Language frames the way that we think about issues. The language that we, lawmakers, journalists and pundits, and citizens, use ipso facto defines the way we relate to an issue.
Take the multi-headed issue that Drumph has created; even well-meaning people fall into the trap of calling undocumented people “illegals”. But the linguistic framing goes deeper. The word “migrants” implies a choice. Yes, many of those crossing the U.S.’s southern border are migrants, pulled by the hope of better lives, better educations and environments for their children.
But so many more are really refugees, fleeing murderous gang wars, violent crime, and yes, such harsh economic environments that they create untenable living conditions.
After WWII, when the full horrors of what the Nazis had done in Europe became widely known, the U.S. finally let in some Holocaust survivors. They were called “refugees”, (the word Holocaust hadn’t yet been adopted) and the general public looked more kindly on them, tried to help them, and made allowances for sometimes apparently strange behavior. For the most part, they were hard-working, contributed to the country, and one or two generations later, their educated children are professionals or business people, further contributing to the country.
I suggest that we start calling the new wave of people coming to our country refugees, rather than migrants, undocumented immigrants, or any variation thereof. People escaping from the violence of gang and drug wars are as much refugees as are those escaping from civil wars in Africa and going to Europe — and they, too, should be called refugees. As has been the case with previous refugees, and the Dreamers today, they are hardworking, striving for educations and better lives, and will contribute to the economy and well-being of the U.S.
Let’s start the ball rolling.