Expats and refugees are both groups who leave their home country to build a new life in another country, either temporarily or permanently. Yet, they are often viewed differently in society, observes colleague Batsheba White.

In part 1 of this blog post, we discussed the definitions, similarities, and differences between expats and refugees. In this second part, we'll look at how social perception and framing shape our perspectives on expats and refugees, and what you can do to look beyond the labels.

 The term expat often conjures up a positive, professional image, such as with knowledge migrants. The term refugee, on the other hand, is often associated with dependency or even problems, for example, through terms like "refugee crisis" or "fortune seekers." This demonstrates how language and framing influence how we see groups in society—in other words, their social perception.

 Social perception

 When we talk about social perception, we mean how groups in society are perceived and judged. Specifically, this involves aspects such as:

•  Socioeconomic status
•  Media frames and political rhetoric (framing bias)
•  Cultural recognition and prejudice (in-group bias)
•  Length of stay and the image of integration

Socioeconomic status

 Expats are often associated with higher education, well-paying jobs, international companies, and economic value. They already have jobs upon arrival, which helps them build a new life in their host country. Refugees, on the other hand, often face difficulties in the labor market, sometimes referred to as the "canvas ceiling." This includes obstacles such as unrecognized diplomas and lengthy asylum procedures. As a result, they initially rely on social security.

 Framing media and politics
The media and politics significantly influence how both groups are portrayed, often through framing bias. This is the tendency to base judgments on how information is presented.

Negative framing is common in the context of refugees, for example, through terms like "flood or tsunami" of refugees or "crisis." Such words contribute to dehumanization (through stereotyping and generalization) and fear of overloaded systems or integration problems. Images of overcrowded boats or lines of people reinforce this effect. Expats, on the other hand, are regularly framed positively, for example, as "talented," "international," or "economically valuable." Even in these images, you never see expats walking through devastated streets in a traffic jam.

Fortunately, nowadays the media is working on a more positive framing of refugees, by means of:

•  Using human-centered terms to counter dehumanization. By emphasizing the person, the massification and threat that other words evoke (stigmatization) disappear.
•  Careful image selection with, more than before, respect and empathy for victims.
•  Avoid negative framing and terminology surrounding refugees (“wave”) as much as possible.

Cultural affinity and ethnic prejudice
Cultural affinity is the degree to which cultures resemble each other, which makes people feel more connected or familiar with each other. People often evaluate others more positively if they are culturally similar (in-group bias). Expats' origins are often linked to Western countries or come from countries that are culturally closer to the host country. Refugees, on the other hand, are usually associated with non-Western countries (such as Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea). This difference in perception was evident in the much more positive reception of Ukrainian refugees compared to refugees from the Middle East or Africa.

Length of stay and integration image
In many societies, expatriates are generally viewed as temporary residents, often with a professional profile and a high socioeconomic status. Consequently, they are often not perceived as a threat to national identity, but rather as an enrichment or complement to the labor market. Refugees, on the other hand, are often seen as permanent residents, leading to concerns in public discourse, especially among conservative and populist groups, about the erosion of cultural homogeneity and social cohesion.

Recommendations

 What can we do to reduce the gap in social perception?

•  Conscious use of language (framing): actively promote a more positive and nuanced framing. By consciously choosing terms that individualize, neutralize, or humanize, media, organizations, and policymakers can contribute to a more honest portrayal of both groups.
•  Focus on personal and success stories: highlight the personal stories of refugees and expats, highlighting shared emotions (such as loneliness, hope, and adjustment). Also emphasize successful stories of refugees who make valuable contributions to society, for example, through employment, entrepreneurship, or community engagement.
•  Employers as a bridge: encourage companies that hire expats to also offer opportunities to refugees with relevant skills, through regular jobs, work-study programs, or internships. The Refugee Talent Hub plays a key role in this as an employer initiative, as do our community partners.

Conclusion

 In short, although there are factual differences between refugees and expats, the contrast in perceptions of these groups seems not primarily based on objective differences, but rather on social, political, and cultural framing. Moreover, both groups bring significant added value to Dutch society. By moving beyond labels and viewing both groups as valuable individuals with potential, we can work toward a more inclusive society that recognizes migration in all its forms as a strength.

 Also read:

• Part 1 of this blog about the definitions, similarities and differences.
•  My colleague Batsheba's earlier blog post about cultural context, unwritten rules and prejudices in the workplace