"They're not real asylum seekers, they're only economic migrants!"
The philosophy behind this: poverty doesn't count as a proper problem. A real problem would be something like not being able to 
Anti-materialism with the mask off.
And when white people move to other countries for lucrative work opportunities it's called being an "ex-spat". How the fuck is that not "economical" in nature.
It is "expat" for expatriate but it applies to anyone who lives in a country other than one they are a citizen of (not that I have ever heard it for anyone other than Americans living in SEA or South America, which I think is your point). I've never heard it in reference for work, only people who had cash (retirement or settlement) moving to a less expensive region to make it go further.
You'll mostly hear it in reference to white migrants to places like the UAE who work high income jobs or teach English who have no intention of staying long term.
Because expats have the connotation of being, well, privileged, probably due to their historical western-based {empire} background of education and riches, since they prbly have enough money to travel there and there wherever they work...
"They're not real asylum seekers, they're only economic migrants!"
What migrant doesn't?
At this point, I would love to go to the bloody nativists (especially if they're American, Australian, or any settler-nation) and
https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-185-nativism-in-media-part-ii-the-artificial-cold-war-distinction-between-migrants-and-refugees
I think there should just be fully open borders and movement of people, and have no problem with people moving here for any reason and however they’re best able to get here.
That said, I’m not sure it’s a pejorative to say somebody is an economic migrant as opposed to a refugee when that is the case. Most people at my work are from Mexico, Colombia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc. I’m fluent in Spanish and love working with them. I’ve spent significant time in Mexico, Ecuador, and Paraguay so I have a good frame of reference when speaking with my coworkers and where they came from and why they came. One thing I’ve noticed in discussing at length their reasons for coming here is that when it comes down to it almost all of the people I work with came here simply to make more money than they can at home, especially due to exchange rate. They come and whatever money they can spare they remit to their families at home where USD simply goes much further. Nobody at my place of employment came because they felt their life was in danger, not even from poverty or food insecurity. They just wanted the opportunity to get ahead or help their families get ahead which comes from earning in USD.
Again, I think that’s a perfectly valid decision to make, but I’m not sure it’s right to insist on using “refugee” in cases like this. As long as we have an immigration system that discriminates along the basis of “refugee” or not, in a limited sense it is probably good to be accurate about who that actually means so that the most in need can get their needs met.
On the other hand, the whole system that makes it attractive to move is the U.S. led imperial dominance over Latin America (and the rest of the world) which leads to the awful exchange rates and everything else, so maybe it’s a moot point. Like I say I’d rather see the whole immigration control system done away with or opened up entirely.
I see little difference between being pushed to immigrate due to active violence and being pushed to immigrate due to the passive violence of economic conditions
Either way you’re fleeing unsafe or problematic conditions in your home country
I think it’s probably a useful distinction. Elsewhere in the thread we’re talking about “expats”. Is somebody who retires from the U.S. to South America where they can actually live off of their social security check an expat, an economic migrant or a refugee? They’re making use of the same features like exchange rate that many of the immigrants coming the other way are.
Many of the people I work with have petty bourgeois aspirations in their home countries. They and their families fund businesses and property purchases back home with the USD they earn here. Somebody who was just born here in the first place and does the same thing might be called a colonizer or exploiter.
The only answer has to be ending the imperial dominance of the U.S. over these other parts of the world in the first place, but if we’re trying to do any useful analysis in the meantime I don’t think there’s any benefit to just flattening all immigration into “refugee” and ignoring the differences.
They and their families fund businesses and property purchases back home with the USD they earn here.
This is I think the bigger distinction than economic or violent. If you’ve fled because you can’t afford to live in your home country, you’re a refugee. You’re fleeing violence. Whether it’s the violence of a gang you’re fleeing or the violence of the state kicking you out of your home because you can’t afford rent.
If you’ve left your home country to work for higher wages to support family in your home country, I think that’s more different than the other two situations
