In a highly popular blog post by its English online editor, Al Jazeera last month dropped the word “migrant”, preferring to use “refugee”; the former term has become mainly, and wrongly, associated with economic migrants when others fleeing war and oppression are involved: “Migrant deaths are not worth as much to the media as the deaths of others - which means that their lives are not. Drowning disasters drop further and further down news bulletins. We rarely talk about the dead as individuals anymore. They are numbers” (“Why Al Jazeera Will Not Say Mediterranean 'Migrants'”). Later, Adam Taylor of the Washington Post asked whether the word “migrant”, amongst other questionable terms, should be avoided in future discussions of refugees, citing the concern over “words that convey an exaggerated sense of threat” as expressed by Alexander Betts, the Director of Oxford’s Refugees Studies Centre (“Is it Time to Ditch the Word ‘Migrant’”?) Taylor points out that the definition of a migrant varies from one organization to another, and that the definition of the Institute of Migration refers to a person who has travelled as a deliberate choice, to improve their prospects or those of their family, in contrast with a refugee, who has generally been forced to flee. Other inappropriate words Taylor cited include “swarm”, “siege”, “invasion”, “horde”, “war zone”, and “marauding”.
In “The Battle Over the Words Used to Describe Migrants”, the BBC’s Camila Ruz discusses the naming of refugees, citing a study by Oxford’s Migration Observatory. Based on the analysis of 58,000 UK newspaper articles, the Observatory had concluded that “illegal” was the adjective most frequently associated with “immigrant”. Ruz refers to various criticisms of the term “illegal immigrant”, including one about the term’s connoting crime, and those of the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times, both of which modified their style guides in 2013 in such a way as to recommend against using it. Besides, some critics cynically point out that western immigrants are referred to as “expatriates” instead: “There has been some satirical commentary about the differences between the terms,” says Ruz. She adds that “alien”, which is out of currency in the UK, is still used in the US. On a positive note, however, she points out that the Obama administration has proposed the label “Dreamer” for “undocumented young people who met the conditions of the Dream act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors)”.
The well-known linguist and philosopher Steven Pinker indicates in his “euphemism treadmill” metaphor that changing minds is more important than changing words. As long as people’s views of others are negative, using different words to describe them will not help; the negative connotations might become associated with the new words, in an endless vicious circle.
In “The Battle Over the Words Used to Describe Migrants”, the BBC’s Camila Ruz discusses the naming of refugees, citing a study by Oxford’s Migration Observatory. Based on the analysis of 58,000 UK newspaper articles, the Observatory had concluded that “illegal” was the adjective most frequently associated with “immigrant”. Ruz refers to various criticisms of the term “illegal immigrant”, including one about the term’s connoting crime, and those of the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times, both of which modified their style guides in 2013 in such a way as to recommend against using it. Besides, some critics cynically point out that western immigrants are referred to as “expatriates” instead: “There has been some satirical commentary about the differences between the terms,” says Ruz. She adds that “alien”, which is out of currency in the UK, is still used in the US. On a positive note, however, she points out that the Obama administration has proposed the label “Dreamer” for “undocumented young people who met the conditions of the Dream act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors)”.
The well-known linguist and philosopher Steven Pinker indicates in his “euphemism treadmill” metaphor that changing minds is more important than changing words. As long as people’s views of others are negative, using different words to describe them will not help; the negative connotations might become associated with the new words, in an endless vicious circle.
