A rose by any other name: Refugees, migrants, and why word choice matters

Let me be absolutely clear: What the European Union – hell, the world – is facing right now with respect to the influx of people escaping violent conflict is NOT a migrant crisis. It is a refugee crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis. 

Those who are escaping violent conflict in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Burma/Myanmar, the DRC, and other parts of the world are REFUGEES. They are NOT migrants.

The media has been using “migrant” and “refugee” interchangeably (for one example, see here) in their reporting on the situation in the EU. I have a serious problem with this.

Why does it matter? What’s the difference?

A migrant makes the voluntary decision to move from one place to another, often for economic reasons. A refugee is someone who moves from one country to another under duress, usually due to political repression, genocide, and/or violent conflict. This is a VERY important distinction, particularly because refugees are granted certain protections under international law, but also because the rhetoric that we use shapes public discussion on issues. (Aside: That’s how propaganda works.)

Each word has socially constructed concepts and meanings associated with them. With “refugee”, we picture someone who has fled war with almost nothing but the clothes on their backs, which usually evokes a feeling of sympathy. With migrant”, at least in the U.S. and in many other countries in the West, many tend to think of illegal immigrants and poor migrant workers, which has a negative connotation in the light of prevailing xenophobic (and often racist) sentiments there.

(My sympathy lies with anyone who wants to better their situation but struggles against numerous obstacles to do so, be they refugees or migrants. But that’s a whole other topic.)

With this in mind, you can understand why word choice is significant. By using these terms interchangeably, the media is allowing those who are not familiar with the situation to develop a particular impression: That they are illegal immigrants, people who chose to flee. And they’re not completely wrong. People do make the choice to flee violent conflict, rather than stay and risk their lives and those of their families.

But really, that’s not much of a choice: They can either risk dying by trying to escape, or risk dying by staying.

Some of the fears associated with a large, unexpected influx of people from one geographical area to another are not completely unjustified. Not all countries have the economic strength to absorb such a sudden population increase, particularly because many countries hosting refugees are some of the poorest in the world. For the Syrian conflict alone, there are millions of refugees (nearly 4.1 million as of this writing). Changes in demographics can also bring on enormous social pressures and changes. But the United Nations High Commission on Refugees has determined that the social and economic impacts are not completely negative.

And, I would argue, the overall toll of crisis is far larger and far heavier than addressing it directly. This includes assisting refugees and working to end the conflict.

Of course, this is much easier said than done.

The United Nations was created to deal with conflict and its effects, and, as such, every member nation has a responsibility to do something to help end violence. (Oh, if only every country felt that way…) The onus cannot be completely on the UN in this day and age, however. There are just too many conflicts and too few resources to address them all effectively. Just a few days ago, the World Food Program, the food assistance branch of the UN, just cut food aid to refugees in Jordan.

So now what?

The countries of the world need to step up to the plate on their own, not just the European Union. The UK just offered to take in 20,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years. France has offered to take in 24,000. The first link in this post shows that Germany is taking steps to ease restrictions for refugees. And all around the world, people are offering to host refugees in their apartments and houses through programs like Refugees Welcome, though even those more informal avenues are not without criticism.

There is a will out there to help. And where there is a will, there’s a way, but it needs to be responsibly harnessed and it needs to be bolstered with formal lines of assistance.

One of my personal contributions to helping the situation, small as it may be, is to bring attention to how it is being presented. Ultimately, I hope, dear readers, that you will at least read the news on this issue with this in mind:

You can call a rose by any other name, and it will still be a rose. You can call a chair something else, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is an object made for sitting on. You can call them migrants, but that doesn’t change what they really are: refugees.