next »

[ajarn]

"Resident alien?"

Don't think that fits, I am a member of the human race. That term sounds like the title of a bad SF movie. 

[daniel_von_flanagan]

This got me curious to know how long "alien" has been used to mean "spacecreature".  OED says 1944. - DvF

[baka_janai]

I also wonder why it isn't possible to get a tt position TEACHING ESL in the US.  Ditto for any other foreign language.  Is teaching a language supposed to be somehow less demanding than teaching freshman biology?

I know very little about ESL in the US; is it commonly taught at the same institutions that offer tenure for teaching-only faculty?  At my University, tenure is given for research record, so someone who only teaches biology without publishing wouldn't come within a mile of tenure.  I know this is not the case at some other types of institutions, but I don't know if these have ESL programs. - DvF

It used to be that almost every university offered ESL/EAP courses for their international students.  But today I believe that many universities have farmed these classes out to private or affiliated schools.  I'd guess that SLACs with a heavy overseas enrollment still offer ESL/EAP programs.  On the other hand, many of these programs took a serious financial hit due to greater restrictions on student visas after 9/11.

But I understand your point.  Professors are supposed to be researchers -- not just teachers.  In my case, the allied research field is Second Language Education/Acquisition.  Unfortunately, this is normally only taught at a graduate level so there are naturally far fewer positions available than in fields taught at the undergrad level.  For example, what university doesn't offer undergrad math classes?  And all those classes have to be staffed -- and there are only so many TAs/grad slaves to go around.

Perhaps a better comparison is to be found in foreign language Departments.  Only rarely do any of the tenured faculty have a specialization in language education.  Most are actually specialists in either literature or linguistics.  Each department (or each language in the department) might have one person with a research interest in language education.  But it should be the other way around.  Foreign language departments should be staffed almost entirely with people with Ph.D.s and publication records in SLA and/or language education.  There should be maybe one person with a lit focus and maybe another  focused on sociolinguistic issues of language X. 

But that's not the case.  Because the language programs don't want it to be the case.  Because the language programs only crank out people with lit and ling focuses.

OK. Rant over.  I accept that most universities do not consider language teaching to be on a par with the teaching of "real" subjects. 

[baka_janai]

First we have the “real expatriates” or also called expat expats, or just expats. These are individuals who are sent by the home office and have pay and benefit packages that are inline with those working at the home office. These expats will stay with the organization after their stint overseas is over.

Next we have one class of “Locally-hired expatriates” or also called Northern expatriates” as we come from Western (Northern) countries.  This is the category I fall into. In this category, we are locally hired but paid in the currency of the home office (Euros), but we do not have the same benefits as “real expatriates” and we don’t have any expectation of employment with the organization outside of the country in which we were hired.

We have another classification of locally-hired expatriates; they are hired-locally and paid in local currency but are paid at a higher rate than are local staff members.

We also have “southern expatriates,” who come from “southern” countries but not the country we are located in. These individuals are usually mid-level managers and paid at a slightly higher than local rate.

We also have foreign local staff, or expats on a local salary. We have a number of individuals, mostly from Burma/Myanmar, but also from Canada and England, who are working on the same conditions and salaries as local staff members.

What a nightmarish swamp of inequality!  I'm not surprised by it really.  But I'm so glad that I don't have to live with it.  I'm truly blessed (and really lucky) that at my particular university in Japan, Japanese and non-Japanese faculty are treated completely equally.  This is not always the case.  In fact, sometimes they go to such lengths to ignore blindingly obvious "differences" (which Japanese treat a "inequalities") that it gets ridiculous. 

I do sometimes use the word expat with other EFL teachers -- but I notice it's not common in Japan.  I think I use it as a holdover from my time in the Middle East where it was the dominant term within the expat community.  In the Middle East we also talked about "going on leave" instead of "vacation."  BTW, most of the "upper end" expats in the Gulf were hired from outside the country.  There were always a few "local hires" who got a greatly reduced package.  These were often spouses of a "foreign hire." 

Technically, here in Japan, I believe I am an "foreign resident."  Japanese just call us "foreigners" (in English).  In Japanese, I'm a "gaijin" (or more politely "gaikokujin" or even "gaikokujin-sama").  Curiously though, if you happen to be a gaijin ("outside person") from China you are not a gaijin.  You're just a chukoku-jin.  And if you're an African-American you're a koku-jin ("black man").  So gaijin is sort of code for white foreigner.  Or an "otherwise unidentifiably foreigner."

[ajarn]

“What a nightmarish swamp of inequality! “

Welcome to the world of NGOs, truly stuck with a colonial mindset.

“So gaijin is sort of code for white foreigner”

Farang is used the same way in Thailand and Barang is used in Cambodia

I have found this interesting, us (white Westerners) often identify ourselves primarily by nationality while Asians tend to identify us (white Westerners) as part of a larger Western culture.

[cat_on_track]

I don’t usually refer to myself as an ex-pat, but what other terms are there?

Resident alien?  It is interesting that in the US we usually apply the word "expat" to someone from England living and working here, but if they come from Mexico we tend to use a different set of words. - DvF

In Race and Ethnic Relations theories, a person who moves to another country with intent to stay, is considered an "immigrant," regardless of nationality acquisition.  If the person intends to return (however long that takes, even never), the term is "sojourner." The immigration language of states is different; in the U.S., a permanent resident is still an alien and somebody who is in the process of naturalization is an "immigrant." Some "public" folks keep calling citizens "immigrants" even after naturalization; strangely enough, these citizens are almost always of recent Asian or Latin American origin.

I am a "sojourner" by intent (although I will probably die here), will never immigrate (will never acquire the nationality or consider myself local), and am a "registered alien/permanent resident" (I love the image of the Alien movies! Yeah, that's me!!!).

The words that folks use outside of theory and government lingo are quite varied.

[ajarn]

Sojourner, I like that, but wonder what would be the reaction I would get by using this term to explain my situation.

Although I am a white bread eating Hoosier by birth, I make my "home" in Thailand, but starting next month I will be primarily working in Vietnam with an occasional fling into Japan (wife and kids are staying in Thailand at least until the son finishes high school) but I will be commuting back "home" once a month or so. Currently I am working along the Thai-Burmese Border, but home is still in Bangkok and I go "home" most weekends.

If my situation doesn't make me a sojourner I don't know what would :).

However it may be more difficult to a get an article or book published on soujourners than it is on expatraites.

[cat_on_track]

I'm not in the office and can't look at book spines for publishers, but if you look around in journals like the International Journal of Intercultural Relations, you can probably find some publishers' ads. Your publication would roughly fall under Sociology - Racial and Ethnic Relations Studies or Immigration Studies. Browse through JStor or even just try google scholar for more journals.

[ajarn]

cat on track

You probably have a point, but in business studies, the term expatriate is used most frequently.

[gobelin]

Ajarn, I just thought I'd note that I have occasionally heard black Americans referred to as 'farang' in Bangkok.  Sometimes it's been accepted and other times there had to be a little explanation - along the lines of 'yes he has black skin but he is a farang because he is from America'.  But I think the people who used it this way were used to mixing with foreigners.  I agree that it is normally used to refer to white people.

[ajarn]

^

Good point. When I first came to Thailand, it seems black people were usually referred to as "Khun Dum" (people black)  but more recently the definition of Farang is often used to refer to all Non-Asians from Western countries. My boss is a mixed race South African and yet he is often referred to as a Farang.

Racial Classifications are interesting, the way we do so in the West may not be the same as in other locations.

However, in most nations, race and nationality are intertwined, unlike in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and to a lesser extent Europe.

[gobelin]

Yes that's right! But I know which approach I prefer. I used to find the prevalence of all the skin-whitening products very depressing and I never knew what to say to all the comments about 'Your skin is so beautifully pale'.

[euro_trash]

"Resident alien"

Sound like a term you would use if ET decided to rent a room in your house...

[ideagirl]

Some "public" folks keep calling citizens "immigrants" even after naturalization

Well, of course they do. An immigrant is someone who has settled here (wherever "here" is) quasi-permanently, but originally came from another country. Whether they get naturalized or not, they're still an immigrant; the opposite of "immigrant" is not "citizen," but "native-born" (or synonyms for native-born). You don't magically stop being an immigrant by virtue of getting naturalized. All "immigrant" means is "someone who came from another country." I would say the only grey area arises when the person was brought from another country at a very young age--technically you're an immigrant even if your parents brought you here when you were one year old, but culturally speaking it's more of a gray area because the new country is actually the only country you ever knew. But still--"immigrant" and "citizen" are not antonyms. The antonyms are "immigrant" and "person who was born here."

In Race and Ethnic Relations theories, a person who moves to another country with intent to stay, is considered an "immigrant," regardless of nationality acquisition.  If the person intends to return (however long that takes, even never), the term is "sojourner." The immigration language of states is different; in the U.S., a permanent resident is still an alien and somebody who is in the process of naturalization is an "immigrant."

Not so. The immigration language of the U.S. is the same (at least as far as the word "immigrant" is concerned). This is from the U.S. State Department:
"A citizen of a foreign country, wishing to enter the U.S., generally must first obtain a visa, either a nonimmigrant visa for temporary stay, or an immigrant visa for permanent residence."
http://travel.state.gov/visa/visa_1750.html

So if you're coming from another country to the US to reside here for the foreseeable future (which is what "permanent" means), you are an "immigrant." If you're coming here for any other purpose, you're a "nonimmigrant," a.k.a. a "visitor" (the equivalent to "sojourner"). The fact that you're a "resident alien" is totally consistent with the fact that you're an "immigrant"; all resident aliens are immigrants (legal or otherwise), and all immigrants are resident aliens until/unless they become naturalized citizens. After naturalization, they're citizens and not aliens, but they're still immigrants.

I am a "sojourner" by intent (although I will probably die here), will never immigrate (will never acquire the nationality or consider myself local)

If you're here on an immigrant visa and you've taken the usual next steps (apply for green card, settle somewhere, etc.), you've already immigrated. Immigration and assimilation (eventually coming to consider yourself a local) are two different things. Immigration and naturalization are two different things.

[ideagirl]

Ajarn, the situation you describe makes you sound like a fully qualified "expat" to me. :-) An expat is someone who doesn't live in their home country: ex (out of) patria (fatherland/home country). Regardless of what your exact status may be in Thailand, Vietnam, Japan or wherever, you're still an expat.

Though "sojourner" is a more poetic term, for sure...