28/08/2015
Trailing
in our wake, the media have suddenly cottoned onto the importance of language in describing the current migration crisis and, in the self-referential way that they do, are making a complete mess of discussing it.
The open shots were fired by
Aljazeera which, just over a week ago, announced that it was no longer going to use the term "migrants" in relation to the Mediterranean er ⦠migrants.
The "umbrella term", its writer Barry Malone decided, was "no longer fit for purpose" when it comes to describing the horror unfolding in the Mediterranean. It had, he wrote, "evolved from its dictionary definitions into a tool that dehumanises and distances, a blunt pejorative".
For reasons of accuracy, we were then told, the director of news at
Al Jazeera English, Salah Negm, had decided that his network would no longer use the word migrant in this context of the Mediterranean. It would instead, where appropriate, say "refugee".
The problem here, of course, is that it is wholly inaccurate and therefore unwarranted to assert that people casting off in a boat from, say, Libya, are refugees. To be a refugee is to conform with the definition in the 1951 Convention on refugees, and is a status which can only be determined in respect of any single person by an examination of his of her personal circumstances.
Nevertheless, the theme was picked up by the
Washington Post which a few days later asked whether it was time to "ditch the word migrant".
Interestingly, this paper cites Judith Vonberg, writing for the Migrants' Rights Network, who argues against
Aljazeera's prissiness. "By rejecting the term and using 'refugee' instead as a means of arousing the empathy and compassion we should be feeling towards these people, Al Jazeera gives credence to the illiberal voices telling us that migrants are not worthy of our compassion", she writes.
Instead, Vonberg argues that the word migrant should be "reclaimed" as a fair and neutral description of people crossing borders.
This, of course, takes us right back to where we started, opening the way for Lindsey Hilsum on
Channel 4 to ponder over which word to use â refugee or migrant â failing to come to a conclusion.
That then gives Camila Ruz of the
BBC News Magazine an opportunity to pontificate. But, after prancing around the territory, even the mighty BBC fails to come to a conclusion. All Camila Ruz manages to do is observe that the shifting language of migration might seem petty to some but to those involved in the debate there is no doubt of its importance.
She then concludes with a quote from Rob McNeil of the Migration Observatory, who says: "Words matter in the migration debate".
And indeed they do, as we were pointing well before these journalists started realising something was amiss. But it is Don Flynn, director of Migrants Rights Network who has the answer, embedded in the Camila Ruz piece. Rejecting the term illegal immigrant, he argues that it is "better to say irregular or undocumented migrants".
Oddly, even the word "undocumented" may be inaccurate, as some will have documents of a kind. That leaves us with the term "irregular migrant", which is actually what is used by the professionals and many agencies in the field.
In the end stage, individuals sitting in a camp in Calais, poised to make the journey to England, may be categorised from a choice of labels. If they conform with the Convention definition, they will be refugees.
On the other hand, they may not strictly conform with that definition, but it may be judged that to return them to their countries of origin would breach their human rights, in which case they are afforded a more limited form of status called "Discretionary Leave".
If they fulfil neither criteria, they may be judged as economic migrants, but may be given temporary leave to remain â for a short time, allowing them to get their affairs in order â if they agree voluntarily to return. Only if they do not, and in most other cases, do they become illegal immigrants.
The point is that "irregular migrant" is a value-free term. It describes people who are not moving from one country to another in a "regular" fashion, without in any way seeking to describe their actual status. And that, as a generic, seems the most appropriate term to use.
