General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre 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"
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)on the move for economic reasons, they're not refugees, for example.
underpants
(182,884 posts)Thanks
JustAnotherGen
(31,906 posts)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)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.