The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees clearly defines a refugee as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion”. This is a clear definition of who should be labeled a refugee, and those who are not included are those seeking economic freedom, work or better living conditions AKA migrants. The words used do matter when describing instances of migrations. I have been guilty of using the term “illegal” in my last blog post when that clearly was not the case. It feels as if the goal posts are forever moving when it comes to immigration policy.
This is further supported when comparing “Words matter” to the Justice Departments release on “use illegal aliens” not “undocumented”. On one hand we are told that people are not illegal and only actions are illegal, but then the justice department says that for continuity’s sake we should keep the language to name them as illegal aliens. I think this is a tactic to sway public opinion to either side of the argument. The base audience for “Words matter” will have their beliefs strengthened by the empowering message that actions are illegal, not people. While supporters of the justice department will see a governing body validate their stance on using the term “illegal aliens” to describe cases of human immigration. The 1951 convention clearly states what a refugee is which is helpful in keeping the terms separate, while laying out official guidelines relating to the status of refugees.
- Will there be a neutral decision on terminology for migrants?
- Does the general public care enough to search these terms and use them correctly?
- How does the misuse of terms perpetuate stereotypes?
4/5