Should we abandon the term “migrants”?

Clément Viktorovitch returns each week to the debates and political issues. Sunday, November 13, we are talking about the “Ocean Viking”, this humanitarian ship with on board more than 230 people rescued in the Mediterranean. 230 migrants.

Words are important. They not only describe reality: they also draw the map of our representations. The way we think about the world. And today, I would like to dwell on this word, which we have heard all week: “migrants”.

Seemingly nothing new. This term has been in the news for years. And yet, it is not self-evident. Others preceded him. In the 1970s, for example, the expression “boat people” was used, first to refer to the Vietnamese and Cambodians who crossed the China Sea, then more generally to designate all the people who try to reach another country. aboard a makeshift boat.

This term has now fallen into disuse. But at the same time, another word was gaining popularity: “illegals”. A word that is not neutral: it focuses attention on the fact that some people are in an irregular situation, eclipsing at the same time the reasons that may have pushed them to migrate. Moreover, the term “clandestine” has become so connoted today that it is hardly used except by politicians who criticize immigration. Another word has taken its place, “migrants”, which has the advantage of being much more neutral: according to Unesco, it designates any individual who lives, temporarily or permanently, in a country where he was not born.

A survivor is someone who is rescued while attempting to migrate, usually at sea.ocean viking are all survivors. Refugee is a very precise term, since it is a legal status : it is reserved for people who obtain asylum under the Geneva Convention, on the grounds that they are persecuted in their country of origin. Asylum seekers are people who have applied for asylum and are waiting to find out if it will be accepted. It should be noted, moreover, that seeking asylum is an international right : those who do it are not illegal, they are in no way “clandestine”.

The current state of the vocabulary is therefore not erroneous, but it is debatable. The problem with the term “migrants” is that by dint of being used in speeches rejecting immigration, it too has ended up taking on negative connotations. This is why it seems to me that today we need another term that is both neutral and descriptive.

When you think about it, a Frenchman who leaves to work in Germany or Great Britain is a migrant, stricto sensu. However, this word is never used in this context. We will rather say of him that he is an “expatriate”, to emphasize the chosen and voluntary nature of migration. In the same way, people who flee their country of origin, to escape war, oppression, famine or misery should be able to be designated by a word which underlines the sudden and dramatic character of these migrations.

It turns out that this word exists in the French language. From my point of view, these people are not only migrants. They are exiles.


source site-25