Refugee, Migrant, asylum seeker, illegal immigrant – the battle over words

Images of people scrambling over barbed wire fences, crossing the Mediterranean in fishing boats, or the publication of the shocking picture of the body of drowned three-year old little boy. Words to describe people are often used interchangeably – does getting it right really matter? Are your staff clear on what the different words mean?

In recent months, the BBC and other media outlets have used the words migrant, refugee, asylum seeker and illegal immigrant. There is a difference in the meaning of these words, and yes, it does matter, because confusing the terms leads to problems. Myths about immigration have become firmly entrenched in the public’s consciousness – staff in colleges have an opportunity to counter the current narrative.

First – the meaning of words…

The word ‘migrant’ is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘one who moves, either temporarily or permanently, from one place, area or country of residence to another’. Migrant is an umbrella term for people who move from one place to another, often to find work or better living conditions. The term ‘immigrant’ is used for people who come into the country, generally to settle.

An 'asylum seeker' is someone who claims asylum in another country, generally because they have fled from an area due to a well-founded fear of persecution, torture, famine, armed conflict or war. Legally, a 'refugee' is a person who is an asylum seeker who has been granted leave to remain in a country, either for a temporary period or for an indefinite period of time. Some are wary of calling someone a refugee until they have gone through the legal process of claiming and being granted asylum. Many, however, including the BBC, commonly use the word ‘refugee’ as a generic term to describe someone feeing their country because of persecution, torture, famine, armed conflict or war.

Second – the problems when we don’t get the words right…

For starters, individual governments deal with people under different laws and processes. Countries deal with migrants under their own immigration laws and processes. Countries deal with refugees through refugee protection and asylum that is defined by national and international law. Blurring the terms can undermine public support for refugees at a time when we are facing a refugee crisis not seen since World War Two. The decision to migrate is taken freely, for reasons of personal convenience. The decision to flee persecution, torture, famine, armed conflict or war is not taken freely but out of necessity. Purposefully confusing the terms belittles the human suffering taking place.

The word migrant, although a relatively neutral term in the context described above, is commonly used as a term of abuse or derision. The news website al-Jazeera has decided it will not use the word migrant as it dehumanises and distances people.

I watched the presenter of BBC London news in early September of this year repeatedly use the expression ‘illegal immigrant’. The problem with using the word ‘illegal’ when describing migrants is that implies that behaviour is criminal. The UN and the EU have called for an end to the phrase. The term is dangerous, argues Don Flynn, director of Migrants Rights Network. ‘It is better to say irregular or undocumented migrants’. Others say that the phrase implies the person is illegal. ‘Once you have entered the UK and claimed asylum, you are not illegal. Even if your asylum is refused, you still can’t be an illegal immigrant’, says Zoe Grumbridge from Refugee Action. 

When the British public were asked to describe an immigrant as part of a survey for the Migration Observatory, 62% of people identified an asylum seeker, even though they make up just 4% of total immigration. What most people don’t realise is that students make up half of all non-EU immigrants – they arrive quietly and almost unseen. So in the public’s mind, one of the smallest group of immigrants is thought of as the biggest. One of the problems with Britain’s immigration debate is that people rarely differentiate between different kinds of migrants; Chinese students, Russian billionaires, nurses from Nigeria, Indian doctors, French professional footballers and Syrian refugees, for example.

And Third – getting it right…

In the complexity of all of the issues with immigration, let’s not forget two important facts. Negative media reporting has distorted reality. For example, people frequently claim that immigrants are ‘taking our homes’. The reality is that go onto any building site and it is likely that you will find migrants building our homes. And they work in our schools, help run our hospitals and contribute significantly to the public purse via the taxes the pay. For more information and ‘myth busters’, take a look at the pamphlet ‘changing the debate on migration’, which you can download here

In Britain, we carry a share of the responsibility for the current refuge crisis. The chaos which has overtaken Syria and unleashed a flood of refugees to the west, for example, can be traced back, some might argue, to the Western invasion of Iraq and our actions in Libya following military intervention four years ago.

The publication of the shocking and tragic picture of the body of a Syrian boy, Alan Kurdi, was powerful not just because it was a picture of a dead three-year old little boy who had drowned. It was also powerful because it contradicted the mental image of most peoples’ ideas of an immigrant. And it stopped us in our tracks from trying to decide if he was a ‘migrant’ or a ‘refugee’.

If we are not sure if we should call people migrants, asylum seekers or refugees, perhaps we should simply call them people. Because that is what they are, whatever the reason for their journey.