Yes, This is all about self-labeling as I don't think there are any laws which cover what "ex-pat" means. At that level I'm pointing out that your definition is

Yes, This is all about self-labeling as I don't think there are any laws which cover what "ex-pat" means. At that level I'm pointing out that your definition is only a partial fit to the existing use. The underlying question I have is, why do some people want to self-label as "ex-pat"? Why not use "guest worker" or "immigrant"? Personally, I think the term ex-pat became in vogue post-WWI when rich Americans and (poor) artists and writers were part of the European social scene, like Gertude Stein's "Lost Generation". The modern self-employed authors and artists who live overseas still use that term. After WWII, when US companies started to have European offices, and when it was cheaper and easier for US citizens to work overseas, they re-used the term "expat", in part for the romantic ties to the stories they read while growing up. Since business makes a lot more money than writing, that new term has come to dominate. And these American guest workers, like British guest workers in China, India, etc., considered themselves better than other guest workers, so preferred the term "expat" over "guest worker." Then, to make it easy to tell the two apart, insist that the term "expat" is the correct one to use for office workers. And it just happens that guest workers in multinational business offices are mostly drawn from white people in rich countries. I think US and British retirees living overseas call themselves "expats" for similar reasons; to consider themselves apart and above immigrants from poorer countries. I believe your observations are consistent with my belief that the distinction is based on class terms. If so, by using that term don't you support classism? Of course, as the beneficiary of classism your answer might well be "yes".