Migrant vs. Immigrant: How Two letters Can Change a Society

Editor’s Note: This blog is part of an ongoing series of contributions from participants in The German Marshall Fund’s flagship leadership development program, The Marshall Memorial Fellowship (MMF).

Both the United States and Europe are dealing with a significant influx of peoples from beyond their borders. But there is a subtle difference in how we talk about it. Americans refer to people coming into our country as “immigrants.” Europeans drop the first two letters, saying “migrant.”

I first heard the word “migrant” in Brussels during my Marshall Memorial Fellowship trip to Europe. The word “migrant” connotes a person who moves from place to place, but has yet to reach a final destination. In contrast, an “immigrant” is a person who leaves one place of residence for another with the goal to reside there permanently.

While listening to the speaker address the situation, I kept waiting to hear where these individuals were going and how migrants differed from immigrants. Sadly, the speaker never got there. Fortunately, there was another speaker on the agenda I expected would touch on this topic but that speaker also failed to distinguish the two. In all of the meetings, I never heard European speakers use terms that clearly indicated they embraced these people as their own, or acknowledge their desire to stay. 

I finally raised my hand and asked about the discrepancy. I did not, however, get a satisfying answer. There appeared to be a notion of migrants getting to Europe but not having them stay “in my backyard.” It seemed that that European country X simply wanted to push them to country Y, an impression that seemed consistent across every country we visited. This concerned me.

Is this simply an issue of word choice?  I would like to think so, but I am not that optimistic for these individuals looking to leave a life of poverty, of religious persecution, or violence. 

On the other hand, I hardly believe the United States has immigration “figured out” itself. In fact, just the opposite is true. In the United States, we live in a system where a child in El Salvador must escape a hellish violence that no child should ever have to live through, then walk through El Salvador, cross into Guatemala, make her way through Guatemala, cross into Mexico and make her way through that whole country just to turn herself in at the border.  She will give herself up at the border to seek asylum from her gruesome situation. In turn, the government puts her in an immigration prison. The U.S. government refers to these locations as “detention facilities,” and not prisons.  But if it looks like a prison, is run like a prison, and people are treated as if they are in prison, isn’t it fair to consider this a prison?

Then the U.S. government refuses to provide such individuals legal counsel to represent them in an effort to get them into the asylum process. Earlier this year, The Washington Post reported that Jack H. Weil, a longtime immigration judge, noted, “I’ve taught immigration law literally to 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds,” suggesting the absurdity of enforcing current laws with small children. This was in sworn testimony in a deposition in federal court in Seattle.  Judge Weil’s statement was deposed in a case in which the American Civil Liberties Union and immigrant rights groups were asking the Court to require the government to provide appointed counsel for every indigent child in immigration court proceedings. This is unacceptable. 

Despite the fact that, in my opinion, the United States does not provide sufficient due process to individuals seeking permanent residence, at least the United States recognizes that they are “immigrants,” not “migrants.” We do not take the position that they are simply on their way to another location. 

When Europe generally refers to these individuals as migrants — even if they are provided food, shelter, and clothing — I would argue it perpetuates that perception that they are transitory, on their way to somewhere else. One speaker during our MMF trip stated that if all the “migrants” were allowed in and equally split among the European countries, the numbers would only account for a 1 percent increase in the population. Any country could arguably absorb those numbers, if it is viewed as a practical question of sufficient resources and opportunities. 

People will always flee their place of origin seeking an opportunity to practice their religion without fear, seeking a place without violence based on their skin color, last name, or for other reasons. We must accept that these individuals are looking to make country X their home. We must be willing to add two letters and recognize them immigrants. Until that happens, we cannot have a socially inclusive, accepting, global community. 

Roberto Ramirez, Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Arvada, CO, is a Fall 2016 American Marshall Memorial Fellow.