Because they're ex to Britain & have emigrated legally. The countries they've emigrated to could call them 'migrants' I guess.
It doesn't appear legal status has anything to do with the term migrants - they are all migrants whether legal or not according to some that use the term.
If people can't see that "ex-pat" has a different connotation to "migrant" then I can't help them. People choose the term to use when describing someone, and people are clearly not using the word migrant when describing British people who have emigrated abroad.
It doesn't appear legal status has anything to do with the term migrants - they are all migrants whether legal or not according to some that use the term.
If people can't see that "ex-pat" has a different connotation to "migrant" then I can't help them. People choose the term to use when describing someone, and people are clearly not using the word migrant when describing British people who have emigrated abroad.
'Ex pat' has a different connotation because it's about people who have left this country, that's all.
As opposed to
The Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights has proposed that the following persons should be considered as migrants:
(a) Persons who are outside the territory of the State of which their are nationals or citizens, are not subject to its legal protection and are in the territory of another State;
(b) Persons who do not enjoy the general legal recognition of rights which is inherent in the granting by the host State of the status of refugee, naturalised person or of similar status;
(c) Persons who do not enjoy either general legal protection of their fundamental rights by virtue of diplomatic agreements, visas or other agreements.3
This broad definition of migrants reflects the current difficulty in distinguishing between migrants who leave their countries because of political persecution, conflicts, economic problems, environmental degradation or a combination of these reasons and those who do so in search of conditions of survival or well-being that does not exist in their place of origin. It also attempts to define migrant population in a way that takes new situations into consideration. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/international-migration/glossary/migrant/
You couldn't really describe a Brit living on the Costa Del Sol in the above terms, could you?
As I said in my opening sentence, it was a news story, but I was commenting on the fact that even though media are reporting these events, those selecting and posting these things on the internet are sometimes, as in this case, clearly neo-Nazis and they twist the stories to their own agendas. You Tube is covered with extremist stuff like this - and it isn't helping this situation at all as weak minded people start buying into the crap they are peddling on their channels. There are lots of valid reasons to oppose immigration, but white supremacy isn't one.
I totally agree but many times we get to see material which isn't shown here for some reason so despite them having an agenda we get to see it, we could say that our govt/media has its own in that they're keeping it from us.
Anyway this is off topic so I'll leave it at that.
Yes I have used the word migrant previously. The article was more than just about the word migrant though, it was about language use on the whole.
I take it you don't think language used to dehumanise people is a worrying trend?
I must admit I glanced through and from what I can see they are commonly used words such as, asylum, refugee, migrant, economic migrant, immigrant and illegal immigrant which are hardly what I'd call dehumanising.
What is being said that has become a trend, a worrying one at that?
If they are genuine refugees looking for a safe haven they wont give a damn what they are called . I know if I was fleeing war with my kids the least of my bloody worries would be what I was called
'Ex pat' has a different connotation because it's about people who have left this country, that's all.
As opposed to
The Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights has proposed that the following persons should be considered as migrants:
(a) Persons who are outside the territory of the State of which their are nationals or citizens, are not subject to its legal protection and are in the territory of another State;
(b) Persons who do not enjoy the general legal recognition of rights which is inherent in the granting by the host State of the status of refugee, naturalised person or of similar status;
(c) Persons who do not enjoy either general legal protection of their fundamental rights by virtue of diplomatic agreements, visas or other agreements.3
This broad definition of migrants reflects the current difficulty in distinguishing between migrants who leave their countries because of political persecution, conflicts, economic problems, environmental degradation or a combination of these reasons and those who do so in search of conditions of survival or well-being that does not exist in their place of origin. It also attempts to define migrant population in a way that takes new situations into consideration. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/international-migration/glossary/migrant/
You couldn't really describe a Brit living on the Costa Del Sol in the above terms, could you?
Without wanting to take this thread too off tangent, there are plenty of articles questioning why brits living abroad are called ex-pats and not immigrants or migrants. Some argue it's double standards, others that it's a word they just hadn't thought that much about before and it's just a term that is used. FWIW I have family living and working abroad, they see themselves as thoroughly immersed in their adopted countries and don't use the term ex-pat at all in relation to themselves. Maybe that has influence my viewpoint on this.
Yes I have used the word migrant previously. The article was more than just about the word migrant though, it was about language use on the whole.
I take it you don't think language used to dehumanise people is a worrying trend?
But it's the word 'migrant' that is applicable to this thread - anyway this is getting ridiculous now, there's a huge crisis going on, and you're seriously concerned that we call migrants 'migrants'? :D
They're lucky that people, in the main, still show them the courtesy of calling them that, and not something far worse.
I don't suppose the migrants themselves give a monkeys about being called migrants though tbh, and that it's mainly a concern amongst their diehard supporters.
But look where it could end up if we all took that view - no asylum at all for anyone in another country. Is that what people want?
Ideally no way....but- just at the moment... maybe? If the genuine asylum seekers are proved to be just that, I don't feel as though I have the right to decide,personally but right now, what's happening, it's all so overwhelming everywhere.
It's the genuine people this hurts the very most, I don't want to feel this way, but I am finding that I do. UK has gone from being tolerant to bending over with a smile, while being told it can't celebrate Christmas a certain way because of offending this person or that person.
The news reports from Calais look like something akin to World War Z to me and I see no reason to invite that here and every reason to block it. These images do stick and I live on Kent Coast, so it feels like a blessing to be an island. They still manage to get here, seven more found on a lorry in Dartford.
I do realise that there are those who settle here who do not have this attitude and have others speaking PC nonsense on their behalf, but there are definitely some who do complain in such a manner.
Like I've said, I have worked in NHS, many people from all over the world working hard there and many patients from all over the world needing to use the service. That's a positive, I've learnt alot from such people-other things I have seen are not so positive, the removal of decorations at Christmas as a complaint from just one locum.Really? This caused offence in a Uk hospital where kids are? Nah, that was about control and to me, I felt anyway, a contempt for our ways. This one person's attitude changes feelings for the worse and people start to feel defensive, rather than welcoming.
I want to go into so much detail with examples, but I just don't think I should, too identifiable.
I must admit I glanced through and from what I can see they are commonly used words such as, asylum, refugee, migrant, economic migrant, immigrant and illegal immigrants which are hardly what I'd call dehumanising.
What is being said that has become a trend, a worrying one at that?
The argument is about the use of words, how their original meaning evolves through how it's applied and it's use. Migrant has been used by many media and yes, I've used it too. But as the link says, it doesn't then tell us about that out of the migrants, some are economic, and some are refugees. Mixing the two groups up means that people who have no sympathy for economic migrants are also including genuine refugees in that when the term migrants is used with no distinction made.
As I've said before on this thread too, I think the word "people" should be used. They are people after all, just like you, me and whoever else is reading. For example, 71 people died in a lorry in Austria, suffocated to death, four of them children. 200 people feared dead in the med, drowned. Since the year 2000, 23,000 people have drowned in the med.
Using other terms separates them from us. If we were reading these numbers and they were Brits we'd be feeling very differently I think.
The issue wasn't that immigrants are "handed everything on a plate" at all.
The issue was that she committed fraud.
If they really were "handed everything on a plate", she wouldn't have had to commit fraud, would she?
And which government imported the 8 million people that Littlejohn is banging on about anyway? Where is that figure coming from?
No, as usual, it was a post just contradicting the poster, not referencing this 'asylum seeker's corruption at all. It doesn't matter how much they are given, it seeming isn't enough for some.
Yes. Listening to BBC news earlier (unless I heard incorrectly), it appears that Germany are allowing all Syrian migrants to seek asylum there.
I must stress the TV was on, but I wasn't paying absolute rapt attention at the time, so apologies if I heard wrong.
So they're not being NIMBY. The discussion with Red was about : "It's not our responsibility what happens to them or where they go, just as long as it's not here."
So they're not being NIMBY. The discussion with Red was about : "It's not our responsibility what happens to them or where they go, just as long as it's not here."
Sorry but I'm still missing the point.
I'd have thought the point was manifestly obvious given your re-quoted post above.
If they are genuine refugees looking for a safe haven they wont give a damn what they are called . I know if I was fleeing war with my kids the least of my bloody worries would be what I was called
I'd doubt anyone would want to be called an invader, or parasite, as some have used on here. Particularly if it influenced the host nation of whichever country you ended up in.
Comments
Do you think there should be asylum at all? If everyone was NIMBY there wouldn't be any asylum in any other countries ever.
Well that doesn't seem to be applying to Germany who have now pretty much shown the open door to all Syrian migrants.
You've used the same term yourself so who are you to say it's a worrying trend?
I know I shouldn't be laughing at such non PC, black humour, but I can't help it.
Frankie Boyle would be proud of you.
......Slinks off.....
It doesn't appear legal status has anything to do with the term migrants - they are all migrants whether legal or not according to some that use the term.
If people can't see that "ex-pat" has a different connotation to "migrant" then I can't help them. People choose the term to use when describing someone, and people are clearly not using the word migrant when describing British people who have emigrated abroad.
'Ex pat' has a different connotation because it's about people who have left this country, that's all.
As opposed to
The Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights has proposed that the following persons should be considered as migrants:
(a) Persons who are outside the territory of the State of which their are nationals or citizens, are not subject to its legal protection and are in the territory of another State;
(b) Persons who do not enjoy the general legal recognition of rights which is inherent in the granting by the host State of the status of refugee, naturalised person or of similar status;
(c) Persons who do not enjoy either general legal protection of their fundamental rights by virtue of diplomatic agreements, visas or other agreements.3
This broad definition of migrants reflects the current difficulty in distinguishing between migrants who leave their countries because of political persecution, conflicts, economic problems, environmental degradation or a combination of these reasons and those who do so in search of conditions of survival or well-being that does not exist in their place of origin. It also attempts to define migrant population in a way that takes new situations into consideration.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/international-migration/glossary/migrant/
You couldn't really describe a Brit living on the Costa Del Sol in the above terms, could you?
I totally agree but many times we get to see material which isn't shown here for some reason so despite them having an agenda we get to see it, we could say that our govt/media has its own in that they're keeping it from us.
Anyway this is off topic so I'll leave it at that.
That makes no sense in what was being discussed. Can you explain?
Yes I have used the word migrant previously. The article was more than just about the word migrant though, it was about language use on the whole.
I take it you don't think language used to dehumanise people is a worrying trend?
Well that's what happens when people abuse the system, people who didn't feel remotely NIMBYish get fed up and become that way.
What is being said that has become a trend, a worrying one at that?
Yes. Listening to BBC news earlier (unless I heard incorrectly), it appears that Germany are allowing all Syrian migrants to seek asylum there.
I must stress the TV was on, but I wasn't paying absolute rapt attention at the time, so apologies if I heard wrong.
Without wanting to take this thread too off tangent, there are plenty of articles questioning why brits living abroad are called ex-pats and not immigrants or migrants. Some argue it's double standards, others that it's a word they just hadn't thought that much about before and it's just a term that is used. FWIW I have family living and working abroad, they see themselves as thoroughly immersed in their adopted countries and don't use the term ex-pat at all in relation to themselves. Maybe that has influence my viewpoint on this.
But look where it could end up if we all took that view - no asylum at all for anyone in another country. Is that what people want?
Yes.
Unless they are selected for a job, they should not be let in.
Absolutely. We don't need the individuals concerned for any economic or social reason.
Hence we keep them out.
The fact that their home countries don't seem able to live without fighting, is not our problem.
So pleased we're not part of Schengen.
They're lucky that people, in the main, still show them the courtesy of calling them that, and not something far worse.
I don't suppose the migrants themselves give a monkeys about being called migrants though tbh, and that it's mainly a concern amongst their diehard supporters.
Ideally no way....but- just at the moment... maybe? If the genuine asylum seekers are proved to be just that, I don't feel as though I have the right to decide,personally but right now, what's happening, it's all so overwhelming everywhere.
It's the genuine people this hurts the very most, I don't want to feel this way, but I am finding that I do. UK has gone from being tolerant to bending over with a smile, while being told it can't celebrate Christmas a certain way because of offending this person or that person.
The news reports from Calais look like something akin to World War Z to me and I see no reason to invite that here and every reason to block it. These images do stick and I live on Kent Coast, so it feels like a blessing to be an island. They still manage to get here, seven more found on a lorry in Dartford.
I do realise that there are those who settle here who do not have this attitude and have others speaking PC nonsense on their behalf, but there are definitely some who do complain in such a manner.
Like I've said, I have worked in NHS, many people from all over the world working hard there and many patients from all over the world needing to use the service. That's a positive, I've learnt alot from such people-other things I have seen are not so positive, the removal of decorations at Christmas as a complaint from just one locum.Really? This caused offence in a Uk hospital where kids are? Nah, that was about control and to me, I felt anyway, a contempt for our ways. This one person's attitude changes feelings for the worse and people start to feel defensive, rather than welcoming.
I want to go into so much detail with examples, but I just don't think I should, too identifiable.
The argument is about the use of words, how their original meaning evolves through how it's applied and it's use. Migrant has been used by many media and yes, I've used it too. But as the link says, it doesn't then tell us about that out of the migrants, some are economic, and some are refugees. Mixing the two groups up means that people who have no sympathy for economic migrants are also including genuine refugees in that when the term migrants is used with no distinction made.
I've linked the article again, because to be honest it's probably better at explaining what the discussion is about. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34061097
As I've said before on this thread too, I think the word "people" should be used. They are people after all, just like you, me and whoever else is reading. For example, 71 people died in a lorry in Austria, suffocated to death, four of them children. 200 people feared dead in the med, drowned. Since the year 2000, 23,000 people have drowned in the med.
Using other terms separates them from us. If we were reading these numbers and they were Brits we'd be feeling very differently I think.
No, as usual, it was a post just contradicting the poster, not referencing this 'asylum seeker's corruption at all. It doesn't matter how much they are given, it seeming isn't enough for some.
So they're not being NIMBY. The discussion with Red was about : "It's not our responsibility what happens to them or where they go, just as long as it's not here."
Sorry but I'm still missing the point.
I'd have thought the point was manifestly obvious given your re-quoted post above.
I'd doubt anyone would want to be called an invader, or parasite, as some have used on here. Particularly if it influenced the host nation of whichever country you ended up in.