pay.

That pretty much means from other states where 'unofficial' labour can
still operate, or Mexico.

Long before your mechanism for "cranking up the wage" can operate, new
supply chains are established.
--
Sam Plusnet
Richard Heathfield
2019-11-04 21:58:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Richard Heathfield
If an agricultural product is so unprofitable that it cannot sustain a
price commensurate with the need to pay its production costs
(including a decent wage for its harvesting staff), it's time to stop
producing it and turn the land over to a more profitable use.
In the real world, the current producers will be unable to afford the
labour to harvest their crops, so the Supermarket chain's buyers will
seek alternative supply at a price they're prepared to pay.
That pretty much means from other states where 'unofficial' labour can
still operate, or Mexico.
Long before your mechanism for "cranking up the wage" can operate, new
supply chains are established.
I've never found the "we must pay people obscenely low wages because, if
we don't, other people will" argument to be particularly attractive, but
it has undoubted economic force.

At root, we need to decide whether we're the goodies or the baddies. If
we're the goodies, we need to become more discriminating consumers
who'll pay higher prices for ethically-sourced products. And if we're
the baddies, why not just use slaves?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-05 03:28:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Richard Heathfield
If an agricultural product is so unprofitable that it cannot sustain
a price commensurate with the need to pay its production costs
(including a decent wage for its harvesting staff), it's time to stop
producing it and turn the land over to a more profitable use.
In the real world, the current producers will be unable to afford the
labour to harvest their crops, so the Supermarket chain's buyers will
seek alternative supply at a price they're prepared to pay.
That pretty much means from other states where 'unofficial' labour can
still operate, or Mexico.
Long before your mechanism for "cranking up the wage" can operate, new
supply chains are established.
I've never found the "we must pay people obscenely low wages because, if
we don't, other people will" argument to be particularly attractive, but
it has undoubted economic force.
At root, we need to decide whether we're the goodies or the baddies. If
we're the goodies, we need to become more discriminating consumers
who'll pay higher prices for ethically-sourced products. And if we're
the baddies, why not just use slaves?
The buyers employed by (for example) a supermarket chain are not engaged
in a socio-economic crusade, they are required to buy items to the
required quality[1] at the best price available.

[1] Some chains might show concern for their public image by saying they
will not buy from suppliers who employ child labour or... etc. and this
would then form part of the quality requirement.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-11-05 13:49:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Richard Heathfield
If an agricultural product is so unprofitable that it cannot sustain
a price commensurate with the need to pay its production costs
(including a decent wage for its harvesting staff), it's time to stop
producing it and turn the land over to a more profitable use.
In the real world, the current producers will be unable to afford the
labour to harvest their crops, so the Supermarket chain's buyers will
seek alternative supply at a price they're prepared to pay.
That pretty much means from other states where 'unofficial' labour can
still operate, or Mexico.
Long before your mechanism for "cranking up the wage" can operate, new
supply chains are established.
I've never found the "we must pay people obscenely low wages because, if
we don't, other people will" argument to be particularly attractive, but
it has undoubted economic force.
At root, we need to decide whether we're the goodies or the baddies. If
we're the goodies, we need to become more discriminating consumers
who'll pay higher prices for ethically-sourced products. And if we're
the baddies, why not just use slaves?
The buyers employed by (for example) a supermarket chain are not engaged
in a socio-economic crusade, they are required to buy items to the
required quality[1] at the best price available.
[1] Some chains might show concern for their public image by saying they
will not buy from suppliers who employ child labour or... etc. and this
would then form part of the quality requirement.
Unfortunately this is not a simple matter.

I can't remember the full details, but some years ago there was a report
from a journalist (I think) who had visited families in the Far East
(China, Vietnam, or somewhere) whose children were working in factories.
The parents said that if those factories were closed because no one
would buy from them the families would be plunged into abject poverty
with no income. Adults and children needed to work to produce an income
that would meet the very basic needs of the family.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Richard Heathfield
2019-11-05 13:57:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Richard Heathfield
If an agricultural product is so unprofitable that it cannot sustain
a price commensurate with the need to pay its production costs
(including a decent wage for its harvesting staff), it's time to stop
producing it and turn the land over to a more profitable use.
In the real world, the current producers will be unable to afford the
labour to harvest their crops, so the Supermarket chain's buyers will
seek alternative supply at a price they're prepared to pay.
That pretty much means from other states where 'unofficial' labour can
still operate, or Mexico.
Long before your mechanism for "cranking up the wage" can operate, new
supply chains are established.
I've never found the "we must pay people obscenely low wages because, if
we don't, other people will" argument to be particularly attractive, but
it has undoubted economic force.
At root, we need to decide whether we're the goodies or the baddies. If
we're the goodies, we need to become more discriminating consumers
who'll pay higher prices for ethically-sourced products. And if we're
the baddies, why not just use slaves?
The buyers employed by (for example) a supermarket chain are not engaged
in a socio-economic crusade, they are required to buy items to the
required quality[1] at the best price available.
[1] Some chains might show concern for their public image by saying they
will not buy from suppliers who employ child labour or... etc. and this
would then form part of the quality requirement.
Unfortunately this is not a simple matter.
I can't remember the full details, but some years ago there was a report
from a journalist (I think) who had visited families in the Far East
(China, Vietnam, or somewhere) whose children were working in factories.
The parents said that if those factories were closed because no one
would buy from them the families would be plunged into abject poverty
with no income. Adults and children needed to work to produce an income
that would meet the very basic needs of the family.
The "goodies" solution here is to pay the adults a living wage, so that
the children do not need to work.

And no doubt someone will come up with a reason why that won't work, and
round and round it goes - a never-ending cycle of justifying injustice
because "that's just the way it is". And it will go on being "just the
way it is" until we find a way to fix it.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Peter Moylan
2019-11-05 15:05:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Sam Plusnet
[1] Some chains might show concern for their public image by saying
they will not buy from suppliers who employ child labour or... etc.
and this would then form part of the quality requirement.
Unfortunately this is not a simple matter.
I can't remember the full details, but some years ago there was a
report from a journalist (I think) who had visited families in the
Far East (China, Vietnam, or somewhere) whose children were working
in factories. The parents said that if those factories were closed
because no one would buy from them the families would be plunged into
abject poverty with no income. Adults and children needed to work to
produce an income that would meet the very basic needs of the
family.
Not simple, indeed. At a national level you can tackle this with things
like minimum wage legislation. If that forces prices up, everyone has to
wear it; the privileged no longer profit from the poverty of the
workers. But at an international level, you can't do this without a
world government. Since there is little prospect of a world government,
the privileged will continue to profit from the impotence of the poor.
Robin Hood became irrelevant once international trade became a major factor.

There once was a time when, if the very rich pushed their serfs too
hard, there would be a revolution. No doubt there are still people who
dream of putting the oppressors, most of whom are invisible, up against
the wall. But it won't work, because the super-rich always have the
option of fleeing to another country. I predict a couple of centuries of
increased feudalism for the next couple of centuries, before the whole
system collapses (which might mean the collapse of civilisation). That
period of chaos could be averted by a few suitably targeted
assassinations, but the general population does not yet have the sense
of desperation to make that possible, and by the time they do see the
crisis it will be too late.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Lewis
2019-11-04 09:49:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Lewis
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Lewis
Post by Tak To
Floridians' feeling may not matter in the long run, as
there is and has been for a long time federal law, however
under-enforced, that forbids people to hire aliens who are
not authorized for employment. If the federal government
wants to step up on the enforcement, it can do so without
the cooperation of state government.
Until the Federal Government start jailing CEOs for hiring ineligible
workers, this will not change.
They'll never jail CEOs, of course. But if they did enforce the laws
governing illegal workers, wouldn't they disturb an underground economy
that keeps prices low for a lot of goods, especially agricultural goods?
Not really. There's certainly not enough personnel for effective
enforcement at the low levels and the only people who get punished are
the workers, so there is zero incentive for any company to follow the
law.
That said, Alabama lost billions of dollars a few years back when they
tried to lock down the migrant workers in the state.
<https://reut.rs/2pHADtN>
And they could not find any legal workers (including the slave-labor
prisoners in the state) to bring in the crops, so that entire year's
harvest rotted in the fields.
I think that was my point. If you fuck with an underground economy
that arose to fill a need, the need goes unmet.
Most people think that the need will be filled by citizens who are
willing to do the work. The fact is no one will do that work, even at
much higher pay than the migrants get. Even if they are forced to do the
work (prisoners) they cannot do the 'unskilled' work properly.

I have had to pick tomatoes, and not only is it miserable work, it is
really hard to do it properly.
--
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-03 23:28:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tak To
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Tak To
The difference, from the perspective of governmental
policy, lies in how "worthy" each category of new comers
are. Worthiness can be measured by economical, cultural
as well as moral considerations. (And by practicality
and enforceablilty as well, perhaps on a secondary level.)
Theoretically.
All government policies are based on theories of some
sort.
...

Such as "Campaign contributions and organized support help people get
elected."
--
Jerry Friedman
Quinn C
2019-11-04 13:50:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:20:45 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:13:44 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
I don't think that's the case at all in the US. We have so many that
are here as "asylum seekers", and I don't think they have much of a
formal education.
The question is about numbers because you have said "on average".
I see. We have different perspectives.
For one, I work in a field - research and high tech - where the US is
reliant on a constant stream of highly-educated immigrants, because it
can't produce as many workers as are needed.
If I was to make an observation on the average immigrant based solely
on my perspective, it would be that the average immigrant speaks
Spanish. I would not make that observation, though, because one's
personal perspective is not a valid indicator.
Did you have to distort my argument into a caricature in order to
answer it? It only makes me think you have nothing that's strong enough
to counter my real claim.

I *know* that academia and high tech absorb *many* highly qualified
immigrants, so that has to pull up the average that we were talking
about.

But let's just inject some facts. About a third of the immigrants
already living in the US, and about half of the immigrants currently
being accepted have a college degree, according to

<https://fortune.com/2017/07/05/us-immigrants-education/>
Post by Tony Cooper
Secondly, when I hear "immigrant", I primarily think of people who
apply for immigration, get accepted ("green card") and then move, and
secondarily people who come for work and stay. Refugees and asylum
seekers are in a separate category to start with, although I can see
that they do end up being immigrants eventually if they stay.
What's the difference? The asylum seeker applies for immigration,
gets accepted, and stays. They all would like to work, and most end
up in some form of employment.
The difference is that it's two entirely different systems. When we say
"pensioners", we think of old people, although the word may actually
include young people who receive a pension due to invalidity (and they
may also live in what's commonly called a "retirement home".)

By the way, it's not correct to compare "immigrants" from the one
system, which are only the accepted applications, with "asylum
seekers", which includes the many that are rejected.
--
"Bother", said the Borg, as they assimilated Pooh.
Tony Cooper
2019-11-04 14:11:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 08:50:09 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:20:45 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:13:44 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
I don't think that's the case at all in the US. We have so many that
are here as "asylum seekers", and I don't think they have much of a
formal education.
The question is about numbers because you have said "on average".
I see. We have different perspectives.
For one, I work in a field - research and high tech - where the US is
reliant on a constant stream of highly-educated immigrants, because it
can't produce as many workers as are needed.
If I was to make an observation on the average immigrant based solely
on my perspective, it would be that the average immigrant speaks
Spanish. I would not make that observation, though, because one's
personal perspective is not a valid indicator.
Did you have to distort my argument into a caricature in order to
answer it? It only makes me think you have nothing that's strong enough
to counter my real claim.
What in the world are you on about? Caricature? You have stated that
your perspective is influenced by the fact that you are in a high-tech
and research field, and that leads you think that most immigrants are
well educated.

I am retired and have never been in a high-tech and research field. My
perspective is influenced by the immigrants that I come in contact
with. Those immigrants will mostly be speaking Spanish.

We would both be wrong to generalize and base our "on average" figure
on the people that we personally come in contact with, and that's what
determines our perspective.

It's the blind men and the elephant mistake.
Post by Quinn C
By the way, it's not correct to compare "immigrants" from the one
system, which are only the accepted applications, with "asylum
seekers", which includes the many that are rejected.
But you are quite willing to compare immigrants who come here for
high-tech research jobs to immigrants who come here to take any job
available to them in making an "on average" claim.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Quinn C
2019-11-04 17:45:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 08:50:09 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:20:45 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:13:44 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
I don't think that's the case at all in the US. We have so many that
are here as "asylum seekers", and I don't think they have much of a
formal education.
The question is about numbers because you have said "on average".
I see. We have different perspectives.
For one, I work in a field - research and high tech - where the US is
reliant on a constant stream of highly-educated immigrants, because it
can't produce as many workers as are needed.
If I was to make an observation on the average immigrant based solely
on my perspective, it would be that the average immigrant speaks
Spanish. I would not make that observation, though, because one's
personal perspective is not a valid indicator.
Did you have to distort my argument into a caricature in order to
answer it? It only makes me think you have nothing that's strong enough
to counter my real claim.
What in the world are you on about? Caricature? You have stated that
your perspective is influenced by the fact that you are in a high-tech
and research field, and that leads you think that most immigrants are
well educated.
Another great move to snip the paragraph where I explained once more -
despite my gut feeling - my actual reasoning. Now I think it's
established that you don't want to hear me out, and I'm done with
this..
--
ASCII to ASCII, DOS to DOS
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-04 14:40:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:20:45 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:13:44 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
I don't think that's the case at all in the US. We have so many that
are here as "asylum seekers", and I don't think they have much of a
formal education.
The question is about numbers because you have said "on average".
I see. We have different perspectives.
For one, I work in a field - research and high tech - where the US is
reliant on a constant stream of highly-educated immigrants, because it
can't produce as many workers as are needed.
If I was to make an observation on the average immigrant based solely
on my perspective, it would be that the average immigrant speaks
Spanish. I would not make that observation, though, because one's
personal perspective is not a valid indicator.
Did you have to distort my argument into a caricature in order to
answer it? It only makes me think you have nothing that's strong enough
to counter my real claim.
I *know* that academia and high tech absorb *many* highly qualified
immigrants, so that has to pull up the average that we were talking
about.
But let's just inject some facts. About a third of the immigrants
already living in the US, and about half of the immigrants currently
being accepted have a college degree, according to
<https://fortune.com/2017/07/05/us-immigrants-education/>
...
In the U.S., "immigrant" often includes the estimated 10.5 million
people living here illegally, who are about about a quarter of the
foreign-born population. (I'd thought it was more.) Did the Forbes
article include them? The page is unavailable at the moment.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/12/how-pew-research-center-counts-unauthorized-immigrants-in-us/
--
Jerry Friedman
Quinn C
2019-11-04 17:45:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:20:45 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:13:44 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
I don't think that's the case at all in the US. We have so many that
are here as "asylum seekers", and I don't think they have much of a
formal education.
The question is about numbers because you have said "on average".
I see. We have different perspectives.
For one, I work in a field - research and high tech - where the US is
reliant on a constant stream of highly-educated immigrants, because it
can't produce as many workers as are needed.
If I was to make an observation on the average immigrant based solely
on my perspective, it would be that the average immigrant speaks
Spanish. I would not make that observation, though, because one's
personal perspective is not a valid indicator.
Did you have to distort my argument into a caricature in order to
answer it? It only makes me think you have nothing that's strong enough
to counter my real claim.
I *know* that academia and high tech absorb *many* highly qualified
immigrants, so that has to pull up the average that we were talking
about.
But let's just inject some facts. About a third of the immigrants
already living in the US, and about half of the immigrants currently
being accepted have a college degree, according to
<https://fortune.com/2017/07/05/us-immigrants-education/>
...
In the U.S., "immigrant" often includes the estimated 10.5 million
people living here illegally, who are about about a quarter of the
foreign-born population. (I'd thought it was more.)
Which one, the ratio or the overall number?

I was surprised to find that Germany now has a higher percentage of
foreign-born people than the US.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Did the Forbes
article include them? The page is unavailable at the moment.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/12/how-pew-research-center-counts-unauthorized-immigrants-in-us/
It's a short article that doesn't specify such details, but AAUI the
numbers about all resident immigrants come from Pew Research, and the
ones about recent immigrants (meaning 2010-2015) from MPI
<https://www.migrationpolicy.org> (but I couldn't quickly find the
specific press release they refer to.)
--
Press any key to continue or any other key to quit.
Tak To
2019-11-05 17:08:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:20:45 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:13:44 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
I don't think that's the case at all in the US. We have so many that
are here as "asylum seekers", and I don't think they have much of a
formal education.
The question is about numbers because you have said "on average".
I see. We have different perspectives.
For one, I work in a field - research and high tech - where the US is
reliant on a constant stream of highly-educated immigrants, because it
can't produce as many workers as are needed.
If I was to make an observation on the average immigrant based solely
on my perspective, it would be that the average immigrant speaks
Spanish. I would not make that observation, though, because one's
personal perspective is not a valid indicator.
Did you have to distort my argument into a caricature in order to
answer it? It only makes me think you have nothing that's strong enough
to counter my real claim.
I *know* that academia and high tech absorb *many* highly qualified
immigrants, so that has to pull up the average that we were talking
about.
But let's just inject some facts. About a third of the immigrants
already living in the US, and about half of the immigrants currently
being accepted have a college degree, according to
<https://fortune.com/2017/07/05/us-immigrants-education/>
...
In the U.S., "immigrant" often includes the estimated 10.5 million
people living here illegally, who are about about a quarter of the
foreign-born population. (I'd thought it was more.) Did the Forbes
article include them? The page is unavailable at the moment.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/12/how-pew-research-center-counts-unauthorized-immigrants-in-us/
Yup, the word "immigrant" has become highly politicized in
recent years and the usage is far from uniform. The government,
for example, typically excludes illegal aliens from immigrants.

I think the numbers in the /Fortune/ article were likely to
be derived from data on immigration visas maintained by the
government.

Btw, as far as I am concern most if not all estimates on the
number of illegal aliens are essentially unreliable. Now that
the 2010 Census is not going to collect any data on it we will
be none the wiser.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tak To
2019-11-02 04:03:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:13:44 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
I'm inclined to agree with Horace, though I might say "identification
with" rather than "allegiance to". I haven't checked whether I'm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/zd5yoc_OZQI/JMzkjxV-AwAJ
Thank you for that link. I thought that the issue was well thrashed out
at that time.
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
I don't think that's the case at all in the US. We have so many that
are here as "asylum seekers", and I don't think they have much of a
formal education.
Are you talking about legal immigrants only?

FWIW, there are also (resettled) refugees, whom I am not sure
if you count as asylum seekers who have been granted asylum.
Refugees tend to have minimal education as well.

I tend to restrict the term "refugee" to those recognized by
the UNCHR (UN High Commissioner for Refugee)[1]. The re-
settlements of refugees in the US are typically brokered en
bloc by the UNCHR. I would use "asylum seeker" for the rest
whose cases are dealt with more on an individual basis.

I wonder if a distinction can/should be made between asylum
seekers who have actually experienced persecution and those
who asked for asylum opportunistically as a last resort to
get legal immigration status.

Btw, many immigrants who came on the basis of family reunion
are poorly educated as well. It varies quite a lot based
on the country of origin.

[1] In the UK, there is a concept of granting "status of
refugee" which is more or less the same as granting asylum.
I don't think this special usage should change the general
definition of a refugee being a person displaced because of
political turmoil.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr









] A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted
] for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a
] particular social group or political opinion, is outside the
] country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear,
] is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country;
] or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country
] of his former habitual residence as a result of such events,
] is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Post by Tony Cooper
The question is about numbers because you have said "on average".
There's no argument that many immigrants are highly educated, and many
are unable to get employment in the US that their education would
qualify them for. However, that "on average" statement is questioned.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tony Cooper
2019-11-02 04:41:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tak To
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:13:44 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
I'm inclined to agree with Horace, though I might say "identification
with" rather than "allegiance to". I haven't checked whether I'm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/zd5yoc_OZQI/JMzkjxV-AwAJ
Thank you for that link. I thought that the issue was well thrashed out
at that time.
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
I don't think that's the case at all in the US. We have so many that
are here as "asylum seekers", and I don't think they have much of a
formal education.
Are you talking about legal immigrants only?
I have no way of knowing. An immigrant is a person who has come to
this country from another country. A "legal immigrant" is a person
who has come to this country from another country and been granted
authorization to live and work in this country.

The only way I can tell if an immigrant is "legal" is to ask to see
his/her "green card", and that's not always an effective test.

Trump would probably like to see them tattooed on the lip like horses
to show they're legal, but it hasn't come to that yet.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tak To
2019-11-02 16:09:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Tak To
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:13:44 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
I'm inclined to agree with Horace, though I might say "identification
with" rather than "allegiance to". I haven't checked whether I'm
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/zd5yoc_OZQI/JMzkjxV-AwAJ
Thank you for that link. I thought that the issue was well thrashed out
at that time.
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
I don't think that's the case at all in the US. We have so many that
are here as "asylum seekers", and I don't think they have much of a
formal education.
Are you talking about legal immigrants only?
Just to clarify: it was purely an inquiry of your usage of
the term "immigrant".
Post by Tony Cooper
I have no way of knowing. An immigrant is a person who has come to
this country from another country. A "legal immigrant" is a person
who has come to this country from another country and been granted
authorization to live and work in this country.
By the same token, how do you know someone is an immigrant
at all?
Post by Tony Cooper
The only way I can tell if an immigrant is "legal" is to ask to see
his/her "green card", and that's not always an effective test.
Trump would probably like to see them tattooed on the lip like horses
to show they're legal, but it hasn't come to that yet.
It is a topic for another debate, but a quick random check
of legal status is an indispensable element in enforcing any
immigration policy at all in areas of high level of illegal
immigration -- not that the average US citizen will go for
it anytime soon.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tony Cooper
2019-11-02 19:54:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tak To
Just to clarify: it was purely an inquiry of your usage of
the term "immigrant".
Post by Tony Cooper
I have no way of knowing. An immigrant is a person who has come to
this country from another country. A "legal immigrant" is a person
who has come to this country from another country and been granted
authorization to live and work in this country.
By the same token, how do you know someone is an immigrant
at all?
That's the point, innit?

As I write this, there's a crew of people engaged in landscaping the
condo complex I live in. The condo association pays a firm to do
this.

All I can tell you looking out the window is the men I see *appear* to
be of Mexican heritage. When I walk out the door, I hear them
conversing in Spanish.

I have no way of knowing if they are immigrants or if they were born
here. If they are immigrants, I have no way of knowing if they are
legal or undocumented.
Post by Tak To
Post by Tony Cooper
The only way I can tell if an immigrant is "legal" is to ask to see
his/her "green card", and that's not always an effective test.
Trump would probably like to see them tattooed on the lip like horses
to show they're legal, but it hasn't come to that yet.
It is a topic for another debate, but a quick random check
of legal status is an indispensable element in enforcing any
immigration policy at all in areas of high level of illegal
immigration -- not that the average US citizen will go for
it anytime soon.
The average *citizen* in Florida *would* go for it as discussed in the
post about E-Verify. That's been shown time-after-time by surveys.
The employers and the legislators are the ones who wouldn't go for it.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mark Brader
2019-11-03 04:14:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
As I write this, there's a crew of people engaged in landscaping the
condo complex I live in. The condo association pays a firm to do
this.
All I can tell you looking out the window is the men I see *appear* to
be of Mexican heritage. When I walk out the door, I hear them
conversing in Spanish.
How can you connect their apparent heritage specifically with Mexico
rather than, say, Nicaragua, Cuba, or the Dominican Republic? Or for
that matter Puerto Rico? Is it mostly their clothes, or some aspect
of their behavior, or can you distinguish a Mexican accent?

Tony, to avoid any misunderstanding, I'm not trying to come across
as critical here -- either of you or the people in question. I just
don't encounter a lot of Latin Americans in my life here, so I'm
curious, that's all.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "If you wish so, we write your consummations
***@vex.net | on your bill." --Swiss hotel services handbook

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Tony Cooper
2019-11-03 04:51:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
As I write this, there's a crew of people engaged in landscaping the
condo complex I live in. The condo association pays a firm to do
this.
All I can tell you looking out the window is the men I see *appear* to
be of Mexican heritage. When I walk out the door, I hear them
conversing in Spanish.
How can you connect their apparent heritage specifically with Mexico
rather than, say, Nicaragua, Cuba, or the Dominican Republic? Or for
that matter Puerto Rico? Is it mostly their clothes, or some aspect
of their behavior, or can you distinguish a Mexican accent?
Tony, to avoid any misunderstanding, I'm not trying to come across
as critical here -- either of you or the people in question. I just
don't encounter a lot of Latin Americans in my life here, so I'm
curious, that's all.
I do see quite a bit of people from/of (country) heritage here, and
can usually tell a Mexican from a Puerto Rican. That's "usually", and
not "always", but the two groups are generally visibly much different
in appearance.

What is more difficult is guessing if the person is Mexican or from
one of the Central American countries.

I'm not going to go into how I can usually tell, but it has to do with
facial features, build, and complexion.

I don't make any guess based on accent because I don't speak a lick of
any Hispanic language. I couldn't tell, by accent, a Basque from a
Bolivian.

Odds, too, are in my favor. You may not understand how many Mexicans
are in this part of Florida.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mark Brader
2019-11-03 05:32:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
I do see quite a bit of people from/of (country) heritage here, and
can usually tell a Mexican from a Puerto Rican. That's "usually", and
not "always"...
Thanks for answering.
--
Mark Brader "I am taking what you write in the spirit in
Toronto which it is intended. That's the problem."
***@vex.net -- Tony Cooper
RH Draney
2019-11-03 08:43:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
I don't make any guess based on accent because I don't speak a lick of
any Hispanic language. I couldn't tell, by accent, a Basque from a
Bolivian.
There are some gross differences evident even to the non-Hispanophonic
listener...Cubans don't sound like Argentines, and neither sound like
Mexicans...with a minute or two of close listening, I can also
distinguish an accent from near the US border (Sonora or Chihuahua
states, for instance) from that of the DF....

I'm pretty sure I've spoken here in the past of the time I was playing
with a shortwave radio and heard someone speaking Spanish with the
clearest enunciation I'd ever encountered, an accent unlike any I was
familiar with...it took several minutes of listening before I caught a
station identification....

Radio Shanghai....r
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-03 14:36:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Tony Cooper
I don't make any guess based on accent because I don't speak a lick of
any Hispanic language. I couldn't tell, by accent, a Basque from a
Bolivian.
There are some gross differences evident even to the non-Hispanophonic
listener...Cubans don't sound like Argentines, and neither sound like
Mexicans...with a minute or two of close listening, I can also
distinguish an accent from near the US border (Sonora or Chihuahua
states, for instance) from that of the DF....
Mayans (in Chicago, they are mostly from Guatemala) look astonishingly
like the depictions in the reliefs and glyphs -- the flat vertical
forehead, the nose with an angle, the full lips, the brachycephalic skull.
Post by RH Draney
I'm pretty sure I've spoken here in the past of the time I was playing
with a shortwave radio and heard someone speaking Spanish with the
clearest enunciation I'd ever encountered, an accent unlike any I was
familiar with...it took several minutes of listening before I caught a
station identification....
Radio Shanghai....r
Lewis
2019-11-03 13:04:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
As I write this, there's a crew of people engaged in landscaping the
condo complex I live in. The condo association pays a firm to do
this.
All I can tell you looking out the window is the men I see *appear* to
be of Mexican heritage. When I walk out the door, I hear them
conversing in Spanish.
How can you connect their apparent heritage specifically with Mexico
rather than, say, Nicaragua, Cuba, or the Dominican Republic? Or for
that matter Puerto Rico? Is it mostly their clothes, or some aspect
of their behavior, or can you distinguish a Mexican accent?
The vast majority for many years were from Mexico, so it was easy to think
they all were. The majority are still from Mexico, but the vastness of
that majority has decreased. Frankly, even Mexicans do this and assume
everyone they see who looks like them is Mexican. And yes, this annoys
the people from Central America, especially the ones from Guatemala and
El Salvador.

Also, the cultural differences between Mexico and the other Spanish
speaking countries of North America are pretty subtle to outsiders and
are most similar to the regional differences in the US between states, or
in the UK between the left and right side of the street (I kid,
slightly).

Mexico is sort of like USA-light for the smaller countries, in that it
dominates the culture.

Now, you get down to so South America and that's not the vase anymore,
but from Panama north, yeah. And there is some resentment about it too,
but the best Spanish language content is coming from Mexico (or
increasingly the US) and is all Mexican culture.
Post by Mark Brader
Tony, to avoid any misunderstanding, I'm not trying to come across
as critical here -- either of you or the people in question. I just
don't encounter a lot of Latin Americans in my life here, so I'm
curious, that's all.
If you're in London, I would guess the assumption for people speaking
French would be that they were French and not Canadian. Something like
that?
--
"You're an elf and you're going to wear panties like an elf."
Peter Moylan
2019-11-04 00:04:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Now, you get down to so South America and that's not the vase
anymore, but from Panama north, yeah.
I've never seen you use such flowery language.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Quinn C
2019-11-04 17:55:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
As I write this, there's a crew of people engaged in landscaping the
condo complex I live in. The condo association pays a firm to do
this.
All I can tell you looking out the window is the men I see *appear* to
be of Mexican heritage. When I walk out the door, I hear them
conversing in Spanish.
How can you connect their apparent heritage specifically with Mexico
rather than, say, Nicaragua, Cuba, or the Dominican Republic? Or for
that matter Puerto Rico? Is it mostly their clothes, or some aspect
of their behavior, or can you distinguish a Mexican accent?
The vast majority for many years were from Mexico, so it was easy to think
they all were. The majority are still from Mexico, but the vastness of
that majority has decreased. Frankly, even Mexicans do this and assume
everyone they see who looks like them is Mexican. And yes, this annoys
the people from Central America, especially the ones from Guatemala and
El Salvador.
Why them especially? Just closeness breeding contempt?
Post by Lewis
Mexico is sort of like USA-light for the smaller countries, in that it
dominates the culture.
Now, you get down to so South America and that's not the vase anymore,
but from Panama north, yeah. And there is some resentment about it too,
but the best Spanish language content is coming from Mexico (or
increasingly the US) and is all Mexican culture.
My impression is that the English-language "Latino" content in the US
often features Cubans or Puerto Ricans. Is that not done in Spanish?
--
The least questioned assumptions are often the most questionable
-- Paul Broca
... who never questioned that men are more intelligent than women
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-04 18:03:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
As I write this, there's a crew of people engaged in landscaping the
condo complex I live in. The condo association pays a firm to do
this.
All I can tell you looking out the window is the men I see *appear* to
be of Mexican heritage. When I walk out the door, I hear them
conversing in Spanish.
How can you connect their apparent heritage specifically with Mexico
rather than, say, Nicaragua, Cuba, or the Dominican Republic? Or for
that matter Puerto Rico? Is it mostly their clothes, or some aspect
of their behavior, or can you distinguish a Mexican accent?
The vast majority for many years were from Mexico, so it was easy to think
they all were. The majority are still from Mexico, but the vastness of
that majority has decreased. Frankly, even Mexicans do this and assume
everyone they see who looks like them is Mexican. And yes, this annoys
the people from Central America, especially the ones from Guatemala and
El Salvador.
Why them especially? Just closeness breeding contempt?
Post by Lewis
Mexico is sort of like USA-light for the smaller countries, in that it
dominates the culture.
Now, you get down to so South America and that's not the vase anymore,
but from Panama north, yeah. And there is some resentment about it too,
but the best Spanish language content is coming from Mexico (or
increasingly the US) and is all Mexican culture.
My impression is that the English-language "Latino" content in the US
often features Cubans or Puerto Ricans. Is that not done in Spanish?
In the East. Also Dominicans. In Chicago, the populations are about equal
in size;* in the West, Mexicans (and now presumably Central Americans).

The Mexicans and Puerto Ricans have little in common (and are in different
neighborhoods), which presented a problem with drawing Congressional Districts. They/We ended up with an earmuffs-shaped district, with a blob
on the North Side for Puerto Ricans, a blob on the South Side for Mexicans,
and a strip a block wide connecting them that ran around the African
American Near West Side. Alderman Luis Gutierrez became the first Hispanic
Congressman from Chicago (I think he's still in office), a Puerto Rican.
Lewis
2019-11-04 18:24:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Tony Cooper
As I write this, there's a crew of people engaged in landscaping the
condo complex I live in. The condo association pays a firm to do
this.
All I can tell you looking out the window is the men I see *appear* to
be of Mexican heritage. When I walk out the door, I hear them
conversing in Spanish.
How can you connect their apparent heritage specifically with Mexico
rather than, say, Nicaragua, Cuba, or the Dominican Republic? Or for
that matter Puerto Rico? Is it mostly their clothes, or some aspect
of their behavior, or can you distinguish a Mexican accent?
The vast majority for many years were from Mexico, so it was easy to think
they all were. The majority are still from Mexico, but the vastness of
that majority has decreased. Frankly, even Mexicans do this and assume
everyone they see who looks like them is Mexican. And yes, this annoys
the people from Central America, especially the ones from Guatemala and
El Salvador.
Why them especially? Just closeness breeding contempt?
Guatemala is extremely similar to Mexico, and so people in Guatemala get
very irritated by people confusing them. It's a bit like if you call
someone from Wales "English". It's also quite small, population-wise.

Not sure with El Salvador, it may just be that it is overlooked.
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Mexico is sort of like USA-light for the smaller countries, in that it
dominates the culture.
Now, you get down to so South America and that's not the vase anymore,
but from Panama north, yeah. And there is some resentment about it too,
but the best Spanish language content is coming from Mexico (or
increasingly the US) and is all Mexican culture.
My impression is that the English-language "Latino" content in the US
often features Cubans or Puerto Ricans. Is that not done in Spanish?
Might depend on where you are. Univision and Telemundo are Mexico heavy
and do a lot of (if not all) production in the US. Even with actors or
hosts from other countries, there's a whole lot of Mexico going on
there.

I would guess local stuff in Florida would be Cuban-heavy, and New York
is, I believe, the second largest Puerto Rican population center.
--
I WILL NOT TRADE PANTS WITH OTHERS Bart chalkboard Ep. 7F05
Tony Cooper
2019-11-04 21:29:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:24:10 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
I would guess local stuff in Florida would be Cuban-heavy, and New York
is, I believe, the second largest Puerto Rican population center.
I can't cite statistics, but I suspect that those of Puerto Rican
heritage far outnumber those of Cuban heritage in Florida. Not,
perhaps, in all parts of Florida, but in the state as a whole.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Lewis
2019-11-04 22:14:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:24:10 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
I would guess local stuff in Florida would be Cuban-heavy, and New York
is, I believe, the second largest Puerto Rican population center.
I can't cite statistics, but I suspect that those of Puerto Rican
heritage far outnumber those of Cuban heritage in Florida. Not,
perhaps, in all parts of Florida, but in the state as a whole.
It wouldn't surprise me at all, but the stereotype is the state is full
of Cubans (and alligators, and gun-happy maniacs, and "Florida Man").

Wikipedia has an article:

New York City, NY - 723,621
Philadelphia, PA - 121,643
Chicago, IL - 102,703
Springfield, MA - 50,798
Hartford, CT - 41,995

The drop-off between 1 and 2 is rather astonishing.

No, wait, this is a much better list scrolling down the page, and proves
you are at least somewhat in the realm of reason! :)

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA-CT MSA - 1,177,430
(6.2% Puerto Rican)

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL MSA - 269,781 (12.6% Puerto Rican)

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA - 239,866 (4.0% Puerto
Rican)

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL MSA - 207,727 (3.7% Puerto
Rican)

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI MSA - 188,502 (2.0% Puerto Rican)

"The South is home to 1.3 million Puerto Ricans, comprising 29% of the
Puerto Rican population nationwide. Florida is home to two-thirds of the
Puerto Rican population in the South." (So about 800,000).

(By comparison, the North-East's population is 2.5 million).

Florida is second only to New York in the number of Puerto Ricans.
--
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
please." - Mark Twain
Tony Cooper
2019-11-05 00:29:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 22:14:26 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:24:10 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
I would guess local stuff in Florida would be Cuban-heavy, and New York
is, I believe, the second largest Puerto Rican population center.
I can't cite statistics, but I suspect that those of Puerto Rican
heritage far outnumber those of Cuban heritage in Florida. Not,
perhaps, in all parts of Florida, but in the state as a whole.
It wouldn't surprise me at all, but the stereotype is the state is full
of Cubans (and alligators, and gun-happy maniacs, and "Florida Man").
New York City, NY - 723,621
Philadelphia, PA - 121,643
Chicago, IL - 102,703
Springfield, MA - 50,798
Hartford, CT - 41,995
The drop-off between 1 and 2 is rather astonishing.
No, wait, this is a much better list scrolling down the page, and proves
you are at least somewhat in the realm of reason! :)
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA-CT MSA - 1,177,430
(6.2% Puerto Rican)
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL MSA - 269,781 (12.6% Puerto Rican)
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA - 239,866 (4.0% Puerto
Rican)
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL MSA - 207,727 (3.7% Puerto
Rican)
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI MSA - 188,502 (2.0% Puerto Rican)
"The South is home to 1.3 million Puerto Ricans, comprising 29% of the
Puerto Rican population nationwide. Florida is home to two-thirds of the
Puerto Rican population in the South." (So about 800,000).
(By comparison, the North-East's population is 2.5 million).
Florida is second only to New York in the number of Puerto Ricans.
Whatever figures you find are out-of-date. The hurricane devastation
in Puerto Rico, and the economic collapse, has added to those figures.
The takers-of-figures can't keep up with the influx of Puerto Ricans
to Florida.

The subject is a bit more complicated because of the word "immigrant".
While there are many people in Florida of Cuban heritage, most are a
generation or two - or even three - from being immigrants. Cuba's not
letting them out, and we're not letting them in. The immigrants are
the ones that managed have "dry feet".

Also complicating this is that we don't use "immigrant" to describe an
American citizen who moves from one place in the US to another. All
Puerto Ricans are American citizens before they set foot in Florida.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Quinn C
2019-11-04 22:55:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:24:10 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
I would guess local stuff in Florida would be Cuban-heavy, and New York
is, I believe, the second largest Puerto Rican population center.
I can't cite statistics, but I suspect that those of Puerto Rican
heritage far outnumber those of Cuban heritage in Florida. Not,
perhaps, in all parts of Florida, but in the state as a whole.
Wikipedia reports 1.5 million Cuban-Americans vs. 1.1 million Puerto
Ricans (about the same as New York!)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Americans#U.S._states_with_largest_Cuban-American_populations>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateside_Puerto_Ricans#Population_by_state>

Note that

| Orlando has the largest population of Puerto Ricans in Florida and
| their cultural impact on Central Florida is similar to that of the
| large Cuban population in South Florida. Orlando is home to the
| fastest growing Puerto Rican community in the country.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando,_Florida#Demographics>
--
The trouble some people have being German, I thought,
I have being human.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.130
Tony Cooper
2019-11-05 00:38:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 17:55:04 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:24:10 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
I would guess local stuff in Florida would be Cuban-heavy, and New York
is, I believe, the second largest Puerto Rican population center.
I can't cite statistics, but I suspect that those of Puerto Rican
heritage far outnumber those of Cuban heritage in Florida. Not,
perhaps, in all parts of Florida, but in the state as a whole.
Wikipedia reports 1.5 million Cuban-Americans vs. 1.1 million Puerto
Ricans (about the same as New York!)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Americans#U.S._states_with_largest_Cuban-American_populations>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateside_Puerto_Ricans#Population_by_state>
Note that
| Orlando has the largest population of Puerto Ricans in Florida and
| their cultural impact on Central Florida is similar to that of the
| large Cuban population in South Florida. Orlando is home to the
| fastest growing Puerto Rican community in the country.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando,_Florida#Demographics>
Note my just-posted comments on this. Whatever numbers those sites
cite, they are out-of-date.

I'm not comfortable with the term "Cuban-American", either. Cubans
tend to regard themselves as "Cuban-American" several generations down
from the original Cuban forefather. In any discussion about
"immigrants", a person whose grandfather, or even great-grandfather,
came here is not - in my opinion - someone to include in the
discussion.

There is no such thing as a "Puerto Rican/American". They are all
Americans from birth even if born in Puerto Rico.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Quinn C
2019-11-05 00:50:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
I'm not comfortable with the term "Cuban-American", either. Cubans
tend to regard themselves as "Cuban-American" several generations down
from the original Cuban forefather. In any discussion about
"immigrants", a person whose grandfather, or even great-grandfather,
came here is not - in my opinion - someone to include in the
discussion.
I wasn't discussing immigants in this section. The topic had been
drifting from representation on TV to the composition of the Hispanic
population on the ground.
Post by Tony Cooper
There is no such thing as a "Puerto Rican/American". They are all
Americans from birth even if born in Puerto Rico.
Thats why nobody wrote anything of the sort, either.
--
Java is kind of like kindergarten. There are lots of rules you
have to remember. If you don't follow them, the compiler makes
you sit in the corner until you do.
Don Raab
Quinn C
2019-11-05 00:50:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
I'm not comfortable with the term "Cuban-American", either. Cubans
tend to regard themselves as "Cuban-American" several generations down
from the original Cuban forefather. In any discussion about
"immigrants", a person whose grandfather, or even great-grandfather,
came here is not - in my opinion - someone to include in the
discussion.
I wasn't discussing immigants in this section. The topic had been
drifting from cultural representation on TV to the composition of the
Hispanic population on the ground.
Post by Tony Cooper
There is no such thing as a "Puerto Rican/American". They are all
Americans from birth even if born in Puerto Rico.
That's why nobody wrote anything of the sort, either.
--
Java is kind of like kindergarten. There are lots of rules you
have to remember. If you don't follow them, the compiler makes
you sit in the corner until you do.
Don Raab
Tony Cooper
2019-11-05 01:37:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 19:50:52 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
I'm not comfortable with the term "Cuban-American", either. Cubans
tend to regard themselves as "Cuban-American" several generations down
from the original Cuban forefather. In any discussion about
"immigrants", a person whose grandfather, or even great-grandfather,
came here is not - in my opinion - someone to include in the
discussion.
I wasn't discussing immigants in this section. The topic had been
drifting from cultural representation on TV to the composition of the
Hispanic population on the ground.
The topic I've been discussing is your contention that immigrants are,
on average, better educated than Americans. I disagree.
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
There is no such thing as a "Puerto Rican/American". They are all
Americans from birth even if born in Puerto Rico.
That's why nobody wrote anything of the sort, either.
You bring up thread drift and then get huffy about me introducing
something that has not previously been discussed?

It must be uncomfortable sitting in permanently knotted panties.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Quinn C
2019-11-05 02:46:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 19:50:52 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
I'm not comfortable with the term "Cuban-American", either. Cubans
tend to regard themselves as "Cuban-American" several generations down
from the original Cuban forefather. In any discussion about
"immigrants", a person whose grandfather, or even great-grandfather,
came here is not - in my opinion - someone to include in the
discussion.
I wasn't discussing immigants in this section. The topic had been
drifting from cultural representation on TV to the composition of the
Hispanic population on the ground.
The topic I've been discussing is your contention that immigrants are,
on average, better educated than Americans. I disagree.
As I said, I'm not discussing that one with you any more.

In this subthread, I gave the figures that were missing when you wrote

| I can't cite statistics, but I suspect that those of Puerto Rican
| heritage far outnumber those of Cuban heritage in Florida.

"Heritage" signals that it's not restricted to recent immigrants.
--
We say, 'If any lady or gentleman shall buy this article _____ shall
have it for five dollars.' The blank may be filled with he, she, it,
or they; or in any other manner; and yet the form of the expression
will be too vulgar to be uttered. -- Wkly Jrnl of Commerce (1839)h
Tony Cooper
2019-11-05 03:02:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 21:46:42 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 19:50:52 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
I'm not comfortable with the term "Cuban-American", either. Cubans
tend to regard themselves as "Cuban-American" several generations down
from the original Cuban forefather. In any discussion about
"immigrants", a person whose grandfather, or even great-grandfather,
came here is not - in my opinion - someone to include in the
discussion.
I wasn't discussing immigants in this section. The topic had been
drifting from cultural representation on TV to the composition of the
Hispanic population on the ground.
The topic I've been discussing is your contention that immigrants are,
on average, better educated than Americans. I disagree.
As I said, I'm not discussing that one with you any more.
No, you provided percentages, and they are seriously out-of-date.
Post by Quinn C
| I can't cite statistics, but I suspect that those of Puerto Rican
| heritage far outnumber those of Cuban heritage in Florida.
"Heritage" signals that it's not restricted to recent immigrants.
But it is *inclusive* of immigrants. The word was chosen because
there are many Cubans in the figures who are not immigrants. Not even
by a generation or more.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Quinn C
2019-11-05 03:06:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 21:46:42 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 19:50:52 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tony Cooper
I'm not comfortable with the term "Cuban-American", either. Cubans
tend to regard themselves as "Cuban-American" several generations down
from the original Cuban forefather. In any discussion about
"immigrants", a person whose grandfather, or even great-grandfather,
came here is not - in my opinion - someone to include in the
discussion.
I wasn't discussing immigants in this section. The topic had been
drifting from cultural representation on TV to the composition of the
Hispanic population on the ground.
The topic I've been discussing is your contention that immigrants are,
on average, better educated than Americans. I disagree.
As I said, I'm not discussing that one with you any more.
No, you provided percentages,
You're hopelessly confused.
--
WinErr 008: Erroneous error. Nothing is wrong.
Tak To
2019-11-03 18:09:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Tak To
Just to clarify: it was purely an inquiry of your usage of
the term "immigrant".
Post by Tony Cooper
I have no way of knowing. An immigrant is a person who has come to
this country from another country. A "legal immigrant" is a person
who has come to this country from another country and been granted
authorization to live and work in this country.
By the same token, how do you know someone is an immigrant
at all?
That's the point, innit?
I am not sure what that point is. My point was that you were
taking "immigrants" to mean "whomever Tony Cooper think of as
immigrants", which was different from Quinn's working
definition. Thus you couldn't really say that Quinn's
statement "it is well known [in the US and other places]
that immigrants ..." was incorrect because you two were
talking about different things.
Post by Tony Cooper
As I write this, there's a crew of people engaged in landscaping the
condo complex I live in. The condo association pays a firm to do
this.
All I can tell you looking out the window is the men I see *appear* to
be of Mexican heritage. When I walk out the door, I hear them
conversing in Spanish.
I have no way of knowing if they are immigrants or if they were born
here. If they are immigrants, I have no way of knowing if they are
legal or undocumented.
Post by Tak To
Post by Tony Cooper
The only way I can tell if an immigrant is "legal" is to ask to see
his/her "green card", and that's not always an effective test.
Trump would probably like to see them tattooed on the lip like horses
to show they're legal, but it hasn't come to that yet.
It is a topic for another debate, but a quick random check
of legal status is an indispensable element in enforcing any
immigration policy at all in areas of high level of illegal
immigration -- not that the average US citizen will go for
it anytime soon.
The average *citizen* in Florida *would* go for it as discussed in the
post about E-Verify. That's been shown time-after-time by surveys.
The employers and the legislators are the ones who wouldn't go for it.
The kind of random check that I was referring to is not
limited to being carried out only at the time of employment
by employers.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tony Cooper
2019-11-03 18:54:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tak To
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Tak To
Just to clarify: it was purely an inquiry of your usage of
the term "immigrant".
Post by Tony Cooper
I have no way of knowing. An immigrant is a person who has come to
this country from another country. A "legal immigrant" is a person
who has come to this country from another country and been granted
authorization to live and work in this country.
By the same token, how do you know someone is an immigrant
at all?
That's the point, innit?
I am not sure what that point is. My point was that you were
taking "immigrants" to mean "whomever Tony Cooper think of as
immigrants", which was different from Quinn's working
definition. Thus you couldn't really say that Quinn's
statement "it is well known [in the US and other places]
that immigrants ..." was incorrect because you two were
talking about different things.
The point is that we don't all agree what an "immigrant" is, so we
don't know how someone is an immigrant.
Post by Tak To
Post by Tony Cooper
The average *citizen* in Florida *would* go for it as discussed in the
post about E-Verify. That's been shown time-after-time by surveys.
The employers and the legislators are the ones who wouldn't go for it.
The kind of random check that I was referring to is not
limited to being carried out only at the time of employment
by employers.
Random checks? Something like soldiers asking someone for their
papers? I think was done in Europe in the 1940s by the Schutzstaffel.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Janet
2019-11-02 16:51:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tak To
[1] In the UK, there is a concept of granting "status of
refugee" which is more or less the same as granting asylum.
In UK, refugees and asylum seekers have very different legal status
and rights.

Janet
Peter Moylan
2019-11-02 22:01:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
says...
[1] In the UK, there is a concept of granting "status of refugee"
which is more or less the same as granting asylum.
In UK, refugees and asylum seekers have very different legal status
and rights.
That's because there is a difference between seeking asylum and being
granted asylum.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Tak To
2019-11-03 17:35:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
says...
[1] In the UK, there is a concept of granting "status of refugee"
which is more or less the same as granting asylum.
In UK, refugees and asylum seekers have very different legal status
and rights.
That's because there is a difference between seeking asylum and being
granted asylum.
More precisely, granted asylum *to*the*UK*. Someone
recognized by the UNHCR but never applied for asylum to the
UK is not a refugee by/in UK legal lingo, even though that
person may have been granted asylum to, say, Germany.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Quinn C
2019-11-04 13:36:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Tak To
[1] In the UK, there is a concept of granting "status of
refugee" which is more or less the same as granting asylum.
In UK, refugees and asylum seekers have very different legal status
and rights.
During the breakup if Yugoslavia, there were many many refugees in
Germany (some in the same house as I) who could stay with their refugee
status until the crisis was deemed over. If you apply for asylum, it
means that you want to stay indefinitely.

But I have the feeling that the usage of these words has changed since
then.
--
Pentiums melt in your PC, not in your hand.
occam
2019-11-02 12:16:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 01/11/2019 17:13,
Post by Quinn C
Post by occam
The only new 'take' characterising the difference is well summarised by
Lanarcam. "Immigrants" has a negative connotation, and is normally used
to describe working class people. "Expats" are professionals, who may
(or not) have made a commitment to their country of residence.
I think at best that's a European perspective. In Canada, and I assume
also the US or Australia, it is well known that immigrants have, on
average, higher education than the natives. I mean... you know what I
mean by natives.
Indulge me in this Ngram search:

"bloody immigrant" vs "bloody expat", as an insult.

TinyURL

https://tinyurl.com/yxr2t2wp


[As a control, here is the Ngram of "immigrant" vs. "expat"]

https://tinyurl.com/y3x4mg8x


(P.S. I have tried several alternative insulting adjectives. All give
the same response. Blank for expat.)
Adam Funk
2019-11-04 11:38:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
I'm inclined to agree with Horace, though I might say "identification
with" rather than "allegiance to". I haven't checked whether I'm
Yes, allegiance is for gullible people & the politicians who
manipulate them.
Post by Jerry Friedman
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/zd5yoc_OZQI/JMzkjxV-AwAJ
--
Corporations are neither physical nor metaphysical phenomena. They are
socioeconomic ploys — legally enacted game-playing — agreed upon only
between overwhelmingly powerful socioeconomic individuals and by them
imposed upon human society and its all unwitting members.
---Buckminster Fuller
Spains Harden
2019-11-01 16:36:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
Immigrants intend to stay.
Expats intend to go back home.
Tak To
2019-11-01 17:49:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
What is the difference between an Expat and an immigrant?
The terms are not mutually exclusive.

"Immigrant" implies a willingness to settle down permanently
and to "go native", so to speak. There is also a legal
definition of immigration which varies from country to country.
Post by Lewis
There seems to be some difference, but I can't seem to figure out what
it is. Certainly the Americans I know and knew in Mexico do not call
themselves immigrants.
I have a friend in Thailand who has lived there 20 years, and another in
Japan who's been there 15 years. Both are "expats" but neither knows
why when I asked.
Perhaps your friends identified themselves as ex-pats because
the were talking to *you*. OTOH, do you know if they have
gone through the legal immigration process in the respective
countries?
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Loading...