Calais 'migrants' - stop using that word

MakeEmLaugh · 04-08-2015 07:15AM #1

Every day, I see news websites use the word 'migrants' to refer to people from Syria, Sudan, Eritrea and Afghanistan who are waiting in Calais, France to board a train or ferry to the UK or other parts of Europe.

Look at the last 24 hours alone.

The Irish Times: EU offers France funds to help with Calais migrants

The Irish Examiner: EU pledges aid for France during Calais migrant Calais (sic)

TheJournal.ie: One dead as 1500 migrants try to storm Eurotunnel

The Telegraph: Calais crisis: Riot police officer in hospital as 1,700 migrants try to storm Channel Tunnel

TIME: Migrants Wait With Hope and Resignation at French Camp Called ‘the Jungle’

The Guardian: UK funds 100 extra Channel tunnel guards as migrant standoff continues

The Daily Mail: Calais under siege: Riot police battle 2,500 migrants desperate to reach Britain through Channel Tunnel during weekend of chaos

This blatantly incorrect language is used consistently, and no one seems to be calling them up on it.

A 'migrant' is a person who moves from one part a country to a different part of the same country e.g. the Oklahoma farmers who moved to California during the Great Depression.

If you move from one country to a different country, you are not a 'migrant'. You are an immigrant.

Which, by the way, is the perfectly reasonable thing to be. Almost every country in the world has dealt with immigrants, and benefited from it. It may well be the case that the immigrants in Calais will make a positive contribution to countries in Europe if and when they are allowed to settle.

But calling them 'migrants' is flat out incorrect, and what's worse, condescending. Dropping the first two letters of the word 'immigrant' doesn't transform it from some awful slur to a badge of honour. It isn't a slur, it's the correct nomenclature.

The Irish people who flooded into New York and Boston in the 1840s and 1850s were immigrants, and indeed, many of their descendants embrace the term 'immigrant' to describe their forebears. It shows that they are aware of their heritage, and that they came from somewhere else.

Political correctness is a good thing in that it prevents minorities from being attacked, whether they are gay, trans, people of colour and so on. But using the term 'migrant' to refer to immigrants isn't political correctness.

It's gutless, euphemistic bullshit.

speedboatchase · 04-08-2015 07:16AM

Could be worse, they could be called *shudder*... the "undocumented".

Massimo Cassagrande · 04-08-2015 07:24AM

speedboatchase wrote: »

Could be worse, they could be called *shudder*... the "undocumented".

Or "Non-Nationals".

I hate that expression.

racso1975 · 04-08-2015 07:24AM

They also forget the word illegal.

Peregrinus · 04-08-2015 07:28AM

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Every day, I see news websites use the word 'migrants' to refer to people from Syria, Sudan, Eritrea and Afghanistan who are waiting in Calais, France to board a train or ferry to the UK or other parts of Europe . . .

This blatantly incorrect language is used consistently, and no one seems to be calling them up on it.

A 'migrant' is a person who moves from one part a country to a different part of the same country e.g. the Oklahoma farmers who moved to California during the Great Depression.

If you move from one country to a different country, you are not a 'migrant'. You are an immigrant.

Which, by the way, is the perfectly reasonable thing to be. Almost every country in the world has dealt with immigrants, and benefited from it. It may well be the case that the immigrants in Calais will make a positive contribution to countries in Europe if and when they are allowed to settle.

But calling them 'migrants' is flat out incorrect, and what's worse, condescending. Dropping the first two letters of the word 'immigrant' doesn't transform it from some awful slur to a badge of honour. It isn't a slur, it's the correct nomenclature.

The Irish people who flooded into New York and Boston in the 1840s and 1850s were immigrants, and indeed, many of their descendants embrace the term 'immigrant' to describe their forebears. It shows that they are aware of their heritage, and that they came from somewhere else.

Political correctness is a good thing in that it prevents minorities from being attacked, whether they are gay, trans, people of colour and so on. But using the term 'migrant' to refer to immigrants isn't political correctness.

It's gutless, euphemistic bullshit.

No. It's proper use of English.

A "migrant" is one who migrates - moves from one place and settles in another. The two places may be in the same country, or may be in different countries.

An "immigrant" is a person who has migrated into a particular place; an emigrant is one who has migrated from a particular place. From the perspective of the Bostonians, an Irish person migrating to Boston is an immigrant but, from the perspective of Irish people, the same person is an emigrant. If you are not speaking from any particular perspective, the person is just a migrant. Newspapers and broadcasters generally mantain at least a veneer of impartiality and objectivity, so "migrant" is the preferred, and entirely correct, term.

(You could even make the point that even though the people concerned are trying to immigrate to Britain, they won't actually be immigrants unless and until they succeed in doing so. While they're still in transit, and haven't settled anywhere, they can be emigrants from the perspective of their home country and migrants from a general non-specific perspective, but they can't correctly be called immigrants.)

pmasterson95 · 04-08-2015 07:33AM

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Every day, I see news websites use the word 'migrants' to refer to people from Syria, Sudan, Eritrea and Afghanistan who are waiting in Calais, France to board a train or ferry to the UK or other parts of Europe.

Look at the last 24 hours alone.

The Irish Times: EU offers France funds to help with Calais migrants

The Irish Examiner: EU pledges aid for France during Calais migrant Calais (sic)

TheJournal.ie: One dead as 1500 migrants try to storm Eurotunnel

The Telegraph: Calais crisis: Riot police officer in hospital as 1,700 migrants try to storm Channel Tunnel

TIME: Migrants Wait With Hope and Resignation at French Camp Called ‘the Jungle’

The Guardian: UK funds 100 extra Channel tunnel guards as migrant standoff continues

The Daily Mail: Calais under siege: Riot police battle 2,500 migrants desperate to reach Britain through Channel Tunnel during weekend of chaos

This blatantly incorrect language is used consistently, and no one seems to be calling them up on it.

A 'migrant' is a person who moves from one part a country to a different part of the same country e.g. the Oklahoma farmers who moved to California during the Great Depression.

If you move from one country to a different country, you are not a 'migrant'. You are an immigrant.

Which, by the way, is the perfectly reasonable thing to be. Almost every country in the world has dealt with immigrants, and benefited from it. It may well be the case that the immigrants in Calais will make a positive contribution to countries in Europe if and when they are allowed to settle.

But calling them 'migrants' is flat out incorrect, and what's worse, condescending. Dropping the first two letters of the word 'immigrant' doesn't transform it from some awful slur to a badge of honour. It isn't a slur, it's the correct nomenclature.

The Irish people who flooded into New York and Boston in the 1840s and 1850s were immigrants, and indeed, many of their descendants embrace the term 'immigrant' to describe their forebears. It shows that they are aware of their heritage, and that they came from somewhere else.

Political correctness is a good thing in that it prevents minorities from being attacked, whether they are gay, trans, people of colour and so on. But using the term 'migrant' to refer to immigrants isn't political correctness.

It's gutless, euphemistic bullshit.

Well this post didnt make me laugh.

RichardCeann · 04-08-2015 07:43AM

racso1975 wrote: »

They also forget the word illegal.

Some American journos set up a bot on Twitter that corrects anyone who uses the term 'illegal immigrant'.

Two American journalists have created a Twitter bot that "corrects" people who tweet the term "illegal immigrant", and offers alternatives. But not everyone appreciates the suggestion.

The "I" word has been called into question in recent years. Defining any human being as "illegal" is considered offensive by some, who think the term should be reconsidered.

That's why Patrick Hogan and Jorge Rivas, journalists at Fusion.net, created a Twitter bot - a computer programme to compose and publish tweets automatically - to "correct" people who use the term on the social network.

Twitter users who include the phrase in any context may receive a message from the bot reading: "People aren't illegal. Try saying "undocumented immigrant" or "unauthorized immigrant" instead."

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-33735177

pmasterson95 · 04-08-2015 07:50AM

RichardCeann wrote: »

Some American journos set up a bot on Twitter that corrects anyone who uses the term 'illegal immigrant'.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-33735177

Ah ya cant beat that smell of PC shite in the morning

RichardCeann · 04-08-2015 07:58AM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Ah ya cant beat that smell of PC shite in the morning

What a time to be alive. I prefer the term 'criminal trespassers'.

darkpagandeath · 04-08-2015 08:00AM

RichardCeann wrote: »

Some American journos set up a bot on Twitter that corrects anyone who uses the term 'illegal immigrant'.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-33735177

Did he forget his country created the lions share of these Illegal immigrates ?

looksee · 04-08-2015 08:12AM

RichardCeann wrote: »

Some American journos set up a bot on Twitter that corrects anyone who uses the term 'illegal immigrant'.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-33735177

That is nonsense, it is not the individual who is being described as illegal, its the act of migration.

RichardCeann · 04-08-2015 08:13AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Did he forget his country created the lions share of these Illegal immigrates ?

Some Native Americans estimate that there up to 320 million illegal immigrants in the US.

Buona Fortuna · 04-08-2015 08:35AM

RichardCeann wrote: »

Some American journos set up a bot on Twitter that corrects anyone who uses the term 'illegal immigrant'.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-33735177

Now there's a couple of fellas with too much time on their hands

Eugene Norman · 04-08-2015 09:01AM

I agree that migrant works here. I corrected a guy who said there were 1-2M Irish immigrants to Britain in the 30 years after the famine on Twitter yesterday. They weren't immigrants says I. He was having none of it.

Robsweezie · 04-08-2015 09:06AM

gonna use it even more now to spite people

Buona Fortuna · 04-08-2015 09:09AM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I agree that migrant works here. I corrected a guy who said there were 1-2M Irish immigrants to Britain in the 30 years after the famine on Twitter yesterday. They weren't immigrants says I. He was having none of it.

They were immigrants to Britain.

They were emigrants from Ireland.

We have a language, we should stick to it.

donegaLroad · 04-08-2015 09:29AM

Cameron referred to them as 'a swarm'

not yet · 04-08-2015 09:37AM

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

They were immigrants to Britain.

They were emigrants from Ireland.

We have a language, we should stick to it.

Urine and cornflakes comes to mind..

Eugene Norman · 04-08-2015 09:39AM

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

They were immigrants to Britain.

They were emigrants from Ireland.

We have a language, we should stick to it.

They were internal British migrants and citizens. We have a language and we should stick to it.

That said I am open to correction on this, however not from someone who doesn't understand the political realities of the 19th C. Clearly nobody would talk about immigrants from Cornwall to London in the 19th C UK. Nor talk about immigrants from Bavaria to Prussia today (although that would have been accurate in the early 19th C). The question is did Ireland entirely disappear as a legal entity with the Act of Union. I'd say it did and the Irish were British citizens moving around the UK but legal minds would know more.

The Corinthian · 04-08-2015 09:40AM

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

They were immigrants to Britain.

They were emigrants from Ireland.

We have a language, we should stick to it.

As a result of the second act of Union, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England were a single nation.

By that logic, if you are going to argue that they were immigrants to Great Britain or England, then you would have to apply the same term to Scots or Welsh moving to England, or vice versa.

Or the Cornish moving to Essex would also be immigrants.

Or a Culchie moving to Dublin would also be an immigrant.

Actually, it makes more sense now.

not yet · 04-08-2015 09:42AM

donegaLroad wrote: »

Cameron referred to them as 'a swarm'

I'd love to See Maggie's protégé Locked in a room with some of this ''swarm''

Buona Fortuna · 04-08-2015 09:46AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

As a result of the second act of Union, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England were a single nation.

By that logic, if you are going to argue that they were immigrants to Great Britain or England, then you would have to apply the same term to Scots or Welch moving to England, or vice versa.

Or the Cornish moving to Essex would also be immigrants.

Or a Culchie moving to Dublin would also be an immigrant.

Actually, it makes more sense now.

I think if Essex or Dublin local authorities were discussing the matter, I'm sure they would legitimately use the term.

Clearly they're all far too busy to have their views informed by Boards

looksee · 04-08-2015 09:48AM

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

They were immigrants to Britain.

They were emigrants from Ireland.

We have a language, we should stick to it.

Ah no, you have it wrong. Humpty Dumpty rules. (Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll). Words mean what the individual wants them to mean.

This can be also decided by majority vote on the internet. If quite and quiet mean the same thing, then it is so. Language has to be allowed (or aloud) to evolve (revolve makes a certain amount of sense there too (to, two, etc)).

Eugene Norman · 04-08-2015 09:49AM

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

I think if Essex or Dublin local authorities were discussing the matter, I'm sure they would legitimately use the term.

Clearly they're all far too busy to have their views informed by Boards

Nobody uses immigration for citizens moving within a country. no citizen moving within a country has to register with immigration offices. So it's just you.

Eugene Norman · 04-08-2015 09:52AM

looksee wrote: »

Ah no, you have it wrong. Humpty Dumpty rules. (Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll). Words mean what the individual wants them to mean.

This can be also decided by majority vote on the internet. If quite and quiet mean the same thing, then it is so. Language has to be allowed (or aloud) to evolve (revolve makes a certain amount of sense there too (to, two, etc)).

Apparantly an immigrant and somebody moving within a country can also be decided by the Internet as being the same.

Buona Fortuna · 04-08-2015 09:56AM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Nobody uses immigration for citizens moving within a country. no citizen moving within a country has to register with immigration offices. So it's just you.

You've checked with both councils?

Nobody has mentioned having to register, with anything - I don't think we're allowed to just make stuff up.

So someone moved over here from Poland, is he an emigrant from Poland, an immigrant here? Whether or not he rehisters at a mythical bureau?

The Corinthian · 04-08-2015 10:24AM

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

I think if Essex or Dublin local authorities were discussing the matter, I'm sure they would legitimately use the term.

As tempting it might be to label them immigrants it would also be ridiculous.

One could argue that an immigrant is, by dictionary definition, "a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence" and as the United Kingdom was technically a union of different countries, then arguably - and pedantically, a Scot or Irishman moving to England or vice versa would be an immigrant.

It would also be a completely anally retentive exercise in grammar.

And seeing how we're being grammar Nazis here, then the migrants at Calais are still only migrants, as they've not yet reached their final destination. They're not immigrating to France, after all.

Checkmate.

seenitall · 04-08-2015 10:39AM

What's wrong with "aliens"? If it was good enough for me, it's good enough for them! :P

When I first came to Ireland, I was issued a little green booklet for identification purposes, it was called Alien ID or something to that effect. I just remember I kept having visions of the monster breaking out of John Hurt's belly, and feeling very sorry for myself!

The Corinthian · 04-08-2015 10:54AM

seenitall wrote: »

What's wrong with "aliens"? If it was good enough for me, it's good enough for them! :P

Here I'm designated an Ausländer. The Germans I think use the slightly more politically correct term Gastarbeiter (or not, as it does imply you're just temporary labour).

Of course, I've been told that I'm "ein gut Ausländer", presumably because I'm educated, white and (non-Orthodox) Christian.

Wacker The Attacker · 04-08-2015 11:30AM

You should hear what I call them

beans · 04-08-2015 11:33AM

Wouldn't a good term be "aspirant emigrants"?

Calais 'migrants' - stop using that word

Comments