Which EU Country Has the Most Citizens Living Abroad?

July 2, 2016

Of the 28 European Union member states, which one has the largest population living outside the country?

eu diaspora map
Includes all citizens living anywhere in the world (Source: U.N. Population Division)

 

Answer: the United Kingdom

Immigrants vs. expats

While the U.K. votes to approve the Brexit and leave the E.U. to stop the inflow of foreign immigrants, the fact that 4.9 million of its own citizens are living in other countries goes unmentioned.

For that matter, when was the last time you even heard the term “immigrant” used in connection with U.K. citizens, or citizens of any developed western country? Instead, we call them “expats,” a word which carries very different connotations, but means basically the same thing. Here is how Wikipedia defines them (immigrant, expatriate).

An immigrant is a person who moves to another country.

An expatriate (often shortened to expat) is a person temporarily or permanently residing, as an immigrant, in a country other than that of their citizenship.

In theory, the meanings are essentially the same (by some definitions immigrant includes only permanent residents). But in practice, there is almost no overlap.

I spent a few years working in London, along with several other Americans, some of whom are still there. And never did I think of myself as an immigrant or hear any of my fellow expats described as immigrants. Likewise, immigration may be the single most discussed topic in this year’s U.S. presidential election, but not once have I heard Mexican farm workers living in the U.S. (permanent or temporary) described as expats.

What’s the difference?

In their common usage, an immigrant is someone from a poor country who moves to a rich country looking for a better life. An expat is someone from a rich country who goes to work abroad.

The fact that we have two different terms, one for people from rich countries and one for people from poor countries, is just one clear illustration of how silly our way of talking about immigration is here in the West.

 

Where are the facts?

As discussed in a previous post, public opinion about immigration has become a deciding factor in some of the most important geopolitical events in the world.

Views on immigration have shaped the world’s response to the refugee crisis, our policies on the war on terror, and this year’s U.S. presidential race. Yet, the basic facts about immigration almost never come up at all in the debate.

How well do we know the basic facts about immigration? Here’s what a study by IPSOS has to say.

“How many immigrants are there?”

For such a fundamental question, developed countries around the world are terribly misinformed. Many believe the number to be several times higher than reality.

perception of immigrant population by country
Source: IPSOS

 

“How big is the Muslim population?”

One of the major concerns around immigration is the risk of terrorism by Islamic extremists. How well do countries know the size of their Muslim populations?

At the low end, Germans believe their Muslim population to be 3.2x bigger than it actually is. At the high end, Hungarians overstate their Muslim population by 70x!

muslim perceptions
Source: IPSOS

 

What these numbers mean

A few months ago I posted another “perceptions-vs-reality” graphic (Support for ISIS in the Muslim World), which some people misunderstood to be an argument for a particular political view. So in this case, I want to make sure I don’t send any wrong messages about what my point in all this is.

Do these numbers mean the U.K. is wrong to leave the E.U.?

No. Personally, I really don’t know whether the U.K. made the right decision or not. And maybe people’s views would be the same regardless of anything mentioned here.

What these numbers do highlight is the silly way we talk about immigration here in the West.

If “too many immigrants” is going to be our reason for making important decisions (and who knows, maybe it should be), “how many immigrants are there?” is a question we should be able to answer. And before taking measures to stop immigration, we should be brave enough to acknowledge we also have countrymen who live abroad as immigrants and benefit from the immigration policies of other countries.

get the data

If you would like to go through the data yourself, you can find it on the get the data page.

country by country immigration map
See also: Visualizing the World’s Immigration Flows

Update: In response to some of the comments/requests received on this post, I put together another series of maps that go into some more detail. See how the EU countries stack up in foreign-living citizens per capita, immigrant population, and view an interactive map showing each of their migration inflows and outflows with the rest of the world.

 

My latest project, Elementus, aims to bring transparency to the cryptocurrency market. Check out our blog for some crypto-related data visualizations.

 

Follow Metrocosm

Max Galka

I'm an NYC-based entrepreneur (my newest project: Blueshift) and adjunct instructor at UPenn. I'm fascinated by data visualization and the ways that data is transforming our understanding of the world. I spend a lot of time with my face buried in Excel, and when I find something interesting I write about it here and also as a Guardian Cities and Huffington Post contributor.
More about my background

Latest posts by Max Galka (see all)

Related Posts

  • disqus_asLr8V82UD

    Expat really doesn’t mean the same thing as immigrant, which is one reason why the claim that 4.9 million UK citizens are living as immigrants is never mentioned.

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      Please explain. What is the difference? And why does it make the 4.9m number non relevant?

      • disqus_asLr8V82UD

        You begin with a claim that the definitions are essentially the same in theory, then you note how the terms have been used differently in certain situations before concluding that the standard definitions in practice have become expat=rich and immigrant=poor. You’re aware of the confusion with these terms, but you didn’t try to fix this in your discussion. For example, you chose the simplistic Wikipedia definition of “immigrant”. I would guess that you looked up definitions in a few different sources for this piece, so you would have found definitions that described immigrants as people looking to move to a place permanently. Even without looking it up, you’ve seen different definitions in practice, where immigrant=permanent and expat=temporary. I think the infographics and data visualizations on your site are fantastic, but only if I can be confident about the accuracy of the underlying data. The 4.9 million number loses relevance when you state that this is the number living as “immigrants”, which I take to mean living abroad permanently, which Wikipedia takes to mean expats, and which you take to mean…poor people? Who knows. I get what you were going for with this, but I think the result serves to obfuscate this issue.

        • disqus_asLr8V82UD

          “Diaspora” isn’t the best word choice either if precise communication is the goal, as the total number could include descendants and former citizens, not just those currently holding citizenship status.

          • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

            Good point

          • OminousChris

            Every single person I’ve met abroad has regarded themselves as an expat, despite many of them having lived in their countries of choice for 20-plus years.

            At what point do they become immigrants? Or do they never have to don that appellation? And if not, why not? They’re clearly in it for the long haul; hell a few of them have what would be called “anchor babies” were they the wrong shade. Why can’t they be called immigrants? But more importantly, why do you defend the distinction so avidly if it really doesn’t make a difference?

          • disqus_asLr8V82UD

            I’m not sure I’m following you completely, but my point to Max was that more time should have been spent on defining these terms given the confusion about their meanings.

            Before I saw this infographic, I understood “expat” to mean someone abroad temporarily and “immigrant” to mean someone intending to resettle permanently. Now I’ve learned that “expat” can refer to those abroad both temporarily and permanently. I continue to think immigration implies an intent to permanently resettle (as does the State Department with its immigrant and nonimmigrant visa categories), so in my mind the total number of immigrants are a subset of the overall expat population. But I have seen dictionaries that don’t mention this permanent resettlement aspect in their definitions of “immigrant”, which makes the term a bit squishy. So if you’re going to compile data on immigration (or indeed any other topic) and communicate it effectively, you’re going to have to be clear to your audience about the definitions you’re using. The critique I offered to Max was primarily about the need for precise terminology in this or any other representation of facts, not for the terms per se.

            To answer your questions using my definitions of these terms above, I’d have to know what countries these people are in and what the immigration laws are there. Any appellation donning will be dictated by the host government. Do they have immigrant visas? Well then they’re immigrants. Do they keep getting their nonimmigrant visas extended? Well then they’re not immigrants, even if it seems they really want to be.

          • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

            Perhaps I should have made the argument differently or left out the definitions entirely. The only point I wanted to make was that the word that actually gets used in practice depends on the person’s country of origin.

            Your point (if I understand right) is that immigrant vs expat may also sometimes depend on whether the person intends to permanently resettle. And you’re saying I should have been clear about that it in the post.

            My answer: Yes, by some definitions, “immigrant” includes only permanent residents. By other (I would argue more) definitions, its includes both permanent and temporary residents. But what really matters in this case is not the definitions, it’s what we actually say. And I’ve never heard a permanently resettling American called an immigrant, or a temporary Mexican farm worker called an expat.

            Going into the details of how different places define the terms on paper is a big can of worms, which maybe I should have addressed. But it is confusing and unrelated to the larger point, which is about how we talk about immigration.

          • Rae

            This is a very interesting topic, and whatever maybe be put in writing, there is a connotational difference between “expatriate” and “immigrant”. I know this because I’ve been part of the Irish/English/Scottish expat community in Spain for near on 15 years. Many of us will never return to our countries of birth. We never call each other immigrants (except, tellingly, as a joke) and no-one ever calls us immigrants. A good friend is married to a man from Uruguay and he is part of the Uruguayan immigrant community. Many of them have homes in Uruguay and will move back at some stage. I’m looking forward to discussing this topic with them.

          • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

            My wife happens to be from Malaga and thats her experience as well – difference in connotations is similar to the US/UK

        • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

          Disagree about “expat.” All definitions I’ve seen include both temporary and permanent residents. And that is also how it is used in practice. I have several American friends who have permanently moved abroad, and they are still called expats.

          On “immigrant,” you’re right. Some of the dictionaries online do define it as permanent residents. Though my counter would be that:
          a) Wikipedia and official government definitions are more authoritative than random online dictionaries.
          b) The immigration numbers that are tossed around in the U.S. and the U.K. don’t differentiate between permanent and temporary and neither do any of the official statistics. Many of Mexican “immigrants” living in the U.S. are here on temporary worker visas. And many of the Eastern European workers in the U.K. are also temporary. Also, the difference between temporary and permanent does not matter with respect to the risk of terrorism. In all respects, the comparison is apples-to-apples.

          http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06077.pdf

          • disqus_asLr8V82UD

            I’m not sure which dictionaries count as random, but even wikitionary’s more complete definition states the purpose of immigration to be permanent residence: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/immigrant . The State Department makes a clear distinction between immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, with the primary difference being the intent to permanently settle. Other USG agencies are in line with this definition. But other sources don’t mention permanence at all, and then we have the colloquial usage of the term to confuse things further. This confusion contributes to “the silly way we talk about immigration”, and points to a need for precision when discussing this topic.

            “Expat” does indeed include the temporary and the permanent, but my point here was that you can see the different definitions being used in practice–i.e., you can find people using the term to imply that their situations are temporary, (as well as permanent).

            But my central point is that you’re aware of the different definitions, and that different numbers are often carelessly tossed around, but you didn’t do much to clarify things here. The title of the infographic is (I believe) correct on its own in referring to the 4.9M UK citizens living outside their home country, but in the very first sentence of your discussion you refer to all 4.9M of them as “immigrants”, which simply adds to the confusion given the different definitions applied to the term.

            Your website really is spectacular, so I count myself a fan and am rooting for you. But the fact that this important temporary vs permanent aspect was left out of the discussion about definitions while the more simplistic claim that we reserve the term “immigrant” for people from poor countries and “expat” for those from rich countries contributes pretty effectively to the silliness you complained about.

          • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

            Yes. There are inconsistent definitions all over the place, which only adds to the silliness, though my intention was just to point it out, not to clear it up. As for the U.S., “immigrant” is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which classifies indefinite temp workers as immigrants but not short-term temp workers (non-immigrant visa is mostly for travelers). The UK also classifies temporary “expat” workers (like I was) as immigrants

            In practice, the difference btw expat and immigrant comes down only to which country you’re from, which is really the only point I wanted to make.

            Appreciate the kind words about the site, and also the friendly debate (even if I don’t agree).

            https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-101.html#0-0-0-164

          • http://ian-wardell.blogspot.co.uk/ EyesShiningAngrily

            Wikipedia is authoritative? Now I’ve heard it all . . In the context of anomalous phenomena the entries are far from balanced and give misleading, if not outright false, information about the subject matter. Moreover any corrections are quickly deleted by materialist zealots.

            I would *never* get any information from Wikepdia about anything.

          • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

            Is it authoritative enough to cite in a research paper? No way. Would I ever rely on it for data like what’s shown here in the map? No. But for simple definitions, it’s a good starting point — used even by New York Times.

          • Disqustinator

            Define ‘authoritative’ in this context? How do you come to a consensus on what is definitive?

  • Kris

    All EU citizens in the UK are expats then.

  • SteveGJ

    If you confine this to EU countries, there are 1.2m UK expats living in other EU countries, so it’s rather disingenuous to include non-EU expats as well in a discussion largely about the implications of Brexit. So if your figures are accurate, only 24% of UK expats are residing in the EU and the position with respect to the rest of the World is much more important. I should add that British people who go to live in Australia and New Zealand are most certainly called immigrants (many will retain their British nationality as the UK allows multiple citizenship).

    In any event, this should surely be adjusted for population. Poland has a population of abut 39m, so that’s about 11% of the population, whilst that UK figure of 4.9m is about 7.7%, of which a bit less than 2% are in the rest of the EU. In the case of Romania it’s 17%, with the great majority in other EU countries.

    As far as intra-EU countries is concerned, the UK comes in at number 5 (in absolute) numbers within the EU for expats or immigrants (call them what you will).

    This is my source

    https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-uk-citizens-live-other-eu-countries/

    • Paul

      Wasn’t an Australian-based points system one of the possibilities offered as a solution to immigration into the UK? Even if that weren’t the case, in the campaign they were sort of implying that by leaving the EU, the UK could control immigration as a whole. Which then means that including non-EU expats in this article isn’t such a mistake after all.

    • PhilGB

      >>”it’s rather disingenuous to include non-EU expats as well in a discussion largely about the implications of Brexit”

      Did you not read the section that says “What these numbers mean”? The author makes it clear his argument is absolutely *not* about the Brexit.

      Even if it were, immigration from outside the EU (mostly the Middle East) was a major factor in the vote, so your suggestion to look just the EU is wrong.

      Why should the map “surely be adjusted for population?” Because you say so? You throw out a bunch of fancy numbers, but you forgot to include an argument.

      Lastly, if you took the time to look, you would see your “source” points to the same source that is mentioned in this post. I suggest next time before throwing out a nasty comment, you take a minute or two to read the post first.

      • Shane Warne

        His numbers speak for themselves. Similar to this article. He is just presenting the data (the same data in this case) in different ways to provide an alternative perspective. Calm down, Borat. His comment wasn’t even nasty LOL

    • Paul Rice

      All this talk about problems of working in the UK or EU is bullshit, Many many people from outside the EU have demanded visas and live and work in the EU and UK , so there is no reason for UK or Eu citizens to be refused visas in the future.
      The only disadvantage is that EU and UK citizens will have to demand a visa to stay or work . Those of us who went to Europe before Schengen had to demand visas , so whats the problem ?

  • http://www.darrenbarefoot.com dbarefoot

    I’m not a statistician, but it seems worth mentioning that the three countries at the top of your “population of immigrants” chart are among the lowest in total immigrants. The Japanese guessed 10% but the true number was 2%.

    The Japanese were, by whole numbers, more accurate than many other countries. They were more than twice as accurate as the Americans, who guessed 33% when the actual number is 14%.

    I imagine your chart would be less persuasive if you included this nuance.

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      You may be right. I think you could argue either way whether absolute or percentage is a better way to measure the accuracy. I went with percentage because I thought it would make for a clearer chart. The Economist used absolute numbers, and I think it comes out a bit confusing http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/01/daily-chart-2

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      Is it better to measure the accuracy here in absolute or percentage terms? I don’t know, neither way is perfect. I agree with your point about Japan. But take the example of Australia:
      Guess: 38%
      Actual: 28%
      In absolute terms, they were about as accurate as Japan. But who’s better informed to weigh the costs and benefits of immigration? Australians are in the ballpark. The Japanese are an order of magnitude away.

  • harmlessdrudge

    0.9m Irish emigrants is w, both for the EU and even more so globally. Ireland is one of only two EU countries that denies citizens a postal ballot in elections (regardless of how recently they left of their future intentions). The reason given is that there are more citizens resident outside the country than inside it. It also not clear that these figures are consistent across all countries (counting EU residents only). Ireland very likely has 1m+ in the UK alone (and there are 288,000 UK born residents in the Republic).

  • Alphadrianism

    Well yes, perception vs reality has always been and always be one of the most important cognitive bias, especially when it comes to issues that can be split into them vs us. I would only add a qualitative comment on these numbers. Those 17 million who were mostly, white, elderly, rural/working class without a degree (which is not the same as poor) who voted to “leave” and in the process sacrificed the future of over 15 million children and teenagers who dint have a voice over them having their EU citizenship striped away from them (the last time something like this happened it was due to ethnic cleansing and war and people still carry the hurts of it even after a century in central Europe), would be more than happy to see those 4.9 million mostly English emigrants return to their country. So I’m afraid your argument holds no water in this regard. Just as much as they would like to see all eastern-Europeans outside of their country, even though most of these are highly educated, have never committed any acts of terrorism nor do they tend to segregate in ghettos, not to mention the fact that they keep their precious NHS standing instead of crumbling under the weight of an increasingly aged population.

    The point being, those who “want their country back” and “are tired of experts”, do not care how many of them live abroad, nor do they care to acknowledge their decisions impact on the young who are overwhelmingly European, nor on those 1.2-5 million people who work and live outside of England in the EU, just like they don’t care how this will influence the other members of the UK, namely NI and Scotland.

    I would also add that there is a qualitative difference between the labour mobility of countries like Romania, Poland and Germany, whose working force move to countries where they are actually needed by the labour market and exit when they are not and England, whose emigration culture relates to their colonial past and is not driven necessarily by labour mobility forces but rather by two centuries old privileged global networks.

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      My wife (who’s from Spain) shares your view, feels like something her generation feels a close connection with was taken away by an older generation whose worldview is from a different time. I see the other side’s perspective too — people who are tired of feeling disenfranchised and having their needs ignored, much like the Trump phenomenon in the US.

      Agree that academic arguments from “experts” are something that side is tired of. My argument in the post is not that any of this would have changed people’s opinions, just that we should call things what they are and acknowledge the facts before taking drastic measures.

      The difference between emigration cultures you point out is clear in the data. UK immigration also includes a lot of retirees in southern Spain (my wife’s country).

      • Alphadrianism

        The entire reason why confirmation bias and others like it are so effective is exactly the very fact that we are all too wiling to ignore any data that contradicts whatever irrational impulse we might feel. Rationalisation of available evidence works in a similar fashion but without denying the fact. All in all, it is rather futile to expect a demographic group that is both self-segregated within their national identity and undereducated to overcome these impulses. We as individuals only have a limited capacity for rational choice, it is only through massive scientific education and peer control that some of us can look beyond our own parochial limits.

        When you have an entire demography opposed to “intellectualism” that are unwilling to educate and re-educate themselves, that leave high-school at the age of 16 because they can still achieve a decent living without it, that are out of their time having no understanding of the world at large, entirely incapable of separating the effects of Globalisation from those of Europeanisation, you cant expect them “acknowledge the facts”.

        When Gove their prophet stated that these people are “tired of experts” he only pointed out the basic truth behind this vote, that this was the English version of the anti-intellectual Bolshevik revolution, a 100 years late, yet inspired by the same brand of glorified ignorance hallowed by pride, lacking only the servitude, poverty and abject condition of the Russian serf.

        • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

          You and I see eye to eye on a lot of what you say. Though, is it possible your characterization of the other side may be colored by your own biases? Agree there is a tendency now to oppose “intellectualism,” but it’s a big generalization to lump an entire demographic together and assume none of them acknowledge facts.

          • Alphadrianism

            Science is not interested in exceptions, nor am I. What is true in the aggregate in social terms is what worries me, not what is unlikely. You expect people to acknowledge facts yet cognitive science predicts that your attempt will fail exactly where it is most needed. This issue is not about us vs them, its about the limitations of being human and the value of education. Its also about how identities are formed and sustained, how subcultures defend themselves, including a subculture of anti-intellectualism so typical of this and other demographies.

            As long as we don’t acknowledge this cultural conflict we wont be able to find a solution to it. As the Borg would say, in this case there is no solution to your paradox without assimilation. These people either learn to value rational thinking, logic and evidence based reasoning above all else, as a result of education and re-education, or they will simply be beyond the reach of any argument that goes beyond their immediate needs and environment where they can be just as functional as everyone else.

            England ha a high “tolerance” for school drop-outs, terminated education, lack of command of even standard English not to talk about academic English, and the world at large has a high “tolerance” for the idea that once you get an education, as is the case with some elderly, you don’t need to re-educate yourself constantly. There is a reason why these people still live decades in the past, its not simply down to biology. We fail to acknowledge that in today’s world , their ignorance is a luxury we cant afford. And this ignorance is not necessarily the result of lack of concrete data, or even particular knowledge on their part, but the lack of flexible and adaptive cognitive skills, the lack of an ever expanding vocabulary that keeps up with our expanding common knowledge. An ability to evaluate and re-evaluate constantly. Both “Ook” and the EU is paying the price of this “tolerance”.

    • becca black

      A wonderful read and full of accurate facts. Thank you. in relation to getto’ ‘s
      European immigrants do group together in gettos initially whilst they work hard in poor paid jobs and save to buy properties, go to uni and start businesses. Which is exactly what the Caribbean, african asian expats did. The problem of identity starts with the second and third generation who are British citizensign born and bread in the UK to contribute to the UK. These generation will be confused and angree at
      The hate directed at them by people who believe they should not be living, working and contributing to their countries development. My children and I have been experiencing race hate in schools, clubs and had abuse shouted out of car windows consistently in rural Kent for over a decade. The complexity goes beyond elderly white english working class. European immigrant bring there own brand of entrenched racial prejudice as do Asians. What the voting has allowed is to show that first line expates live in parallel cultures they rarely intigrate. Second generation immigrants intigrate across cultures as children and unite as british children unless they are told not to. When Religion any religion for some is intertwined with one culture it can breeds segregation. Religion and culture with the backing of politics is like a blob of oil on social water. Intergenerational racism is like a religion it links beliefs with culture and politics, again it’s like oil and water. Social Defussion is being blocked. All the years of equalities action only drove the views underground. Im no Historian or theologian but what is happen is nothing new. All over the world extremist are overtly asserting their views with violence actions. What is new is that England thought it could not happen on this land again. British nationalist extremist terrorist killed Mrs Cox’s because they thought her views was a threat to them.

    • Matt Desona

      What absolute nonsense. It is not our problem pseudo-intellectuals like yourself believe this was all about immigration because you assume we couldn’t possibly have the intelligence or insight to understand anything beyond that. Your patronising and ignorant assumptions show only one thing, your own misplaced sense of superiority and inability to understand viewpoints other than your own. We certainly haven’t “sacrificed the future of over 15 million children”. I have two children myself and the reason I voted leave is because I want my children and grandchildren to live in a country with democratic, self-determination so they are able to affect the society they live in. This is impossible in the EU as it is an anti-democratic political entity that implements laws proposed by unelected European Commissioners that have been drafted by big business, bankers and industrialists. These laws are passed by 750 MEPs, of which less than 10% are British. Of the 576 proposals a majority of British MEPs opposed, 485 were still passed. If British MEPs oppose a law but are in the minority it will be passed anyway and the UK, as an EU member state, will be subject to it. Once a law is in force the Lisbon Treaty makes it almost impossible for it to be petitioned for repeal by any country. The situation is bad enough now, but the EU has made it clear for a long time it wants ever-closer union and the transfer of more law and decision making powers from member states to the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission said “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?”. He also said ”There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties”. So, it’s going to become less democratic as time goes by. Our right to democratic self-determination wasn’t something that simply fell into our laps. My forebears fought and spilt their blood for it. I owe it to them as well as my children and grandchildren not to give it away to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels I didn’t vote for and can’t get rid of.

      The EU is reckless, self-serving and incompetent. They used British tax-payer’s money to bailout Greece after signing an agreement that explicitly stated it wouldn’t be used for this. The reason they gave for reneging on this agreement is that it was signed during ‘ordinary times’ and that ‘extraordinary times’ meant the agreement was no longer valid. This shows their utter contempt for the UK and how willing they are to renege on agreements to suit their own ends. They currently make us pay £12 billion a year to be member of what is essentially a protectionist customs union designed to prop-up inefficient EU businesses and make goods imported from outside the EU more expensive by imposing tariffs on them. Our membership fee has been going up every year and will continue to increase because their financial mismanagement and corruption means each year they need more and more money to fund their political project. Auditors have already identified a £34 billion black hole in the Brussels budget which would have led to the UK being forced to pay higher membership fees to cover it. They decimated our fishing industry and our steel industry. They have removed democratically elected Greek MPs and replaced them with their own puppets. They meddled in a democratically elected government in Ukraine and in so doing provoked Russia which has caused a vicious civil war in that country. As a result of this they now want their own EU army that the unelected, unaccountable and reckless bureaucrats in Brussels will be in charge of so they can facedown Putin! They have caused criminal levels of unemployment and poverty in southern Europe by steadfastly refusing to get rid of the Euro simply because it helps German exports. They turned a perfectly manageable migrant crisis into a full-scale illegal invasion by third-world Muslim men of fighting age who never stop telling us how much contempt they have for our society. This has directly led to an alarming rise in far-right political groups all over Europe which will inevitably lead to violent clashes, bloody confrontation and civil unrest everywhere. They have endangered our citizens by facilitating the setting up of IS terror cells throughout Europe because of their criminal mismanagement of the migrant crisis. They break their own rules and laws time and time again when it suits them and clearly have no regard for anything that gets in the way of their political objective of creating what will become, by any definition, a federal European dictatorship no matter how hard they try to dress it up as something else. They will not reform themselves because it will require abandoning these political objectives. There was no better proof of this than when our Prime Minster went to Brussels asking for minor changes and was shooed away like an irritating child, returning with what amounted to nothing.

      The EU is a doomed political project. By stubbornly pursuing their reckless political and economic policies, they have far from finished causing problems of their own making. Greece will need another bailout soon, Italy is likely to need one at some point and even France could be in trouble. It will go horribly wrong sooner or later. The UK will not be completely immune when this happens, but if we are no longer part of it we will be less directly susceptible when the whole disaster finally implodes.

  • Andy W

    To support your criticism of the British, you use an American English (check spelling) definition of “expat” from Wikipedia that has not even been “approved” – it states verification needed! Having lived in England you should be aware of differences between British and US English. Because you in the US have added “wealth” (racial) connotations to “expat” doesn’t mean that is the case in the UK.

    That said dictionaries do not reflect the complexities of language usage; a foreigner may be unaware of these subtleties until he has been immersed in a culture for many years.

    In common (UK) English usage, an expat is someone working abroad who will likely return home. But
    in certain contexts it may also a sub-set of immigrant, or emigrant – but none of these have racial connotations.

    The meaning in the UK (cosmopolitan London) may have recently started to change but that is due to migrants and “expats” like you spreading their incorrect understanding of the words blurring the usage of expat and immigrant.

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      The criticism applies equally to the U.S. Did not mean to single out the U.K. You mention “racial connotations,” though that is not something I said or meant to imply. I specifically mentioned eastern Europeans as an example of immigrants in the U.K.

      As for the language distinction, it’s natural that citizens of wealthy countries tend more to temporary stays and poorer countries more to permanent stays. Though the idea of expat vs immigrant having cultural connotations is not something I came up with. It’s been discussed at length in the UK and the US. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=expatriate+vs+immigrant+site:.uk

    • Dani

      Yup, you’re right. And no, you don’t have to be THAT ingrained in the culture to get the meaning. Immigrants are there to stay. Expats are there for other benefits, be it more money, a certain lifestyle or the pure curiosity of working abroad.

      The differences are stark if you talk to the people involved. Immigrants have plans of owning property, having children, making lifelong friends and getting “integrated” into their adoptive country’s life. Expats are just having fun, sampling the local cuisine and way of life, getting the most out of their (obviously) limited time.

      There’s no need to push for labels here. I’ve been an expat myself and I am from what you’d call a “poor” country. It’s not where you’re from, it’s what you are 😛

  • Toby_Archer

    I’m trying to understand the the UN figures that this is based on. I’m British and was for most of my adult life one of the 1.2 million Brits who lived elsewhere in the EU. I’m now back in the UK with my EU- but non-British kids and partner – so the brexit issues are close to home! But I don’t get how there can be another 3.7 million Brits who are immigrants in the rest of world? The UN page mentions “diaspora”: does this mean people of British origin but who aren’t citizens? Or could there be 3.7 million citizens (i.e. passport holders) spread between Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US etc etc? That seems like an awful lot – (although maybe I’m totally wrong on that, just like the expectation graphs suggest I should be!).

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      There are many footnotes to the data, so the number is not exact. But yes, your understanding is right. The UN reports 2.6 million Brits living in the US, Australia, and Canada alone.

  • Lasse Forsbacka

    British consular authorities estimate that 2.2 million Britons live in the other 26 EU countries. Expats include only workers send abroad to work for an Engllish company. The others work in foreign companies with local contracts, and that number, especially, is increasing in an unifying Europe. Or would increase without Brexit.

    https://euobserver.com/social/123066

  • paulmk

    The issue that drove the Brexit vote was not how many British citizens live/work abroad – but now many non-British citizens live/work in the UK. What would be interesting to see would be the numbers of migrants in total living and working in each EU country [absolute and percentage of total population] and also, as a subset, the number of EU migrants living and working in each country. For the UK this would highlight that a significant proportion of migrants living in the country come from outside the EU. It is also interesting to listen to leading Leave campaigners backsliding since the referendum and saying that the introduction of a points based immigration system wouldn’t necessarily lead to a significant reduction in migrant numbers – which is exactly what many Brexit supports thought they were voting for.

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      Here are the immigration figures for the UK and EU sliced a few different ways http://metrocosm.com/mapping-eu-immigration/

    • Shane Warne

      A points system would or could lead to different levels of migration though. It’s entirely under their control. I’m not British yet understand (and believe) that for many countries a points system is in most instances a superior system.

  • Joaquim Filipe de Castro

    The real numbers of Portuguese emigrants is around 5 millions, maybe that number is accurate to pt emigrants placed in Europe. In France there are thousands of british people living from the french social security, but it does not bother fn at all. If they call them expats, well in fact they are immigrants, that is the international definition. wasp culture perceived themselves as separated, and afro-americans are assimilated to that idea, with or without nativist or their own ethnic identity.

  • Andy W

    Could you please correct your article to identify that due to the UK’s liberal “Nationality by birth” rules, other countries may appear to have a higher level of immigration because children of immigrants born there are still classified as foreign.

    The UN figures you quote are based on “official statistics on the foreign-born or THE FOREIGN POPULATION”. Note “foreign population”. Unlike other countries virtually no person BORN in the UK is classified as foreign and therefore part of the official “foreign population” included in your UN figures.

    To give you an extreme example: A child born the UK that was conceived abroad by a female terrorist on “indefinite leave to remain” (she has not qualified for residency but it’s unsafe for her to return home) is AUTOMATICALLY classed as British (and excluded from foreign population stats).

    Due to its modern Nationality Laws (2000) I suspect Germany has fairly liberal requirements, even so I’ll use that as a contrast. In comparison with the UK, those born in Germany, among many stipulations, have to have been resident in Germany for at least 8 years. Neither is it automatic – the children have to APPLY for citizenship before age 23. So like for like the German “foreign population” stats will be higher than the UK.

    As an aside: until law changes in 2000 the German born children of immigrants (“guest workers”) such as the large population of Turks had no right to citizenship whatsoever. I’m not sure how many other countries still have strict Nationality laws like this (similarly inflating UN “immigration” figures).

    Even if a country has a relatively liberal born and resided for n years rule, and every parent then applies for their child’s citizenship. Then all children of immigrants under n years will be included in “foreign population” stats.

    Further reading:
    UN figures: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/data/estimates2/estimates15.shtml
    UK Nationality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law#British_citizenship_by_birth_in_the_United_Kingdom
    DE Nationality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law#Birth_in_Germany
    German guest workers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Germany#Citizenship

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      I do see your point. For some countries the data gives foreign population. Though for all the EU countries (except Belgium) the data represents foreign born.

  • Rob

    I am beginning to hate these kinds of articles. The “experts” which the leave vote are so tired of, are the very same people telling the mainstream media, that people who voted leave are ‘racists/xenophobic.’ This is simply not true! I will admit, there are probably some people who did vote to leave based purely on the issue of immigration – but there are so many more reasons to leave the EU!

    I also hate this argument that the ‘old’ have ruined the country for future generations, which has been mentioned in the comments… You have to keep in mind the history of the UK, and for that fact the history of other countries who entered the EEC. Countries, such as France, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands, were in the EEC/EU from the very beginning. Therefore, most of the generations born around 1957/58 who come from one of these countries, are in the same situation as myself – never knowing a time before the EEC/EU. People from the countries listed above, have a smaller minority that can remember a time before the EEC/EU compared to the UK, for example, and presumably most of the time prior to the formation of the EEC/EU for the oldest generations from those countries was dominated by war. Keeping in mind, that the UK joined in 1973 (as well as Denmark and Ireland) there is a larger group of people that can remember a time before the EEC/EU without war, including my parents. Regardless of whether you wanted to stay or leave the EU – to say that older generations are irrelevant in this debate is nonsensical, especially when they are from countries that joined the EEC/EU at a later date. This argument of older generations ruining the lives of future generations, is just petulant. Everyone is entitled to their view – hence the reason why we fought for women’s suffrage.

    As someone in my late twenties, who lived and studied in Germany as part of the Erasmus scheme and as someone who has looked at the history of my country (the UK) – I welcome the vote to leave. Why? Because, I want my country to be independent – I want someone that can be held to account running the country. I want to influence the country’s decision making process via representative democracy to improve the country for all that live here. You simply, cannot do this in the EU. The EC Act 1972 handed over our sovereignty to the EEC/EU. Edward Heath signed the EC Act 1972, without the full hearted support of the country. The referendum back in 1975, was retrospective and was never a question of ‘joining’ as Edward Heath has already signed the act… According to Edward Heath, “a majority of one” was enough to get the EC Act 1972 passed into law. The leave vote of the referendum in 2016 had a majority of around 1 million people. The people have spoken – whether you like it or not. I also wish that other European countries claim their independence back – I agree that European nations should cooperate with one another, but not under the EU. I do not want the laws of the UK being passed by Brussels, and I don’t want the laws of any other member state being passed by Brussels either.

    I would like to add, we do not have to trigger Article 50 to leave the EU! We simply, have to repeal the EC Act 1972. The EC Act 1972 has to be repealed, even if Article 50 is triggered. But, again no one seems to know any of this! Why? Because they swallow up the drivel put out by the BBC, Guardian, Independent, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph etc.

    The whole referendum, is nothing but a psychological attack on the British people, and to some extent EU citizens who live here or wish to live here in the future. There is no intention of triggering Article 50 by the political establishment – why? Because they do not represent the people, but rather themselves. And, for as long as people keep bringing up Article 50 – the UK politicians can hold off our exit from the EU indefinitely. And, in the meantime – whilst we are all bickering about staying or leaving, old vs. young, and all the other arguments that this referendum has created to preoccupy us, we will have the likes of Tony Blair getting away with being a war criminal, and countless other stories being swept under the proverbial rug.

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      Did you read the last part of the post? Not only am I not arguing what you think I am, I actually agree with you (mostly). See my comment here: https://medium.com/@g8er/your-assessments-of-immigration-are-great-c694f23e3317#.thdv4jbf3

      I do think some of the “leave” vote was motivated by nostalgia for a different time, which is not relevant to today’s world. And I think xenophobia and willful ignorance played a role too. But I think rejection of the “experts” may be entirely rational (as I mentioned in the other comment you reference). In the U.S., had I been someone who believed the government when they told me NAFTA was good for American jobs, then saw my wages fall, I would be skeptical of “facts” coming from “experts” too. I also think many who voted “leave” did so for good reasons that have nothing to do with immigration.

      I don’t have a view either way on the Brexit vote because I don’t pretend to understand all the factors well enough.

      • Rob

        I did read your post in it’s entirety. My comment was intended to be more general, and not specifically aimed at you, the author. I’m surprised, that you took the time to comment, for which, I am grateful.

        However, my comment wasn’t intended to be viewed in quite the way you suggest. I think it is belittling to say that voting leave was simply for “nostalgia.” As I mentioned, I am in my late 20’s, so I can’t personally be nostalgic for a time I was not alive to see. The problem is, very few people actually have time to look behind the process of the UK’s accession to the EEC. This is vital to understand what exactly the UK has lost, and for that matter every other country that as ascended to the EEC/EU.

        Your bio, says that you are based in New York, so I have to assume you’re American? Either way, people need to understand what the European Communities Act 1972 was. Sadly many think it was a nothing more than a ‘trade deal.’ You can easily search google, for this act. If you read sections 2(2) and 2(4) you can see that our sovereignty, or power to rule ourselves, was handed over to the EEC. Obviously, I haven’t looked into every document signed by other nations – as I don’t speak all of the languages found in Europe, but I assume the same power was handed over. Either way, Edward Heath, who signed the EC Act 1972 – had promised to do so with the full support of the country, in 1972 the vast majority of people didn’t want to enter the ‘common market.’ As such, Edward Heath who didn’t care about public opinion, just went ahead and signed the EC Act 1972. Typically, in the UK, before we joined the EEC/EU, we would write a bill, sign it and create an act… I guess like America? Anyway, once the act was passed, if it became outdated, or needed to be changed etc. you could just repeal the act and then make a new act addressing the issues of the previous act. This is not the case with the EC Act 1972, basically this act, can repeal future acts because it is a ‘living document.’ It is also very important to ask, has the Queen accepted ‘mediatisation?’ Basically put, the process of ‘selling out’ in this case to the EU. As she is the only monarch in British history to have broken (possibly all of) her coronation oaths. The Queen, swore to uphold the dignity of the crown and as such swore to protect documents such as the (British) Bill of Rights 1688 – which was the basis of the American Bill of Rights. The (British) Bill of Rights 1688, again can easily be found on google, and states under supremacy that no foreign power shall hold authority over the UK. By Edward Heath signing us into the EEC via the EC Act 1972, he broke the principals set out in the British Bill of Rights, and the Queen did nothing to stop him from signing the people’s power away, subsequently the Queen and Gordon Brown both signed the Treaty of Lisbon – again breaking the British constitution. As much, as anyone will read that parliament holds sovereignty (which it doesn’t now because of the EC Act 1972, but that aside) it just simply is not true. The Queen is (supposed to be) the embodiment or representative of the sovereignty of the people – i.e. the people/public hold the power in the UK Parliament. Obviously, it would be ridiculous if the whole population of the UK went to the Houses of Parliament, so we elect representatives, who are supposed to listen to the concerns of the public and then make the choices based on that. I mention this, because in the UK we have the ability to write to and meet with our politicians – I read that this was not the case in Europe, but I don’t know if a similar system is used in America. Somewhere along the line, politicians began to think, that they held the sovereign power of the country – hence why Edward Heath just signed the EC Act 1972 without the consent of the public. The British public have been lied to, and in my opinion it isn’t a case of nostalgia – my point was to show that the UK along with a handful of other countries still have generations that can remember what it was like before the EEC/EU and should not be dismissed, by younger voters on the basis that they are ‘ruining’ their future.

        Simply put, if you are an American, let me word it like this. Does signing a deal with Mexico based on trade sound like a good idea? The answer is probably, yes, because trading with other nations is a good idea. Now, what would you say if the trade agreement proposed by Mexico, said in small print – ‘we now have the ability to pass laws that govern the people of the USA.’ As a land, built on freedom and more importantly liberty – I think the American people would not hand such power over. Now imagine, that this hypothetical trade deal went ahead unnoticed. You were not there at the time to speak out, because you weren’t born. You discover the injustice that has happened to your country – would you be thrilled to find out, that your representatives have been unable to make any laws that govern you, because they signed the power over to Mexico? It may sound implausible, and furthermore it may seem implausible that any other country would agree to such a thing, but believe it or not 28 countries did agree to such terms! Why? Because, the media never told the people the truth – they were too busy explaining what a good thing such a trade deal would do.

        I appreciate that I have gone very much off topic, but it is very important that people understand the information above. To address your article once more, you have to appreciate that when there are articles (in general) about the Brexit vote, or for that matter any other referendum that other European countries may hold, when the vote to ‘leave’ is being manipulated to portray every single person as racist or xenophobic (I am not saying this is what you have done, but in broader terms this is how the UK media has covered the topic) the wider debate simply gets stifled. Personally, I think when one labels someone who wants to talk about immigration as a racist or xenophobe – it really is a very lazy argument or opinion to make, never mind dangerous. There are very good reasons to discuss immigration, whether a country has the infrastructure to support the influx of immigrants? For example, is it xenophobic to ask the question: Can the UK’s travel systems cope with 300,000 immigrants per year? For example, a cap on immigration could be proposed because the UK couldn’t cope with 300,000 immigrants a year, BUT we may be able to cope with 100,000 immigrants until we improve our infrastructure to accommodate 300,000. Now, to me that seems like a fair point to make, but if people can’t make that point for fear of being labelled as a xenophobe or a racist- that point will never be made. Of course, there will always be people who are idiots – no matter where in the world you are, or where you go, there will always be people with stupid views. Nevertheless, they should have the right to hold such views – we are supposed to live in countries that encourage freedom of speech, after all. Of course, the ones with more ‘stupid’ views, or more xenophobic views, tend to be the ones that can’t articulate themselves very well – I would of course never condone their actions if they happened to be abusive or violent, but I for one am still interested in what they have to say. The issue of a potential culture clash is of course very serious, if overnight there was an influx of one particular culture, in any given country. The residents of the country accepting such immigration would of course feel scared. This raises the question, should immigrants be assimilated into the country they are staying, or should they retain all of their cultural practices? There will of course, be immigrants that want to go to a specific country because they want to learn that country’s culture, but equally there will be a minority of immigrants that don’t particularly care for the culture of the country they are staying in, who have perhaps been forced to leave their own country for various reasons. There never will be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ people, people react to what they have experienced – it’s as simple as that, labelling anyone as anything is, in my opinion, very dangerous!

        As for experts, you are right to say it is rational. For instance, did you know that in Scotland they have the ‘named person act’ basically a state sponsored person that has authority over a child, instead of the parents. Clearly, the governments think that the ‘plebs’ can’t look after themselves…

        • Jane

          I disagree with your fear of EU ‘laws.’ EU law makes up very little of our informal constitution. And the laws that we do abide to are laws which we’d othewise have had (or should’ve subscribed to). You’ll find that, should Brexit be carried through, there won’t be much change (if any) to our law.

          EU meddling has also been pushed by the media as a reason to leave. That EU meddling has resulted in gay rights being upheld in Northern Ireland, at a time when the UK government did nothing to stand up for them. It also intervened when the British Army, under authority from the government, used torture against it’s own citizens, again in Northern Ireland. The Times (and the press) owe the EU for supporting their freedom at a time when the UK government tried to suppress it. EU regulations have made the manufacture of goods arguably more ethical, safe and environmentally friendly, when individual goverments were less inclined to do so.

          In terms of electability. Our elected head of state has a seat at the table in the EU. We elect MEPs to represent us. We have/had a strong veto to safeguard UK interests and implement change. By comparison, the current UK PM is elected by around 30k people in a small English constituency and rules the UK because he’s head of a party that got 37% of the popular vote (extrapolated to less than 25% of the registered electorate). The cabinet can be formed and reshuffled without any consent of the electorate. And the next UK PM will be chosen by around 200,000 people.

          Outside the EU we will almost certainly have to accept the free movement of labour as a condition of access to the single market (just like Switzerland, Norway and Iceland). We will lose our strong veto and have no way of instigating any change or reform to the EU. Our manufacturing industries will still have to comply with EU standards in order for the products to sell in the EU.

          I am curious as to what EU laws, enforced upon the UK, in particular got the voters in such a tizzy. I’m quite certain that only a minscule percentage of voters could tell me any. The problem is, this referendum shouldn’t have been held. Voters haven’t got the knowledge or information to make such a nuanced decision.

          • Rob

            Thanks Jane. Well, you are entitled to your opinion, as is the author, as am I.

            But, I feel that the content of my post has been brushed over yet again. I never said that I fear EU laws. The point I am trying to make is that I fear a foreign entity (whether that be from another country, or in this case a union of countries) having control over the UK’s ability to make it’s own law – the same as I would fear our influence over countries over their law making ability. In short, I believe every nation should have the ability to make their own laws. I think this, because the people of a nation should know what is personally affecting them – they should be able to influence the decision/law making process to hopefully improve the lives of themselves and others in the process. You can’t effectively make laws that apply to 28 countries, in the case of the EU, when one (or more) countries may have different needs to the other countries.

            As you point out, the UK election system isn’t perfect. Which I agree, but the safeguard is supposed to be, whoever gets elected, whether you voted for them or not, or whether you even voted in the first place, is still supposed to listen to their constituents regardless of what party they are from. As I mentioned, at some point along the way UK politicians have forgotten this – essentially we loan them our ‘sovereign’ power every 5 years, and when those 5 years are up, they are supposed to return that power to the electorate untarnished. So, as I keep pointing out when Edward Heath signed the EC Act 1972, he tarnished the people’s sovereign power. As a result, it is quite clear that politicians are ‘out of touch’ with the public. As for electing MEPs, I have read (and please correct me if I am wrong) that you do not, for example, elect an actual MP – instead you pick the party you wish to send to the European Parliament. Further removing accountability from elected MEPS. The problem is, many will argue we elect MEPs so the European Parliament is therefore ‘democratic’ – but this isn’t really the case, none of the MEPs can put forward legislation, and whilst they may vote on legislation the ultimate decision lays with the 28 commissioners. To argue that we need to stay in the EU to have a seat at the table to influence decision – is in my opinion paradoxical, when people start highlighting the problems with the British electoral system; because the feeling I perceive when I here this kind of argument is, the UK system is broken, so let’s stay in the EU even though that system is equally broken, but if we stay in the EU we can (hopefully) fix the that system (even though it was set up never to be fixed) instead of leaving and fixing the British system. I may be wrong on that, but that’s how I see the general argument going. If every country left the EU, which I think they should, it is only then that every nation in Europe could cooperate fully – why? Because, the interests of the people of each country, would have to be respected, instead of applying the same laws which may or may not have the nation in question’s best interests at heart. I am not against cooperation with European member states, I am purely against ours and their inability to make laws according to the desires of the respective nation’s people. I am also against the homogeneity of Europe.

            I also never said that ‘EU meddling’ wasn’t pushed by the mainstream media. That is why, I listed media that holds both left wing and right wing ideology. Personally, I pay no attention to the mainstream media – as everything is being propagandised one way or the other. My opinions are based on independent media, such the UK Column, but also as well by looking at source documents, such as the Bill of Rights 1688 and the EC Act 1972 etc. The problem is when one holds a certain opinion, when they are shown content that contradicts that opinion – it is often met with resilience, I am not accusing you of that, but that is the general problem I have faced with my friends and colleagues. Also, because they all share the opinion that the EU is great, when I share my views they automatically assume that I’m a ‘bigot’ because the mainstream media has told them that people who voted leave; are racists and xenophobes. Never mind the fact, that my entire argument isn’t based on immigration. The exact same thing happened during the 1975 referendum on the EEC, from archive footage that I’ve seen. In regards to the issues of Northern Ireland, I am perhaps not inclined to comment as my knowledge on this is sketchy at best – I, obviously wouldn’t condone the actions of the UK government in the cases you mention, however if this occurred within an independent Britain, the people would have to work together in order to hold politicians to account over these issues – remember they are ‘supposed’ to work for us! We cannot rely on politicians to have our best interests at heart – UK, EU or otherwise – the people, have to become more active, write to their politicians etc. Just because the EU defended those people Northern Ireland, doesn’t mean that everything else they do is equally admirable…

            It is also a fallacy that we have to have trade deals in order to trade, thanks to the ‘common market.’ If Japan has a product that the UK wants, or vice versa, there really is no need to have a trade deal – you simply just trade, pay the country in question for the transferal of goods – simple. If I wanted to sell you oranges, and you wanted to buy oranges from me, why would either of us agree to a deal that said I could only sell you and you could only buy one orange per day – when it would suit me to sell you as many as you need, and it would suit you also to buy as many as you need. There are plenty of examples, of countries trading without trade deals. If anything the EU has made it more difficult to trade, as everything has to go through the EU. Yes, if we just went to a country and bought their stuff, we may have to pay tariffs etc. but you at least have the freedom to take business elsewhere if the negatives begin to outweigh the positives. Obviously, such a model would not be viable with the EU as you point out – it’s quite simple, we take our business elsewhere.

            I agree that only a small percentage could tell you what EU laws ‘enforced’ upon them, made them angry – but this is purely because the average person sits down and watches the 6 o’clock news, and refuses to look at alternative sources. The people, had every right to a referendum, but perhaps not under the circumstances in which we had one. Rodney Atkinson, has an interesting video on YouTube; which highlights the problems with the EU but also gave suggestions on how to hold a fair referendum, with a more informed public – the video was made in 2014.

    • Paul Rice

      Sorry to say the so0called experts that the press keep using have proved in the past to be no experts at all , as the conditions today have never existed before , and like the polls , all are wrong

  • Mikko Ergens

    “expat” = intent to remain temporarily
    “immigrant” = intent to remain permanently

    You can’t change that by cherry-picking shaky sources and mixing it in with your own anecdotal experience–you simply end up with logical fallacy. (Not good for someone who analyses and visualises data for a living.) Just because there’s a correlation between economic status and the intent to return doesn’t mean that the definition of these two words are themselves are what they are due to some “poor vs rich” double-standard.

    Furthermore, when it comes to Brexit and the point of your article, isn’t it only significant to map how many EU citizens are in the UK, and also UK citizens who are in the rest of the EU? Otherwise, the point being made by the map doesn’t at all match the point you’re asserting. For example, the immigration/expat implications of Brexit have little impact on UK citizens who are expats in or immigrants to the US (or vice-versa).

    • Albert Ruiz

      You have enough time to criticize the post, but not enough time to check the definition yourself first?

      You are wrong. Expats can be temporary or permanent. If you don’t believe the source given here, start by seaching Google.

      • Mikko Ergens

        Ok, I’ll play. Even conceding that point, the map doesn’t match the article’s point, and it’s a logical fallacy that brings him to the conclusion that in his personal experience (therefore it’s true i suppose?) the word “immigrant” is something used to describe poor people. When someone uses shaky sources and logical flaws to assert something, after posing as someone who’s allegedly a professional data analyst, in order to create clickbait articles, is part of the problem and should be challenged. There’s enough racism and classism in this world on its own without inventing more in order to sell advertising. Please feel free to accept everything being said, buy into it though, your choice of course. Debate is a healthy way of keeping us all honest. Sorry you would rather just read, accept, and march on.

        • Albert Ruiz

          While you’re at it, you should look up the definition of logical fallacy also, because a map cannot be a logical fallacy.
          You also seem to have overlooked the fact there are no ads on this site.

          You know what else this world has enough of? Trolls.

          If after doing your homework, you have a legit disagreement, you should explain it respectfully and expect a respectful answer. If you’re just going to throw out a bunch of unsupported criticisms, that makes you a troll.

    • Dani

      Fully agree. I’m Romanian and I lived in the UK for 2 years. I considered myself an expat (and everyone around me did as well). I knew going in that I was not going to actually settle there.

      It’s not “rich country vs poor country” it’s “am I qualified enough to find suitable work in my own country”.

  • Hedley Mellor

    In the charts does ‘Great Britain’ mean Great Britain or does it mean UK? I’d be curious to know whether dual citizenship rights in Northern Ireland changes perception of immigration on any way.

  • toi4

    Calling bullpoo on this. I worked at the Irish passport office for 12 years. The number is far higher. There are 12 million irish passport holders if you take 4.9m out for the republic and other 1.6 for the north that still leave you with you with 5.5m living outside the republic. The UK alone has 800,000 with number expect to growth to over 1.5m by the end of 2017 due to brexit. The number you have is the number living in the EU.

  • Jane

    For centuries, the British have been colonising the world. Battering the indigenous population into submission, until they’re sufficiently conditioned into believing that Britain is the best place in the world. Then they have the shamelessness to chide people for wanting to come here…

  • BetterFailling

    ‘Brexit’ is just another example of ‘marketing’ tools being used deceptively.

    Instead of openly discussing the pros and cons both sides engaged into a
    war of deception. Instead of a rational argument the world witnessed
    how sentiment was used to spur people to vote for one side or another.

    Instead of choosing to stay in and clean the mess the EU has devolved
    into, many voters have allowed themselves to slide into a ‘grab my toys
    and go home’ attitude.
    And now, that things have happened as almost no one had expected them to unfold, the rats are leaving the sinking ship.
    Which reminds me of another historical experiment that went horribly wrong.
    https://nicichiarasa.wordpress.com/2014/05/17/marx-the-schizophrenic-dialectician/

    • Mrs Arcanum

      The referendum highlighted the disconnect between politicians of all parties and the voters. Those who could see beyond the rhetoric voted stay, whilst those who felt ignored and marginalised voted leave.

      • Julie Reed

        I do not feel marginalised or ignored and I did not listen to any of the rhetoric either. I voted Leave because I want my vote to have some influence and the EU is not a democracy because it is virtually impossible to change anything once it has been agreed. I wish other people would stop treating me as gullible ignorant and racist. Get down from the moral high ground and just accept the result it doesn’t matter how much you try and understand it the result will not change. The remain campaign lied just as much as the Leave campaign and anyone who believes a politician is a fool. Do your own research and form your own opinions.

        • Mrs Arcanum

          Then you are lucky.

          So many voters in the UK live in “safe seats” where if you do not support the party of the MP who has an overwhelming majority it really does feel like your vote is worthless. Each of the main parties has policies I could support, they also have policies I hate. So for a lot of people who may not have thought deeply about the reason behind their referendum vote, protest is very much part of it.

        • Paul Rice

          I would agree , where there are appointed leaders and no way of removing them there is no democracy

      • Paul Rice

        This is also what is happening in many EU countries , there is a total disconnect between mainstream parties and the EU . If there is no change there will be unrest across the EU , with all its consequences , and those to blame will be the national and EU politicians

  • Donnie Huanjo

    As pointed out by other posters your figures are misleading unless you use percentages and relative comparisons.

    To help you understand better I have provided a table of EU Immigrants in the UK, and UK Emigrants in the EU for 2015.

    As you can see there are only 4 countries in the EU (France, Spain, Cyprus & Luxembourg) where there are more UK emigrants than EU immigrants to the UK. For countries with similar economies to the UK the average ratio is about 1.4 and for countries with worse economies than the UK, the ratio of immigrants to emigrants is about 4. So there’s no wonder the people of the UK voted for Brexit.

    EU born, EU Country UK born, UK Immigrants:
    in the UK in the EU EU Emigrants
    ===============================================
    26,000 AUSTRIA 11,000 2.36
    32,000 BELGIUM 27,000 1.19
    77,000 BULGARIA 5,000 15.40
    6,000 CROATIA 500 12.00
    31,000 CYPRUS 41,000 0.76
    42,000 CZECH REP. 5,000 8.40
    24,000 DENMARK 19,000 1.26
    18,000 ESTONIA 500 36.00
    7,000 FINLAND 7,000 1.00
    176,000 FRANCE 185,000 0.95
    297,000 GERMANY 103,000 2.88
    72,000 GREECE 18,000 4.00
    87,000 HUNGARY 7,000 12.43
    411,000 IRELAND 255,000 1.61
    204,000 ITALY 65,000 3.14
    96,000 LATVIA 1,000 96.00
    147,000 LITHUANIA 3,000 49.00
    1,000 LUXEMBRG 7,000 0.14
    20,000 MALTA 12,000 1.67
    79,000 HOLLAND 50,000 1.58
    883,000 POLAND 35,000 25.23
    132,000 PORTUGAL 18,000 7.33
    229,000 ROMANIA 3,000 76.33
    63,000 SLOVAKIA 5,000 12.60
    1,000 SLOVENIA 500 2.00
    35,000 SWEDEN 25,000 1.40
    129,000 SPAIN 309,000 0.42

  • Donnie Huanjo

    As pointed out by other posters your figures are misleading unless you use percentages and relative comparisons of immigration to emigration and refer to the EU only as that is what your argument seems to be about.

    To help with the process of enlightenment I have provided a link to a table of EU Immigrants in the UK, and UK Emigrants in the EU for 2015: migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/354

    To summarise the table, the ratio of UK emigrants in the EU compared to EU immigrants in the UK for 2015 is as follows:

    EU Country == Immigrants:Emigrants (UK)
    ============= =====================
    AUSTRIA 2.4
    BELGIUM 1.2
    BULGARIA 15.4
    CROATIA 12.0
    CYPRUS 0.8
    CZECH REP. 8.4
    DENMARK 1.3
    ESTONIA 36.0
    FINLAND 1.0
    FRANCE 1.0
    GERMANY 2.9
    GREECE 4.0
    HUNGARY 12.4
    IRELAND 1.6
    ITALY 3.1
    LATVIA 96.0
    LITHUANIA 49.0
    LUXEMBOURG 0.1
    MALTA 1.7
    NETHERLANDS 1.6
    POLAND 25.2
    PORTUGAL 7.3
    ROMANIA 76.3
    SLOVAKIA 12.6
    SLOVENIA 2.0
    SWEDEN 1.4
    SPAIN 0.4
    ==========================
    TOTAL 2.7

    As you can see there are only 3 countries in the EU (Spain, Cyprus & Luxembourg) where there are relatively more UK emigrants than EU immigrants to the UK.

    For countries with similar economies to the UK, the average ratio is about 1.4 and for countries with worse economies than the UK, the ratio of immigrants to emigrants is about 4.

    So there’s no wonder the people of the UK voted for a Brexit.

  • Kevin McCarthy

    So just explain where you get your info from please.

    https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-uk-citizens-live-other-eu-countries/

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      Same place as that post, from the EU population division. The link is up there underneath the map.

  • MoreCommonSenseThanYou

    “not once have I heard Mexican farm workers living in the U.S. (permanent or temporary) described as expats.”

    Because they are not expats. They are “migrants” or “migrant workers” because they “migrate” to where the farm work is. It is seasonal employment and unless they are already permanent residents they are legally required to leave the country when their time authorization is up. They also cannot just show up on their own. They have to be sponsored by an employer. Any illegal migrant workers are just that. They are illegal migrants and anyone employing them is subject to severe penalty.

  • Robin

    Wrong on so many levels. My Australian friend living in Britain is an immigrant here, but called an expat by his Aussie friends. I lived in Spain as an immigrant from Britain, but was called an expat by my friends in Britain. So, the definition you have given from Wikipedia is correct but misinterpreted by you in your own definition. An expat IS a person temporarily or permanently residing, as an immigrant, in a country other than that of their citizenship. Note that it still defines expat as an immigrant! I was an immigrant moving to Spain for a better life, but Spain is poorer than Britain? My Aussie friend is an immigrant to the UK but didn’t come from a poorer country either, the GDP per capita of Australia is US$43,000 and in the UK it is US$37,000. Where does that put your argument now? Another fact often overlooked about the expats from the UK living abroad is that 2/3rds of them are in countries outside the EU whilst the other 1/3rd living in the EU are 90% pensioners taking a state pension on a double tax exemption payment from the UK free of UK tax. The number of immigrants to the UK are 50% from the EU mostly working here and whilst they pay tax on their wages into the British economy, the amount of UK resources they use up costs the UK more than what they pay in. Stop writing biased drivel!

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      So there is no misunderstanding, I agree they are squishy terms that are used differently in different places. What I point out is not a hard and fast rule.

  • czmiho

    Numbers in this article are just plain wrong so conclusions are wrong too. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_diaspora and compare with artcle.

  • Roger Traboulay

    A point that is not being raised is that immigrants are productive. More productive at certain jobs than citizens. This is so in the UK and the USA. The economies of these countries have recovered and expanded with immigrant labor. It is cheaper, more productive and does not demand welfare. Their economies need to continue to grow to afford the growing welfare as the population ages.

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      Yes, didn’t mention it here, but the actual impact of immigration (quantified) is a whole other series of questions we should be discussing, but aren’t.
      I seem to remember seeing the avg UK immigrant is more educated than the avg citizen. Though that doesn’t say anything about their effect on wages
      in the US, there is a big distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

      • Roger Traboulay

        Managed immigration is the future. These super economies are in a position to pick and chose the best and the brightest with the skills they need. In this way continue to grow which they must to afford to carry the ever increasing welfare burden.

        • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

          Never thought of it that way, but I suspect you may be right. We are sort of already doing that in the U.S. — immigrants were behind 3 of our 4 Nobel Prizes last year, also most of our billion dollar startups.

  • Michele Hogan

    Although I suspect I am generally politically aligned with the author of this article, I don’t buy the semantic argument over “immigrant” and “expat”. I know many Americans who, having moved permanently to another country, often because of marriage to a native of that country, consider themselves immigrants. I was, in contrast, an expat for 10 years in Europe, precisely because I always knew I would return home some day. It seemed quite clear to me and everyone around me that intention was the difference between the two, not how rich a country you came from!

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      Surprised to hear that view from an American who has lived abroad. Were you in an English speaking country?

      It’s not a hard and fast rule. People use the terms to mean different things. But the idea that it (at least partly) depends on country of origin is not something I came up with. Googling immigrant vs expat will turn up many examples.

  • RonW

    Rubbish – expats are people who are likely to go home, because their home country is more attractive than where they are. Immigrants are people who are _not_ likely to go home.

    You’re just trying to muddy the waters and make it seem as if a de facto ‘tu quoque’ argument has validity. In other words you’re a pathetic globalist-leftist.

  • Irax

    I, a European from a rich Country, have lived in Canada for almost 20 years, and in all this time have I considered myself to be, and have been called that by everybody.. an immigrant, not an expat. For some reason I became an expat when I moved to the Bahamas. And now, living in Greece, I also consider myself an expat…. living away from my Country, but not necessarily intending to permanently stay where I currently reside. In my view, an Immigrant intends to stay… an expat is on the move…. just my take on the thing though 🙂

  • Mark Phillips

    I hope people realise that these figures are not a true reflection and are just back patting for hurt remainers.the figure for UK immigrants abroad is for the world after all! Within the EU it’s a little over a mill with a quarter of a mill in Ireland alone.remain camp = easily fooled!

  • Alan

    Migration within the EU is a right for EU citizens so the UK does not have any control, but if a British citizens want to live and work abroad then most will have to go through the immigration regulations of another country (if not within the EU), that’s what the UK wants, not to keep people out, but have some control on who we let in – just like other countries around the world.

  • Arctic Fox

    Expats go home – Doh. Immigrants don’t. They usually bring nothing with them but high hopes and often a criminal way of life. If they are illegal immigrants that’s a fact before anyone starts bleeding all over my comments. Expats as a term refers to people on contract, usually with nice juicy expense accounts from their overseas employer so bringing in much needed foreign currency. An “expat Indian” might be a bank employee or IT specialist, at the end of their contract they’ll get a business class flight back to New Delhi. An “Indian Immigrant” might be a waiter or cleaner or pick pocket or pimp and he won’t even have the money for a ticket home let alone any intention of leaving. He probably won’t speak the local language or the stand by language of English and will probably have TB…
    An “immigrant” can sometimes pass themselves off as an “expat” but an “expat” will obviously be an “Expat” with a capital E and make sure everyone knows.

  • Egbert

    “In their common usage, an immigrant is someone from a poor country who moves to a rich country looking for a better life. An expat is someone from a rich country who goes to work abroad.”

    An expat is someone from *your* host country who works/lives overseas. An immigrant is someone from overseas who has come to work/live in your host country.

    Nothing to do with rich/poor.

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      True in the UK, the US, and Australia

  • Paul Rice

    Immigration is not a problem anywhere in the world , but illegal migration is , and countries have the sovereign rights to decide who enters and who does not . Why all the fuss about the EU refusing illegal migrants , when countries such as China , Russia , Arab and Asian nations refuse any asylum seekers .
    This proves the hidden agendas at the UN and the International NGOs . Many people are ignoring the warnings being given about civil unrest due to excessive illegal migration , and the lack of integration and respect for countries laws , customs and cultures by these migrants .
    The map shows the numbers of people leaving their countries in the EU , but NOT the percentage of the population that have left . Portugal only has a population of 10 million , and yet the map says 2.3million have left , and the figures are not correct , too low .

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      Too often illegal and legal immigration get muddled together. I would agree that illegal immigration is the bigger problem, but as demonstrated by Brexit, there are a lot of Brits not happy about legal immigration from Eastern Europe.

      The 2.3M number includes people living anywhere outside the country, according to the UN (linked below the map if you would like to inspect).

  • Paul Rice

    The idea that EU expats have to leave the UK , and UK expats leave Europe is totally idiotic .
    They will be treated just like non EU people , have to apply for visa , whats so difficult.
    Many of us went to Europe before Schengen , and had to get residence visas , are younger people today incapable or find it tedious to respect a countries legislation ?.
    Schengen has given advantages to criminal gangs , terrorists , tax evaders , drug dealers , illegal migrants to travel across the EU without being checked , and even EU citizens to install themselves in other EU countries without asking for residence visas after 3 months . The Schengen agreement was a good idea , and as usual in the EU badly thought out and implemented , and never modified to take care of the flaws .
    In the near future politicians and political parties will pay the price for arrogance and incompetence and be voted out of power and existence

  • Paula

    Just a question…when you say citizens you mean people who were born in this country or maybe people who have the nationality? I ask because it is normal having two or three nationalities and live only in one of this countries. For example I have two passports but I am living in a third country…for both first countries I am living abroad and I will be twice in reports…if this happens the number should be different. Is´nt it?😊

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      It gets a bit hairy for situations like yours. The data originally comes from each country’s national census, and they do not all report the numbers in a consistent way. If you care to investigate deeper, the data is pretty well documented in the footnotes (linked below the image).

  • Paul Rice

    There is so much rubbish talked about Brexit .This has never happened before in the EU and nobody knows what will happen .
    And all are keeping quiet about contagion .

  • Annette Wilson

    In common parlance, an “immigrant” would be expected to stay and settle in the destination country, possibly bringing additional family members with them. Immigrants would have no expectation of returning to their homeland.
    An expat, may stay and work in the country, but is not trying to settle it. They may be passed reproduction age (retirees), or may intend to return home or move elsewhere.
    For statisticians, determining the difference is difficult as the two groups’ migratory traits at an early stage are very similar. For ordinary people, discussing the cases of those around them, there is no such difficulty.
    Immigrants lead to permanent population and cultural shift (increasingly negative for W. Europe, CIS); expats have temporary cultural impact.
    Also, the fact there seem to be more immigrants than there actually are, reflects a heightened awareness or fixation on the problem. It doesn’t speak to the desirability of mass immigration.

  • macca

    Actually those figures are way off. The number of Brits in the rest of the EU is between 900,000 and 1.2 million. See The Guardian or BBC etc!!! I don’t know were you get 4.9 million from!!!

    • http://metrocosm.com Max Galka

      The numbers here are the total population who lives abroad, not just those living in the EU.

      • macca

        Then the Brexit comment doesn’t make sense then. Just illustrates a global Britain and outlook.

  • viilips viilips

    No people are not terrable informed, its just that they have a diferent understanding that the poll takers. When most people use the term immigrant they mean all generations of immigrants not just first generation as the poll takers assume.

    If I where to be asked how many immigrants are in my country id say 700 000 or about 50%. The poll takers would say 140 000 or about 10%. I belielieve myself to be in the right here as being second generation you are still a foreigner and your kind came form a foreign land and 50% of my country are foreigners.

  • Isiyku Abdulahi

    Isiyku Abdulahi
    My ex-boyfriend dumped me one week ago after I accused him of seeing someone else and insulting him. I want him back in my life but he refuse to have any contact with me. I was so confuse and don’t know what to do, so I reach to the Internet for help and I saw a testimony of how a spell caster help them to get their ex back so I contact the spell caster and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me and assure me of 2 days that my ex will return to me and to my greatest surprise the third day my ex came knocking on my door and beg for forgiveness. I am so happy that my love is back again and not only that, we are about to get married. Once again thank you Dr Believe. You are truly talented and gifted.He is the only answer. He can be of great help and I will not stop talking about him because he is a wonderful man. Contact this great love spell caster for your relationship or marriage problem to be solved today via email: believelovespelltemple@gmail.com or WhatsApp: +19713839183

    Isiyku Abdulahi
    My ex-boyfriend dumped me one week ago after I accused him of seeing someone else and insulting him. I want him back in my life but he refuse to have any contact with me. I was so confuse and don’t know what to do, so I reach to the Internet for help and I saw a testimony of how a spell caster help them to get their ex back so I contact the spell caster and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me and assure me of 2 days that my ex will return to me and to my greatest surprise the third day my ex came knocking on my door and beg for forgiveness. I am so happy that my love is back again and not only that, we are about to get married. Once again thank you Dr Believe. You are truly talented and gifted.He is the only answer. He can be of great help and I will not stop talking about him because he is a wonderful man. Contact this great love spell caster for your relationship or marriage problem to be solved today via email: believelovespelltemple@gmail.com or WhatsApp: +19713839183

  • patialalegitimate

    Here all problem regarding Loans is solve between a short period of time what are you waiting for apply now and solve your problem or start a business with funds Contact us now. many more 2% interest rate.(Whats App) number +919394133968 patialalegitimate515@gmail.com
    Mr Sorina

Follow

Get the latest posts delivered to your mailbox: