I find it interesting that many S.Affers I know that have travelled the seas do not see themselves, or term themselves as “immigrants”. They tend to prefer the term “ex-pat”.
So what’s the difference?
Is it a case of race and/or economics?
An immigrant is the person who snuck in to do low-level work, while an ex-pat is a global traveller, settled in a new land by social choice not economic choice?
Perhaps it is that an immigrant is someone who resembles the Irish & Italians fresh off a boat on a New York harbour over a century ago? Or the Indian & East Asian folk keeping their heads down as they pass through First World customs.
While an ex-pat flew business-class and had booked accommodation to his new home. S/he is equal with the local middle- and upper-class & can ooze right into the way of living of that country.
And, I have noted from sugary-sweet hypocritical conversations, it is the person that reckons they are more “ex-pat” than “immigrant” who is quite capable of being condescending towards the “immigrants”, slate the “other groups” entering in droves, criticise the local immigration policies, without an ounce of insight into the irony of their words.
It also interests me that many white folk in the Americas & Australasia & even Africa do not realise that their stance on immigration is in complete opposition to and would have resulted in the barring of their grandparents’ parents and other ancestors from the opportunities that their ancestors chose to take so many years back. Choices that gave you life and the quality of living you have always known.
Why was it good enough for your family but not good enough for someone else’s family?
Why was immigration that changed the face of countries acceptable then and it is not acceptable now?
What do you not like about this immigration’s face?