They would argue that they don’t intend to stay forever in their new country so that makes them expats.
But like the post I replied to pointed out, someone from Bangladesh would not be called an expat but migrant worker. This is where class and social status gets mixed up in this as well.
I think they are both temporary immigrants.
To make it even more confusing, I know a few people who are ‘expats’ in their country of origin because they immigrated and then their employer moved them temporarily to their original country.
I keep seeing this question often. It used to be simpler when there were only immigrants and expats but now other categories exist so everyone is confused.
An expat is typically someone who is being moved by their employer, to a country other than their own, for a limited amount of time. Being white has nothing to do with it. I have known expats of every color and national origin. This term is still used by companies that send ‘expatriates’ out to other locations. Think someone going from SF to London for 3 years to set up a new office.
If you are moving somewhere on your own volition, you are an immigrant. You can also be a temporary immigrant, an undocumented immigrant etc.
If you are moving from country to country for short periods and working, you are a digital nomad. If you are moving countries but not working, you are a tourist. If you choose to stay forever in a country, you turn into an immigrant even if you were an expat, a digital nomad or a tourist before.
I guess what you are called comes down to your intent.
Source: personal experience of being an expat, an immigrant, and a digital nomad at different points of my life.
You said factual. But what is factual for you and I may not be for someone else. There are a lot of recollections in the article where sama remembers one version or doesn't remember at all and the other party remembers something else. Combine that with the nature of the article and the legal issues considering egos and sums involved. To top all of that New Yorker is known for fact checking that is exhaustive to the point of paranoia.
I am just speculating but if @ronanfarrow is still checking the discussion here, it would be amazing to hear the actual reasons.
Ronan Farrow, the write of this article, made a comment in this thread that is buried in all the comments, "As is always the case with incredibly precise and rigorously fact-checked reporting like this, where every word is chosen carefully (the initial closing meeting for this one was nearly eight hours long, with full deliberation about each sentence), there is more out there on that subject than is explicitly on the page."
I saw that before I read the article and it made me read the article in a very different way than I normally do. As I was reading, I found myself thinking, "Why is it worded that way? What else is the writer trying to say, or not say?"
It made reading this a lot more interactive than I normally associate with passive reading. Great job, Ronan!
It really depends on the publication. In a past life, I was a newspaper reporter in a town with two papers. There were strict guidelines against doing this. If you lost the scoop, well, too bad.
I have seen this behavior more often in Europe but I guess it might be a thing in the US now too - I have been away from the day-to-day journalism scene for a long time.
Everything you said aligns perfectly with what I have heard from friends who still live in Austin/Houston. I personally would still rather live in Austin though as opposed to Houston or Dallas.
Property tax is higher but there is no state income tax. Also, property tax increase rates are significantly higher as compared to California. Austin is also growing very fast and is quickly turning into the sprawl that I have always associated more with Dallas and Houston.
Financially speaking, either place may turn out advantageous depending on your house's price and income. CA (Bay Area) has a lot of other positives that are almost impossible to get in TX - tech scene (quality and quantity), nearby sea, desert AND mountains, good weather are just some of them.
Many years ago, I chose to move to TX as opposed to CA. But most recently, after living abroad for some years, I picked Bay Area to move back to mainly because most of my friends have converged to Bay Area over the years - almost all are in tech. However, if you aren't involved in tech and don't care about some of the other positives of the Bay Area, Austin is almost a no-brainer.
They would argue that they don’t intend to stay forever in their new country so that makes them expats.
But like the post I replied to pointed out, someone from Bangladesh would not be called an expat but migrant worker. This is where class and social status gets mixed up in this as well.
I think they are both temporary immigrants.
To make it even more confusing, I know a few people who are ‘expats’ in their country of origin because they immigrated and then their employer moved them temporarily to their original country.