My 'Expat' Is Your 'Migrant': How Language Is Used to Poison the Migration Debate

The words used to describe human beings who choose to move to the UK reveals where power really lies in our politics and media, says The Bear

There’s something deeply revealing about the words politicians and the media use when talking about immigration. Take “expat,” for example. When British retirees settle in Spain, or professionals move to Dubai for tax-free jobs, they’re “expats”—the sort of adventurous, worldly types who apparently have it all figured out. They’re sold to us as individuals boldly diving into new cultures, but really, they’re just relocating with a cushy safety net.

Now shift the focus to people arriving in Britain, and suddenly they’re “immigrants.” The tone changes, and the conversation takes a nosedive. It’s no longer about opportunity or exploration; it’s about “burdens,” “pressures,” and “numbers.” These people are framed by politicians and the media not as individuals seeking better lives, but as problems to be managed.

This isn’t casual language. It’s deliberate. The term “expat” signals palm trees, admiration and agency, while “immigrant” implies dependency, even suspicion. It reveals a profound disparity in how different groups are perceived for doing the same thing: moving for better opportunities.

And no, this isn’t just semantics. Language shapes perception, and perception informs policy. The words we use reinforce biases baked into our understanding of migration and dictate how migrants are treated.

For context, I moved to the UK in 2016 and became a naturalised citizen. I’ve experienced this linguistic distinction firsthand. When I talk about my journey to Britain, the questions always shift: “But where are you really from?” and “Why did you move here?” There’s a need to justify my presence, as if being here isn’t enough. Meanwhile, British expats in Australia, Dubai, or France aren’t interrogated. They’re not immigrants; they’re “finding themselves.”