This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/16/readers-editor-on-use-of-term-migrant
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The readers’ editor on… the semantics of migration | The readers’ editor on… the semantics of migration |
| (about 11 hours later) | |
| Distressing scenes of Syrian refugees bottled up in a football stadium on the Greek island of Kos and pictures of migrants in France existing in miserable conditions near the Channel Tunnel have become all too familiar this summer. The news seems unrelentingly grim, with this newspaper reminding us that while the British press seems obsessed with the wretched souls gathered in Calais, other European nations have been in the grip of an emergency every bit as acute. | Distressing scenes of Syrian refugees bottled up in a football stadium on the Greek island of Kos and pictures of migrants in France existing in miserable conditions near the Channel Tunnel have become all too familiar this summer. The news seems unrelentingly grim, with this newspaper reminding us that while the British press seems obsessed with the wretched souls gathered in Calais, other European nations have been in the grip of an emergency every bit as acute. |
| Earlier this year, after we published a vivid account of the plight of refugees fleeing across the Mediterranean, we were cautioned by a representative of Rosa, a charity giving support to women and girls in the UK, that the term “migrant” should be used with care. It had become loaded with negative connotations, helping serve an agenda that sought to discourage sympathy for those making the desperate – and often deadly – crossing to a new life. Where we knew that people were fleeing war and persecution (something that is never easy to establish) we should call them refugees. | Earlier this year, after we published a vivid account of the plight of refugees fleeing across the Mediterranean, we were cautioned by a representative of Rosa, a charity giving support to women and girls in the UK, that the term “migrant” should be used with care. It had become loaded with negative connotations, helping serve an agenda that sought to discourage sympathy for those making the desperate – and often deadly – crossing to a new life. Where we knew that people were fleeing war and persecution (something that is never easy to establish) we should call them refugees. |
| Robert McNeil of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford also believes the term “migrant” has become a negative label, morphing from merely referring to a person who moves between countries (the UN definition) to a pejorative term, particularly in the vocabulary of tabloid journalists. There was a need, he said, for the word to be reclaimed as a neutral term for those on the move, pointing out that an migrant can just as easily be a Saudi billionaire moving to Mayfair as a poor north African seeking a basic standard of living in Marseille. | Robert McNeil of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford also believes the term “migrant” has become a negative label, morphing from merely referring to a person who moves between countries (the UN definition) to a pejorative term, particularly in the vocabulary of tabloid journalists. There was a need, he said, for the word to be reclaimed as a neutral term for those on the move, pointing out that an migrant can just as easily be a Saudi billionaire moving to Mayfair as a poor north African seeking a basic standard of living in Marseille. |
| Research by Professor Bridget Anderson illustrates just how hard it is to define the word: “When counting migrants and analysing the consequences of migration, who counts as a migrant is of crucial importance. Yet there is no consensus on a single definition of a ‘migrant’. Migrants might be defined by foreign birth, by foreign citizenship or by their movement into a new country to stay temporarily or to settle for the long term. | Research by Professor Bridget Anderson illustrates just how hard it is to define the word: “When counting migrants and analysing the consequences of migration, who counts as a migrant is of crucial importance. Yet there is no consensus on a single definition of a ‘migrant’. Migrants might be defined by foreign birth, by foreign citizenship or by their movement into a new country to stay temporarily or to settle for the long term. |
| “Some analyses even include children who are UK born or UK nationals, but whose parents are foreign born or foreign nationals, in the migrant population. None of these definitions are equivalent and none fit precisely with ‘migrant’ defined as an individual who is subject to immigration controls.” | “Some analyses even include children who are UK born or UK nationals, but whose parents are foreign born or foreign nationals, in the migrant population. None of these definitions are equivalent and none fit precisely with ‘migrant’ defined as an individual who is subject to immigration controls.” |
| Perhaps because the term is so difficult to define, the UK is pretty confused about who these people are. In 2011, the Migration Observatory commissioned a poll that sought to establish who the public had in mind when thinking about immigrants. It found that respondents were most likely to think of asylum seekers (62%) and least likely to think of students (29%). Statistics at the time showed that students made up the largest group of immigrants coming to the UK (37%) while asylum seekers were the smallest group (4%). | Perhaps because the term is so difficult to define, the UK is pretty confused about who these people are. In 2011, the Migration Observatory commissioned a poll that sought to establish who the public had in mind when thinking about immigrants. It found that respondents were most likely to think of asylum seekers (62%) and least likely to think of students (29%). Statistics at the time showed that students made up the largest group of immigrants coming to the UK (37%) while asylum seekers were the smallest group (4%). |
| Terminology employed by politicians and the media is crucial to public understanding of any issue, yet the semantics around the movement of people seem particularly highly charged. In Australia, the language used by governments and media to discuss those who arrive “irregularly” by sea has changed dramatically. Reuters Institute fellow Ben Doherty, a Guardian journalist, has found that asylum seekers, once called refugees and boat people, are now officially referred to in government statements as “illegals”. Ministers have publicly alleged they “could be murderers [or] terrorists” and report “whole villages” are coming to Australia in uncontrollable “floods”. Australia’s policies are now framed as a matter of “border protection” from “threats to national security”. | Terminology employed by politicians and the media is crucial to public understanding of any issue, yet the semantics around the movement of people seem particularly highly charged. In Australia, the language used by governments and media to discuss those who arrive “irregularly” by sea has changed dramatically. Reuters Institute fellow Ben Doherty, a Guardian journalist, has found that asylum seekers, once called refugees and boat people, are now officially referred to in government statements as “illegals”. Ministers have publicly alleged they “could be murderers [or] terrorists” and report “whole villages” are coming to Australia in uncontrollable “floods”. Australia’s policies are now framed as a matter of “border protection” from “threats to national security”. |
| This year, we have heard politicians claim that the vast majority of migrants to Europe are travelling for economic reasons; that they are “marauders”, arriving in “swarms”. Journalists tempted to repeat these claims need to remember the figures: the 200,000 migrants who have arrived in Europe this year represent 0.027% of Europe’s 740m population, and 70% of them are genuine refugees, having fled war zones. Only about 1% have reached Calais. | This year, we have heard politicians claim that the vast majority of migrants to Europe are travelling for economic reasons; that they are “marauders”, arriving in “swarms”. Journalists tempted to repeat these claims need to remember the figures: the 200,000 migrants who have arrived in Europe this year represent 0.027% of Europe’s 740m population, and 70% of them are genuine refugees, having fled war zones. Only about 1% have reached Calais. |
| • Many thanks to those who took part in our snap poll to decide style for yes and no campaigns in referendums (readers had complained that the current lower case style was confusing). An overwhelming 89% voted to use initial capitals, so it’s yes to Yes… and yes to No. | • Many thanks to those who took part in our snap poll to decide style for yes and no campaigns in referendums (readers had complained that the current lower case style was confusing). An overwhelming 89% voted to use initial capitals, so it’s yes to Yes… and yes to No. |
| Please note that the readers’ editor email address has changed to observer.readers@observer.co.uk | Please note that the readers’ editor email address has changed to observer.readers@observer.co.uk |
Previous version
1
Next version