Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

underpants

(182,884 posts)
Wed Sep 9, 2015, 08:50 AM Sep 2015

Are the "refugees" now "migrants"?

Listening CBS News on the radio and then a local RW station this morning the word "migrant" is now the agreed upon term to use.

Checking Google news headlines I found the following:
NY Times - "Migrants"
Reuters - "Migration crisis"
Washington Post - "Refugees"
Bloomberg - "Refugees"
BBC News - "Migrant crisis"
The Atlantic - "Migrant crisis"
The Guardian - "Refugee crisis"




4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Are the "refugees" now "migrants"? (Original Post) underpants Sep 2015 OP
migrant is the more general term. not everyone may be a refugee--if they're geek tragedy Sep 2015 #1
Okay underpants Sep 2015 #2
Good topic JustAnotherGen Sep 2015 #3
Some more than likely fit in the category of migrants TexasMommaWithAHat Sep 2015 #4
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
1. migrant is the more general term. not everyone may be a refugee--if they're
Wed Sep 9, 2015, 08:55 AM
Sep 2015

on the move for economic reasons, they're not refugees, for example.

JustAnotherGen

(31,906 posts)
3. Good topic
Wed Sep 9, 2015, 09:03 AM
Sep 2015

The word refugee has certain connotations.

The word migrant does.

Remember after Katrina - the media calling American citizens 'refugees'? So - is it the media just don't know the correct meaning of the word?

TexasMommaWithAHat

(3,212 posts)
4. Some more than likely fit in the category of migrants
Wed Sep 9, 2015, 03:47 PM
Sep 2015

Especially, if they have been in a safe zone like Greece or Turkey for the last couple of years. Now, they are looking for a better life for themselves.

I was listening to BBC radio last night, and heard that the UK is considering only taking refugees from the refugees camps because accepting those who are making the dangerous trip over water is just encouraging more deaths. They'll also have more control over who enters the country.

Right now, approximately 80% of the migrants/refugees who are streaming into Europe are young men of military age. Sure, some have left families behind and intend to bring them over, but it's beginning to dawn on some officials that allowing that many single men in may not bode well for the nation taking them in. A few of them are already creating quite the mayhem.

Taking in families, especially those families with children who should be getting an education makes sense. Surely, they should be the first helped.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Are the "refugees&qu...