Talk:Perpetual foreigner

Article name
Where did "perpetual foreigner syndrome" come from? I see that the first reference uses the term "perpetual foreigner stereotype", and I submit that "stereotype" would be a much better and clearer title for this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * any thoughts on this? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Perpetual foreigner syndrome" is actually used quite a bit in RS, but probably the best would be just perpetual foreigner, which is where I would have started the article if it hadn't already been in use as a redirect. I guess for that, we should put a note at Talk:Stereotypes of East Asians in the United States.--Pharos (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree that "Perpetual foreigner" would be a good title for this article. (Actually you could have used it, by simply expanding the redirect into this article.) Currently it and and "Forever foreigner" are redirects to the East Asian article. That never made a lot of sense. since there are many other articles such as Stereotypes of African Americans and Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States which would be equally appropriate targets. Now that there is a general article on the subject - this one - it would clearly be a better target for the redirects than singling out one particular ethnicity. I think we can simply move this article to "Perpetual foreigner", deleting the redirect in the process, and redirect "Forever foreigner" here. Are you OK with that, or do you think it is important to say something at the East Asian article first? As a side issue, something about the "perpetual foreigner" concept should probably be added to those other articles if it isn't already there. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, after getting some outside feedback, I've moved it and put a notice on page where it redirected previously. I also found a few other pages where the concept was directly mentioned, but not yet linked.--Pharos (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Scope?
Is this a worldwide phenomenon with a US biased article, or a specific type of racial discrimination that's more common in the US than elsewhere? Someone more familiar with the topic please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthegoodnamesaretaken2 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It's rather a global phenomenon that is by its nature more notable in jus soli than in jus sanguinis countries, and particularly so in the United States, which has often professed itself a "Nation of Immigrants". Pharos (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"Citizenship by ethnicity" in post-Soviet Europe
I removed the following unsourced paragraph:

"The Comecon states of central Europe continued, for the most part, the principles of nationality law that were in use in the interwar period by which citizenship was by ethnicity rather than geography. A person of a foreign ethnic group was a citizen of that group's country, not the country of birth or residence. The fall of the Iron Curtain did not end that pattern; foreigners whose parents and grandparents had lived their whole life in the host country remained foreigners."

If this is factually true (which I doubt, especially the "for the most part"), specific countries should be mentioned. I suspect this might be talking about the citizenship policy in Estonia and Latvia, but if so, it is a very distorted and factually incorrect description of the situation (for one thing, neither country had "citizenship by ethnicity" in the interwar period). Abc347834 (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Distinct from Jus Sanguinis? Tone of Article?
The principle behind the concept of the “perpetual foreigner” is that one cannot be native to a given culture, except that one's predecessors have been natives. Is that not the same as jus sanguinis, then? The only substantial difference seems to be that the former tends to be a sociocultural phenomenon, whereas the latter is wholly legal.

Are there any differences in principle, then? If so, what are those differences? If not, with all due respect, why does this article have such a critical tone generally unbecoming of an encyclopedia entry? OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)