To me the differnence would be in where you were when you said the sentence or what empahsis you want to place. In Mexico, you would refer to Mexican emigrants (people who left Mexico for another country). In the US, you would refer to Mexican immigrants (people who came to the US from Mexico). Also if what was important to the meaning of the sentence was that they left one country, you would use emigrants. If what was important was that they came to another country, you would use immigrants.
I think it depends on your frame of reference. Either of your phrases could be correct, but not both at the same time.
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886 As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
I think SQLSister got it right: "if what was important to the meaning of the sentence was...".
Note how both words are used to describe the same group of people, in back to back sentences:
"Like so many other immigrants throughout the years, Croats have come to the United States in search of the promise of the New World and the American dream. Whether fleeing political persecution or simply seeking economic opportunity, Croatian emigrants have settled all over the globe, but nowhere as much as the United States."
I disagree. A person emigrates from Mexico, and immigrates to the US.
Immigrate is "came or went to."
Emigrate is "came or went from."
The came or went part is merely a reflection of the location of the speaker and has nothing to do with the action performed.
So in my opinion, both of your examples are correct, including the one you give as incorrect. A person emigrates from Mexico (to the US) at the same time as he immigrates to the US (from Mexico).
Also, I think come and go have ambiguous meaning because of their particular use in English. ("Went from" is awkward, even though accurate.) Maybe the use of "leave" and "arrive" would suit:
He left Mexico (emigrated from) and arrived in (immigrated to) the US.
-------------------------------------
It is better to have honor than a good reputation.
(Reputation is what other people think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself.)
Sorry, the samples I've given are rather confusing. I should have clearly specified that the second examples should be grammatically incorrect only if the person speaking is in the same location as the person who migrated. As I described in the comparison, come is the correct word to use when the subject is to go towards the direction of the person speaking, as in "Come here" ("Go here" is improper). You're right in saying the second set of examples are correct too. Yes, when the person speaking is not in the same location as the subject who migrated from a different place.
Now, I've made my point even more confusing. ;-)
If I stand this side of the border (in the US), shouldn't I be able to accurately state: "Some French emigrants settled in the US"? While I can also say: "My neighbors are French immigrants"?
I don't think the location of the speaker has anything to do with it.
There is an exception. Both of Dimandja's examples should be correct if to be mentioned in a written article in whatever medium, wherever it was written. I hope I'm making some sense here. Anyway, these are just the way I understand the use of these words. I'd appreciate it if someone would educate me if I'm wrong. ;-)
>It's easy to be an illegal immigrant, but there are very places where one could be an illegal emigrant.
Actually, it is very common to be an illegal emigrant on this planet Earth. And the penalty is always more severe than that of an illegal immigrant.
I am sure you've heard of so called "boat people" from Vietnam, Cuba, China,... They all have one thing in common: they were illegal emigrants when they set foot on that boat.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.