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.
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.
His answer is boorish, frivolous, and, quite simply, factually inaccurate. I usually like MOC, but his Quora writing has become excruciatingly hostile lately -- bordering on bitter.
Any undergraduate business school encompasses a large number of disciplines, and not everyone studying for an undergraduate degree in business is doing so exclusively to other degrees (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_majors_in_the_United_St...). Additionally, many business schools host their university's economics department.
But even putting that aside, his argument seems to be that to study a "synthetic" major (that is, a career-preparation major that brings together elements of other disciplines, eg. Marketing: Statistics + Psychology) is somehow lazy by (his own, arbitrary) intellectual and Maslowian standards. Why? Many people choose to study broad subjects in undergrad and then specialize in graduate school. And in the cases where "business majors" (again, the term is so unspecific as to be meaningless) don't ultimately go on to study at the graduate level or specialize by some other mechanism, they generally don't make a lot of money. Since MOC's primary point of distaste over "business majors" is that they generally tend to become the superiors of computer science majors, it should be obvious that his argument is built upon a flawed premise: the best of the best "business majors" might ascend into management positions (above their CS-educated colleagues), but most don't: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/11/19/the-colleg... (and that doesn't even control for eg. finance majors that go on to get MBAs and become MDs at Goldman Sachs. If you stripped those from the average -- the best of the best -- the discrepancy would be even greater!).
I'm getting very bored with the start-up cheerleading industry in Europe: a small but very vocal number of publications (Tech.eu, The Next Web, TechCrunch EU) and event organisers constantly championing random cities in Europe as up-and-coming technology epicentres to rival Silicon Valley. Even London, which is by any reasonable measure the largest hub of start-up activity in Europe and has seen the most significant exits, comes nowhere close to Silicon Valley in terms of deal volume, capital availability, density of senior talent, etc. Sure, tech start-ups exist in Amsterdam and in Berlin, and in Stockholm, and in Barcelona, but these cities aren't technology hubs, creating self-sustaining economies driven by meaningful exits and the development of world-leading domain expertise: many of the start-ups in these cities are only sustainable because VCs in Europe are primarily funded by European governments. That's what a "hub" is; take away the hype and the government money and it still exists.