We deride them as ‘migrants’. Why not call them people? | David Marsh | The Guardian

‘They are people – men, women and children, fathers and mothers, teachers and engineers, just like us – except they come from Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan and elsewhere.’ Photograph: Marko

Djurica/ReutersView image in fullscreen‘They are people – men, women and children, fathers and mothers, teachers and engineers, just like us – except they come from Syria, Eritrea,

Afghanistan and elsewhere.’ Photograph: Marko Djurica/ReutersOpinionWorld news This article is more than 9 years oldWe deride them as ‘migrants’. Why not call them people?This article is

more than 9 years oldDavid Marsh

The term is badly tarnished after years of abuse by those who seek to strip refugees of their humanity

Fri 28 Aug 2015 17.16 CESTLast modified on Wed 29 Nov 2017 13.06 CETShare What do the following people have in common: Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England; the former England

cricketer Kevin Pietersen; Nigel Farage’s wife, Kirsten; Chelsea’s new striker, Pedro; and Sir Bradley Wiggins?

Yes, they are all migrants – or, if you prefer, immigrants. Having moved to the UK to further their careers, some of them might perhaps be described as “economic migrants”. Except that this

term is reserved exclusively by politicians and the media to describe people who – unlike bankers or sports stars – they don’t like: people who, in the words of our foreign secretary, are

“marauding” across Europe.

People from the UK moving abroad to pursue their career or financial interests, meanwhile, are “expats”, never emigrants or migrants.

The language we hear in what passes for a national conversation on migration has become as debased as most of the arguments, until the very word “migrants” is toxic, used to frighten us by

conjuring up images of a “swarm” (as David Cameron put it) massing at our borders, threatening our way of life.

As Prof Alexander Betts, director of the refugee studies centre at Oxford University, says: “Words that convey an exaggerated sense of threat can fuel anti-immigration sentiment and a

climate of intolerance and xenophobia.”

There’s nothing new in this. Fifteen years ago the Conservatives were getting worked up about “bogus asylum seekers”. This was nonsense: you are either an asylum seeker or you aren’t. But

that wasn’t the point – which was, rather than to demonstrate the traditional British values of compassion and fairness to those seeking refuge here, to denigrate them for crude political

purposes.

Migrants are humans too. This simple fact seems to have been forgotten | Owen JonesRead more This is the background against which Al Jazeera English has announced it will no longer use the

word “migrants” but “refugees”, in the context of desperate people trying to enter Europe by the Mediterranean.

The broadcaster’s online editor, Barry Malone, says: “It is not hundreds of people who drown when a boat goes down in the Mediterranean, nor even hundreds of refugees. It is hundreds of

migrants. The umbrella term migrant is no longer fit for purpose when it comes to describing the horror unfolding in the Mediterranean … Migrant is a word that strips suffering people of

voice.”

Newspapers such as the Guardian have been using “migrant” in recent years in part because something similar happened to the word “immigrant”, when it became increasingly used by racists to

mean something like “a black person in Britain who should go back home”. In fact “immigrate” simply means to arrive in a country, as “emigrate” means to leave one. But it’s hard to use the

former in a neutral context because it has become so loaded, along with phrases such as “second-generation immigrant”, an offensive way to refer to their children.

Journalists, like politicians, prefer to keep a story simple, assuming readers and voters have a short attention span. Labels such as “migrants”, however, deny people their humanity, and

somewhere in this sorry saga we are losing sight of the fact they are people. So when the Express used the headline “Eight million migrants live in UK” this week I’m not absolutely sure who

they were referring to, or whether the figure is accurate, and I don’t think they are either. But it doesn’t really matter because the idea is to alarm, not inform, the public and propagate

an agenda that says: migrants = bad; (and then to blame the European Union).

I’ve been canvassing opinion among Guardian colleagues to assess the language we use when writing about this international crisis. One colleague who has been reporting extensively on the

situation in Calais says: “The conclusion I came to was, wherever possible, to describe those in the camp as ‘people’ initially, with an extended phrase along the lines of ‘more than 3,000

people who have fled war, poverty or persecution beyond Europe’s borders …’.”

View image in fullscreen‘The United Nations high commissioner for refugees considers people at Calais at the very least ‘people of concern’. Photograph: Regis Duvignau/Reuters Another

journalist says: “They are people – men, women and children, fathers and mothers, teachers and engineers, just like us – except they come from Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Why

not just call them ‘people’, then list any other information we know that is relevant?”

We deserve better from our politicians and press than scare stories about hordes of migrants laying siege to the UK. Such language not only plays to people’s fears, it is far from accurate.

The vast majority come into the country legally. The United Nations high commissioner for refugees considers people at Calais at the very least “people of concern” – vulnerable individuals

likely to have a claim for asylum. Globally nearly 60 million people have been forcibly displaced. It’s fair to say that most of them are not in it to take advantage of the British benefits

system.

The language we hear has become as debased as most of the arguments You will still see the word “migrants” or “migration” in the Guardian as a general expression to cover people who for

whatever reason have moved, or are moving, from the country of which they are nationals to another. But “refugees”, “displaced people” and “asylum seekers”, all of which have clear

definitions, are more useful and accurate terms than a catch-all label like “migrants”, and we should use them wherever possible.

Politically charged expressions such as “economic migrants”, “genuine refugees” or “illegal asylum seekers” should have no part in our coverage. This is a story about humanity. Reporting it

should be humane as well as accurate. Sadly, most of what we hear and read about “migrants” is neither.

Explore more on these topicsWorld newsOpinionMigrationImmigration and asylumLanguageNewspapersNewspapers & magazinescommentShareReuse this content