This isn't a valid example. "Expat" is a very specifically defined term in the vernacular of people that live outside of their home countries: it means a person that moved to another country for a specific job (usually because they were recruited into that job). Expat is a sub-class of immigrant; not all immigrants are expats, but all expats are immigrants. Also, despite what people that make this argument try to claim, many self-identifying and generally accepted "Expats" are not white and / or come from non-Western countries.

Wikipedia somewhat agrees with you, saying:

> In common usage, [expatriate] is often used in the context of professionals or skilled workers sent abroad by their companies.

A Guardian writer disagrees, saying "expat" means "white immigrant":

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-...

Personally, I think "expat" is used more in the sense of an (usually white) immigrant from a richer country to a poorer country. EG, an Indian recruited to work at Google in San Francisco would be an expat by your definition but I think most people would use the term "immigrant." Conversely, I'd expect the term "expat" to be used for an American white guy who was travelling the world after getting laid off, impulsively decided to stay in Bangkok, and now does freelance web design, lives in a nice neighborhood, and hangs out mostly with Americans and Europeans.

I am not saying I think this is how the term should be used, just describing my experience with it.

While that does ring quite true to me (I'm an 'expat' immigrant myself, although moving both to and from rich countries), I think the piece hit a bit off target: It's a 'rich' thing, not a 'white' thing - the white polish plumber or builder in the UK is unequivocally considered an immigrant, the software engineer is more likely to be an expat.

Also, one deeper, to my ear, 'expat' has a flavour of intending to return, where immigration generally sounds more one-way and permanent - which of course again parallels the 'rich' narrative: it's much easier to intend to return to your rich country of origin than it is to return to a poor one.

I lived in Berlin and knew many Indian and African software professionals who moved to Berlin for a specific job and very much considered themselves (and were considered by others) to be expats. I understand what you're saying, but in practice the usage of these terms doesn't break down in the way that the Guardian article would lead you to believe.

Berliners call everyone not settling down permanently "tourists" and resent them somewhat, if my impression is correct.

I feel the rich vs poor country is irrelevant and the key point is the "hangs out mostly with Americans and Europeans". E.g. if I move to Japan, work for a Japanese company and have mostly Japanese friends, I'm an immigrant. If I work at an English-speaking workplace and have mostly English-speaking non-Japanese friends, I'm an expat.

A lot of UK expats are retirees, eg in Spain. To me the word differs to emigrant in that UK expats still consider themselves to be citizens [well subjects at least] of the UK. They wouldn't seek to be naturalised to their host country and will often spend a prolonged time in the UK (like many UK families with Pakistani heritage seem to spend a long time there). The flavour or how "expat" is used in the UK is for people on an [very] extended holiday.

People who "emigrate" from the UK primarily seem to go to Australia, by that I mean that's how the word is used. A high-school friend went to "work in the States" rather than "emigrating to America", for example.

Migrant (emigrant/immigrant) seems to be used primarily for those under some duress of compulsion, eg threat of violence or need of work that is otherwise unavailable.