Who, by some other name, might smell more sweet

August 30th, 2015 by Charles Cameron

[ by Charles Cameron — written while YouStink is, curiously yet coincidentally, the name of protests ongoing in Lebanon ]

.

KUDOS to @malonebarry ! "Why @AJEnglish will not say Mediterranean 'migrants'" #refugeecrisis http://t.co/oNsMrsDG6x pic.twitter.com/6DT714vNfv

— Cas Mudde (@CasMudde) August 22, 2015

Text therefrom:

There is no “migrant” crisis in the Mediterranean. There is a very large number of refugees fleeing unimaginable misery and danger and a smaller number of people trying to escape the sort of poverty that drives some to desperation.

**

Migrant or refugee? There is a difference, with legal implications http://t.co/khTh6FKgzn pic.twitter.com/oXvuOBv9el

— New York Times World (@nytimesworld) August 29, 2015

Text therefrom:

Countries are free to deport migrants who arrive without legal papers, which they cannot do with refugees under the 1951 convention. So it is not surprising that many politicians in Europe prefer to refer to everyone fleeing to the continent as migrants.

Posted in Charles Cameron, Humanitarian, immigration, language, media, refugees, Uncategorized | 7 comments

Previous post:
Next post:

  1. Dave Schuler:

    August 31st, 2015 at 12:48 am

    When they arrive in Italy from Libya they’re refugees and legally entitled to support and protection. When they leave Italy for Germany, they’re economic migrants and aren’t.

  2. Grurray:

    August 31st, 2015 at 3:07 am

    All they will call them will be… “deportees”
    https://youtu.be/PfCKK8xSe7g

  3. Charles Cameron:

    August 31st, 2015 at 3:34 am

    So really, to generalize, Dave — what’s important is where your landfall (or first place of arrival) is?

  4. Dave Schuler:

    August 31st, 2015 at 11:02 am

    Legally, yes.

  5. Dave Schuler:

    August 31st, 2015 at 11:04 am

    On reflection it’s the opposite. What’s important is the country from which you are departing. Unless the claim is that they’re in fear for their lives in Italy.

  6. carl:

    September 3rd, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    Just out of curiosity, if the situation in the middle east is such that there is a flood of people washing into Europe, would the Europeans be justified in intervening militarily in order change the situation so as to stop the flood? I realize that will never happen because this isn’t the 19th century anymore but I am curious what you guys think from both a legal and ‘what we gotta do’ standpoint.

  7. larrydunbar:

    September 5th, 2015 at 2:35 am

    Does anyone dealing with a flood really have time to deal with the problem up-stream?
    Like Katrina, it is not like they didn’t know how weak the levy was, nor what it is going to take in the future to repair that which was holding the water back.
    Right now, war with Russia doesn’t seem to be a reasonable strategy, nor does aligning themselves with one side or another in the Arab civil war, like the Americans have done, seem a viable option.
    No, it is probably best for Europe to keep playing both sides in the Arab civil war, and push against Russia, in the only way they can, with America’s help.
    In the mean time they will just keep throwing sandbags to stem the tide.