A few days ago, Al Jazeera adopted a new editorial policy. They argued that the “umbrella term ‘migrant’ is no longer fit for purpose when it comes to describing the horror unfolding in the Mediterranean. It has evolved from its dictionary definitions into a tool that dehumanises and distances, a blunt pejorative”.

The move received wide attention in social media and among news organisations, some of which have responded by adopting this new policy.

The shift towards dropping the term ‘migrant’ and exclusively using the term ‘refugee’ is born out of a sense of hopelessness, horror and growing despair.

It is a political response and it is commendable.

This is not a new debate but rather reflects concerns raised by humanitarian actors and academics in finding meaningful ‘labels’ to capture the realities experienced by ‘forced migrants’ and refugees today in our attempts to provide adequate protection within the complex, dynamic and multifaceted context of contemporary forced migration and mass displacement.

Terms such as ‘irregular migrants’, ‘mixed migration flows’ and the ‘migration-asylum nexus’ demonstrate such efforts.

Semantics matter. Language is never neutral. For better or for worse, the terms we use feed into policy and service-provision responses that have real effects on real peoples’ lives.

The term ‘economic migrant’ is increasingly being used in political discourse throughout the EU to describe those who risk and have lost their lives in the Mediterranean and beyond. The suggestion is that the ‘boat loads’ left of their own volition, hell bent on accessing the ‘riches’ that are seemingly the exclusive right of EU citizens. That’s us.

The term has also been used to justify a policy of containment and the securitisation of the EU’s borders: policies that have contributed to the deaths of thousands and thousands of human beings. Such policies have also resulted in millions of lives lived out in limbo in camps, as some of the poorest countries of the world are forced to carry the responsibility for the world’s displaced.

Reclaiming the term ‘migrant’ may save lives; this is imperative. Restoring our own humanity is imperative

While the richer countries of the world cannot be held wholly responsible for the causes of mass displacement, they must take responsibility for how their containment policies have contributed to this travesty of human rights. No, language is never neutral, nor is it benign.

Over the past few years, debates have revolved around the terms ‘voluntary’ and ‘forced’ migration, the former associated with economic migrants, the latter with political refugees. This dichotomy fails to capture the multiple causes and realities of contemporary forced migration. Individuals, for example, may be forced to flee war, persecution, extreme poverty and famine, violence, land grabs, environmental disasters and so on and then be forced to move again and again, backwards and forwards, crossing international borders. All this, in their endless search for some semblance of security and protection within an ever-decreasing protection space.

In reality, voluntary or forced migration occurs along a continuum involving elements of force and agency. As a consequence, it is increasingly difficult to distinguish distinct causes of forced migration and mass displacement. However, this continuum and complexity is poorly reflected in existing policy and legal frameworks.

Consistently over the past 13 years, the vast majority of people who arrived in Malta have been granted some form of inter­national protection in recognition of the conditions they had to flee from: war. However, a tension exists between the notion of ‘refugee’ as established in the 1951 Geneva Convention and its increasing use by humanitarian actors and, now, by the inter­national and national media.

The 1951 Geneva Convention fails to capture the complexity and multiple causes of contemporary forced migration. As such, it cannot provide protection to the many thousands of ‘migrants’ who fall outside the legal definition. These ‘migrants’ are human beings too and they have rights.

However, their rights are not adequately provided for under the existing legal and normative protection mechanisms. Dropping the term ‘migrant’, while well-intentioned in the effort to humanise and politicise, fails to consider this reality.

If we are to respond to the needs of all those forced to risk their lives in the watery grave of the Mediterranean, then we must be prepared to offer protection. This includes responding to the protection needs of those who fall outside the limited and outdated provisions of the Geneva Convention.

Reclaiming the term ‘migrant’ may save lives; this is imperative. Restoring our own humanity is imperative.

Maria Pisani is a lecturer in youth and community studies.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.