I think expatriate actually has a different shade of meaning from migrant.

Expats are typically people living outside their country on a non-permanent basis (on assignment or some temporary basis), with no intention to permanent emigrate to the country.

Immigrants however are people who move to a country with the intention of settling there permanently.

From the article's description, it sounds like these folks are expats, probably in Portugal on a D7 or Golden Visa (both are temporary visas). Some may elect to apply for citizenship after a period of residency (5 years), in which case they would become immigrants if the choose to remain. I guess some just stay long enough to get an EU passport, and then they buzz off -- then they wouldn't be migrants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriate

> Expats are typically people living outside their country on a non-permanent basis (on assignment or some temporary basis), with no intention to permanent emigrate to the country.

> Immigrants however are people who move to a country with the intention of settling there permanently.

I think those are the textbook definitions, but in reality expat is usually applied to those from higher income countries only.

Do this quick experiment, do an image search "expats in <destination_name>" vs "migrants in <destination_name>" and compare the pictures:

See what their income appears to be, clothing, skin color and circumstances.

Dubai:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=expats+in+dubai&t=h_&iax=images&ia...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=migrants+in+dubai&t=h_&iar=images&...

Costa Rica:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=migrants+in+costa+rica&t=h_&iar=im...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=expats+in+costa+rica&t=h_&iar=imag...

For example, for 'expats in Costa Rica' I got shown a couple in an outdoor hotel, and for 'migrants in Costa Rica' I got shown the Immigration Police detaining a group from Africa and a dozen people sharing a bed.

Dubai is funny example as neither group is permanent, but just there to work. Mostly cause Dubai and likes really aren't big on immigration.

It's fair to assume that British pensioners that move to Spain are not doing it on a temporary basis, however they are still called expats. This kind of language is usually an indication of exceptionalism.

Another example is British newspapers which use "corruption" when writing about alleged corruption in African countries, but use "sleaze" or "controversies" when writing about alleged corruption in the UK.

I believe this is a result of parliamentary language and defamation laws

I doubt it. British media can be sued, in Britain under British defamation laws, by foreigners too. That's why they're careful with rich white celebrities, even if they're foreigners. But less rich or famous (or white) foreigners (or their entire countries)...? Naah, not so much.

I've always thought that the key difference is attitude to the host country. Expatriates don't want to (or don't think they need to) attempt to integrate, migrants do.

I've met British people who've been in NZ since the 1980s who still consider themselves ex-pats - and can still complain about how our Weetbix is nothing like good ol Weetabix.

But then I've met people from Britain who've been here for 10 years, and considered themselves a Kiwi for 10 years too.

I guess it comes down to their mindset.

> I've met British people who've been in NZ since the 1980s who still consider themselves ex-pats - and can still complain about how our Weetbix is nothing like good ol Weetabix.

How is this different to any other migrant who misses something from their homeland? Why does it bother you, and why do you see it as an indication of a deficiency of mindset? Shall I similarly hold something against migrants in the UK who prefer something about their homeland? I can't imagine keeping this attitude.

I've lived in other countries but have never called myself an expat. In my experience, the term has been used exclusively by others, mostly non-white people, to describe me.

It's no different from Chinese migrant communities in my hometown calling themselves "Overseas Chinese".

I guess you're not familiar with the stereotype of the "whinging Pom".

It's a stereotype because it's often true. And the usual response is "well, if Britain was so much better, why are you here?"

They're obviously here because Britain wasn't better. But they still trash talk the country that allowed them in.

(Weetabix was an example, not the limit of the complaining).

If I moved to the UK, after 40 years I'd let go of the fact that my home country's coffee (for example) is so much better, because I've obviously chosen to spend four decades in the UK because I find it better than my country.

To repeat myself, it's the mindset. If, after four decades, you're still comparing the country you've moved to unfavorably to your home country, then your mindset isn't one of integration. It's one of colonialism.

> complain about how our Weetbix is nothing like good ol Weetabix.

Who gives a fuck about the differences between different brands – or, even more meaningless, local varieties of the same brand – of chipboard as food?!?

That can’t be the key difference lest you consider gettoed immigrants with no expectation of integration as expats, which is not the typical usage.

I would say migrants are those who are planning to integrate, if not always culturally then at least economically in the future country.

Expats are those who are neither looking for work, learn the language or associate themselves with the locals, add to local culture.

Expats = white people. Simple.

Have you ever seen Indian H1B workers described as expats?

I know that in the US these topics are often conflated, but it isn’t necessarily about race, more about social class and how much money you have.

But you’re right, not all migrants are treated or categorized the same way.

I’m myself an expatriate, I left my country and immigrated somewhere else. Nobody would ever call me a migrant even if it is technically correct because I don’t match the stereotype (due to my nationality, social class, money, etc).

> it isn’t necessarily about race, more about social class and how much money you have

When did those get disentangled?

Imagine someone from an old aristocratic family that has a noble title, was known to own land, etc. Even if they lose their money for some reasons they won’t be considered in the same social class as someone who comes from a poor background.

You can do the opposite, imagine someone from a poor neighborhood who then start to gain wealth, their money alone will not make them be part of the upper class (im quite sure there is a woody Allen movie with this exact premise).

What distinguishes social classes is in part wealth, but that’s just one component.

You're right that two different terms are in use, but you're wrong (and unnecessarily provocative) to attribute it to race. There's a lack of symmetry between a wealthy Brit moving to Singapore or Dubai and an economic migrant from Pakistan, say, moving to the UK. That lack of symmetry justifies the different terminology.

It is still a race component because wealthy Chinese people who move to UK with no intention to integrate are not called expats.

I think it's funny too, but a clearer definition of expat vs migrant is seeing if the person would leave if there was a crisis in their new home country.

Expats are on long term vacation. They rarely get citizenship, even more rarely participate in politics, or integrate into the community with the intention of their children being raised there though university years. If there is a war or famine Expats will immediately go back "home".

Migrants on the other and are "your people”. They may not look like you, but they intend to become a permanent fixture in the country. In a war, migrants are the first to volunteer because patriotism is strongest in those who explicitly chose their nation state (and also countries offer citizenship guarantees for soldiers).

It’s introducing a class system into migration. One must signal they’re not part of the riffraff.

That's not true. I know plenty of non-white expats. At least here it's about money, not skin color.

White probably is a factor, but I think its more they are self sufficient, i.e. they either don't need to work or have been drafted in temporarily to fill a skills gap at the behest of a corporation.

I've always loved how immigration becomes something that is bad and should be stopped when it's done by whites.

You seem to have got it backwards: When it's done by whites – or actually, anglophone whites – it's not even called immigration, because immigration is bad. When others, i.e. non-anglophone non-whites, do it, that is.

>You seem to have got it backwards

Not at all.

>When it's done by whites – or actually, anglophone whites – it's not even called immigration

It's called "gentrification", and it's bad according to the left.

>When others, i.e. non-anglophone non-whites, do it, that is.

When non-Whites do it it's openly celebrated, and more is called for.

You seem to have got it backwards.

Moving to another country is called "gentrification"? What the fuck are you gibbering about?

When white people do it, it's a negative. Keep up. Stop being Europhobic/Anglophobic.

Bullpucky. When white people immigrate, it's perfectly normal. I should know: I've done it not once but twice.

But when white anglophone people do it, it's not only normal, but so extra-chic that they're not even called immigrants but "expats". Pointing out that this is a bit of a silly level of privilege is hardly "Anglophobic". (On the contrary, your claiming that it is comes off as rather like bigoted white Americans wailing that "It's really the white man who's oppressed nowadays" when their privilege is pointed out to them.)

And as a born and bred lifelong European I don't think I'm particularly "Europhobic" either.

that's a very american distinction, i think. indians call people "expats" if they are explicitly going to another country to work and have no clear intention of remaining there.