Questões de Inglês

Why are white people expats when the rest of us are immigrants?

[1]       In the lexicon of human migration there are still hierarchical words, created with the purpose of
[2]  putting white people above everyone else. One of those remnants is the word “expat”.
[3]       What is an expat? And who is an expat? According to Wikipedia, “an expatriate (often shortened to
[4]  expat) is a person temporarily or permanently residing in a country other than that of the person’s upbringing.
[5]  The word comes from the Latin terms ex (‘out of’) and patria (‘country, fatherland’)”.
[6]       Defined that way, you should expect that any person going to work outside of his or her country for
[7]  a period of time would be an expat, regardless of his skin colour or country. But that is not the case in
[8]  reality; expat is a term reserved exclusively for western white people going to work abroad.
[9]       Africans are immigrants. Arabs are immigrants. Asians are immigrants. However, Europeans are
[10]  expats because they can’t be at the same level as other ethnicities. They are superior. Immigrants is a
[11]  term set aside for ‘inferior races’.
[12]      Don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal, the leading financial information magazine in the
[13]  world, has a blog dedicated to the life of expats and recently they featured a story ‘Who is an expat,
[14]  anyway?’. Here are the main conclusions: “Some arrivals are described as expats; others as immigrants;
[15]  and some simply as migrants. It depends on social class, country of origin and economic status. It’s
[16]  strange to hear some people in Hong Kong described as expats, but not others. Anyone with roots in a
[17]  western country is considered an expat … Filipino domestic helpers are just guests, even if they’ve been
[18]  here for decades. Mandarin-speaking mainland Chinese are rarely regarded as expats. It’s a double standard
[19]  woven into official policy.”
[20]      The reality is the same in Africa and Europe. Top African professionals going to work in Europe are
[21]  not considered expats. They are immigrants. Period.
[22]      Most white people deny that they enjoy the privileges of a racist system. And why not? But our
[23]  responsibility is to point out and to deny them these privileges, directly related to an outdated supremacist
[24]  ideology.
By Mawuna Remarque Koutonin Adapted from: <http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals- network/2015/ mar/13/white-people-expats-immigrantsmigration>. Accessed on September 12th, 2015.

TEXTO:

Dogs and humans

  Dogs are called “man’s best friend” — women’s,
too — and scientists say the bond between people and
their pooches may be deeper than you might think.
Researchers in Japan said that oxytocin, a hormone that
[5] among other things helps reinforce bonds between parents
and their babies, increases in humans and their dogs
when they interact, particularly when gazing into one
another’s eyes. They described a series of experiments
that suggest that people and their canine companions
[10] have mutually developed this instinctual bonding
mechanism in the thousands of years since dogs were
first domesticated.
  Sometimes called the “love hormone,” oxytocin is
made in a brain structure called the hypothalamus
[15] and secreted from the pituitary gland. It is involved
in emotional bonding, maternal behavior, child birth,
breast-feeding, sexual arousal and other functions.
“Oxytocin has many positive impacts on human
physiology and psychology,” said Takefumi Kikusui, a
[20] veterinary medicine professor at Japan’s Azabu University,
whose research was published in the journal Science.
  In one experiment, dogs were put in a room with
their owners. The researchers tracked their interaction
and measured oxytocin levels through urine samples.
[25] People whose dogs had the most eye contact with
them — a mutual gaze — registered the largest increases
in oxytocin levels. The dogs also had an oxytocin spike
correlating with that of their owner. The researchers
conducted a similar experiment with wolves, close
[30] relatives of dogs, and found that no such thing happened
despite the fact that the wolves had been raised by the
people.
  In another experiment, the researchers sprayed
oxytocin into dogs’ noses and put them in a room with
[35] their owners as well as people the dogs did not know.
With the female dogs, and not the males, this increased
the mutual gazing between dogs and their owners and
also led to an oxytocin increase in the owners. “I

personally believe that there is a tight bond between the
[40] owner and dogs,” Kikusui said. “I have three standard
poodles. I strongly feel the tight bonding with these dogs.
Actually, I participated in the experiment, and my oxytocin
boosted up after the eye gaze, like 300 percent,” Kikusui
added.

DOGS are... Disponível em: <www.reuters.com.br/article/us-sciencedogs-idUSKBNON728220150416>. Acesso em: 13 maio 2016.

Why are white people expats when the rest of us are immigrants?

[1]       In the lexicon of human migration there are still hierarchical words, created with the purpose of
[2]  putting white people above everyone else. One of those remnants is the word “expat”.
[3]       What is an expat? And who is an expat? According to Wikipedia, “an expatriate (often shortened to
[4]  expat) is a person temporarily or permanently residing in a country other than that of the person’s upbringing.
[5]  The word comes from the Latin terms ex (‘out of’) and patria (‘country, fatherland’)”.
[6]       Defined that way, you should expect that any person going to work outside of his or her country for
[7]  a period of time would be an expat, regardless of his skin colour or country. But that is not the case in
[8]  reality; expat is a term reserved exclusively for western white people going to work abroad.
[9]       Africans are immigrants. Arabs are immigrants. Asians are immigrants. However, Europeans are
[10]  expats because they can’t be at the same level as other ethnicities. They are superior. Immigrants is a
[11]  term set aside for ‘inferior races’.
[12]      Don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal, the leading financial information magazine in the
[13]  world, has a blog dedicated to the life of expats and recently they featured a story ‘Who is an expat,
[14]  anyway?’. Here are the main conclusions: “Some arrivals are described as expats; others as immigrants;
[15]  and some simply as migrants. It depends on social class, country of origin and economic status. It’s
[16]  strange to hear some people in Hong Kong described as expats, but not others. Anyone with roots in a
[17]  western country is considered an expat … Filipino domestic helpers are just guests, even if they’ve been
[18]  here for decades. Mandarin-speaking mainland Chinese are rarely regarded as expats. It’s a double standard
[19]  woven into official policy.”
[20]      The reality is the same in Africa and Europe. Top African professionals going to work in Europe are
[21]  not considered expats. They are immigrants. Period.
[22]      Most white people deny that they enjoy the privileges of a racist system. And why not? But our
[23]  responsibility is to point out and to deny them these privileges, directly related to an outdated supremacist
[24]  ideology.
By Mawuna Remarque Koutonin Adapted from: <http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals- network/2015/ mar/13/white-people-expats-immigrantsmigration>. Accessed on September 12th, 2015.

TEXTO:

Dogs and humans

  Dogs are called “man’s best friend” — women’s,
too — and scientists say the bond between people and
their pooches may be deeper than you might think.
Researchers in Japan said that oxytocin, a hormone that
[5] among other things helps reinforce bonds between parents
and their babies, increases in humans and their dogs
when they interact, particularly when gazing into one
another’s eyes. They described a series of experiments
that suggest that people and their canine companions
[10] have mutually developed this instinctual bonding
mechanism in the thousands of years since dogs were
first domesticated.
  Sometimes called the “love hormone,” oxytocin is
made in a brain structure called the hypothalamus
[15] and secreted from the pituitary gland. It is involved
in emotional bonding, maternal behavior, child birth,
breast-feeding, sexual arousal and other functions.
“Oxytocin has many positive impacts on human
physiology and psychology,” said Takefumi Kikusui, a
[20] veterinary medicine professor at Japan’s Azabu University,
whose research was published in the journal Science.
  In one experiment, dogs were put in a room with
their owners. The researchers tracked their interaction
and measured oxytocin levels through urine samples.
[25] People whose dogs had the most eye contact with
them — a mutual gaze — registered the largest increases
in oxytocin levels. The dogs also had an oxytocin spike
correlating with that of their owner. The researchers
conducted a similar experiment with wolves, close
[30] relatives of dogs, and found that no such thing happened
despite the fact that the wolves had been raised by the
people.
  In another experiment, the researchers sprayed
oxytocin into dogs’ noses and put them in a room with
[35] their owners as well as people the dogs did not know.
With the female dogs, and not the males, this increased
the mutual gazing between dogs and their owners and
also led to an oxytocin increase in the owners. “I

personally believe that there is a tight bond between the
[40] owner and dogs,” Kikusui said. “I have three standard
poodles. I strongly feel the tight bonding with these dogs.
Actually, I participated in the experiment, and my oxytocin
boosted up after the eye gaze, like 300 percent,” Kikusui
added.

DOGS are... Disponível em: <www.reuters.com.br/article/us-sciencedogs-idUSKBNON728220150416>. Acesso em: 13 maio 2016.

THE ATTACK ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Donald Trump isn’t a lawyer, but he has lots of ideas for new laws. He has proposed to outlaw politicians’ use of teleprompters. He has pledged that he would tell Ford that it couldn’t move a plant to Mexico. But Mr. Trump’s most notable legal proposal is the elimination of birthright citizenship, under which anyone born on American soil is automatically an American.

Several of Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals have echoed his position. And whether or not the Constitution is ever reinterpreted or amended in that direction, the debate raises fascinating questions about what America is — and what America means.

When it comes to granting unconditional birthright citizenship, the United States and Canada are alone in the industrialized world: North American exceptionalism, you can call it.

Birthright citizenship applies to a range of newborns who would not get local citizenship elsewhere — the children of legal immigrants, of undocumented immigrants, of tourists, and of parents who come to the United States with the express purpose of minting an American.

Setting aside the legal question for a moment, this blanket invitation to American citizenship has enormous cultural force. It loudly communicates a brash idea: Citizenship, here at least, does not depend on parentage, blood, history, folkways. If you’re here at the moment of your crowning, then you are an American.

Now, many Americans who are not white, including this writer, can tell you their “Where are you from?” stories. People, sometimes well meaning and sometimes not, will ask that question, treating your skin color as invitation enough. But I can report that, just as often, someone will jump in before I have a chance to answer and say, “He was born in Ohio!” Birthright citizenship gives them that retort.

In Europe, it’s different. I have always found it jarring to encounter people born and raised in, say, Switzerland, who are denied its citizenship and still considered Algerians or Turks. In Europe, more than in the United States, worldly people, faced with my Indian skin, reflexively laud my “ancient,” “beautiful” origins, which is heartier praise than Cleveland usually gets from Europeans.

Birthright citizenship in America is part of something larger: The American longing to sever from history, to be a place of new beginnings. It reflects, as Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry wrote the other day in The Week, “the Enlightenment-driven belief, over and against the feudalism that prevailed in most places in Europe, that citizenship depended on a social contract, not a bloodline.”

Yet critics argue birthright citizenship has outlived its usefulness. “Automatic citizenship, once an important mechanism for the assimilation of immigrants and the strengthening of the American nation, has become a tool for its dissolution,”Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, has written.

The conservative writer Reihan Salamhas proposed amending the Constitution to require newborns to have at least one parent who is an American citizen or a lawful permanent resident in order to gain citizenship. One fear animating the debate is that automatic citizenship is easily gamed. And there are plenty of tales of people who game it — like that of the Taiwan-born entrepreneurs who charge $14,750 to whisk Chinese women, at seven months pregnant, into “baby care centers” in California.

There is also no small amount of racism wafting through portions of the movement to eliminate birthright citizenship: The worry, as old as time, of a country passing into new, different hands. The fear is that not changing the law will change America irrevocably.

The law’s defenders say the same about eliminating it: It would make America like too many other places, where history and blood matter too much.

(GIRIDHARADAS, Anand. NYTIMES, 01 set. 2015, Disponível: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/politics/the-attack-on-birthrightcitizenship.html , Acesso em: 1 de setembro de 2015)

THE ATTACK ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Donald Trump isn’t a lawyer, but he has lots of ideas for new laws. He has proposed to outlaw politicians’ use of teleprompters. He has pledged that he would tell Ford that it couldn’t move a plant to Mexico. But Mr. Trump’s most notable legal proposal is the elimination of birthright citizenship, under which anyone born on American soil is automatically an American.

Several of Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals have echoed his position. And whether or not the Constitution is ever reinterpreted or amended in that direction, the debate raises fascinating questions about what America is — and what America means.

When it comes to granting unconditional birthright citizenship, the United States and Canada are alone in the industrialized world: North American exceptionalism, you can call it.

Birthright citizenship applies to a range of newborns who would not get local citizenship elsewhere — the children of legal immigrants, of undocumented immigrants, of tourists, and of parents who come to the United States with the express purpose of minting an American.

Setting aside the legal question for a moment, this blanket invitation to American citizenship has enormous cultural force. It loudly communicates a brash idea: Citizenship, here at least, does not depend on parentage, blood, history, folkways. If you’re here at the moment of your crowning, then you are an American.

Now, many Americans who are not white, including this writer, can tell you their “Where are you from?” stories. People, sometimes well meaning and sometimes not, will ask that question, treating your skin color as invitation enough. But I can report that, just as often, someone will jump in before I have a chance to answer and say, “He was born in Ohio!” Birthright citizenship gives them that retort.

In Europe, it’s different. I have always found it jarring to encounter people born and raised in, say, Switzerland, who are denied its citizenship and still considered Algerians or Turks. In Europe, more than in the United States, worldly people, faced with my Indian skin, reflexively laud my “ancient,” “beautiful” origins, which is heartier praise than Cleveland usually gets from Europeans.

Birthright citizenship in America is part of something larger: The American longing to sever from history, to be a place of new beginnings. It reflects, as Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry wrote the other day in The Week, “the Enlightenment-driven belief, over and against the feudalism that prevailed in most places in Europe, that citizenship depended on a social contract, not a bloodline.”

Yet critics argue birthright citizenship has outlived its usefulness. “Automatic citizenship, once an important mechanism for the assimilation of immigrants and the strengthening of the American nation, has become a tool for its dissolution,”Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, has written.

The conservative writer Reihan Salamhas proposed amending the Constitution to require newborns to have at least one parent who is an American citizen or a lawful permanent resident in order to gain citizenship. One fear animating the debate is that automatic citizenship is easily gamed. And there are plenty of tales of people who game it — like that of the Taiwan-born entrepreneurs who charge $14,750 to whisk Chinese women, at seven months pregnant, into “baby care centers” in California.

There is also no small amount of racism wafting through portions of the movement to eliminate birthright citizenship: The worry, as old as time, of a country passing into new, different hands. The fear is that not changing the law will change America irrevocably.

The law’s defenders say the same about eliminating it: It would make America like too many other places, where history and blood matter too much.

(GIRIDHARADAS, Anand. NYTIMES, 01 set. 2015, Disponível: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/politics/the-attack-on-birthrightcitizenship.html , Acesso em: 1 de setembro de 2015)