Update: And likewise to WaPo, persons born in Assam can’t be “immigrants,” unless you mean in the poetic way of “we are all immigrants”.
I was born in the United States, but my dad was born abroad, as was my older sister. I’ve never thought of myself as a “migrant,” but then, you learn something new every day.
Today, the word migrant can mean just about anything a government wants it to. Any person, no matter where they were born, no matter how often, if ever, they have traveled, can be a “migrant.” Did your ancient ancestors once cross a land bridge between two continents? Congratulations! You might be a migrant, too!
According to the Indian government, people who are descended from migrants to what is now Assam, India have inherited their migrant status from their parents and grandparents. Never mind that they may have never stepped foot abroad in their lives; the term “migrant” is so flexible that today, it can be applied to just about anyone a government doesn’t like.
Governments all over the world like the Dominican Republic, Kuwait and Myanmar are busy labeling people born in their countries as “illegal migrants,” often denying them citizenship or stripping citizenship from them. Almost always, the people being stripped of their citizenship or denied citizenship are ethnic or religious minorities, which is the real reason they are seen as “the other.” Since labeling someone as “other” carries no official, legal weight, instead, governments are turning to the term “migrant” to justify de-nationalization and worse.
People with citizenship can never be migrants. It’s a contradiction in terms.
I’ve written before that the term “migrant” has become so pejorative and so slippery, it should no longer be used. But the issue of de-nationalization raises particular concerns about the widespread use of the term “migrant” for citizens by not just governments, but also the media.
Recently, the NY Times published an article on the proposed de-naturalization of millions of people in Assam, India. The headlineof the article?
“India Plans Big Detention Camps for Migrants. Muslims Are Afraid.”
If you just read the headline, you might be forgiven for thinking that this article is about detention camps for recent migrants, which, it should be noted, is also terrible. But actually, this NY Times article is about something even more sinister. These peoples’ ancestors came from what is now Bangladesh, so in what is becoming a typical pattern for countries around the world, the government of India is retro-actively labeling them “migrants.” But if millions of people born in Assam are “migrants” in India, what does that make me, or millions of other Americans? Are we “migrants,” too? When does a simple word become a weapon of violence and dehumanization? And what responsibility does a newspaper have to stop using it?
The media doesn’t have to use the term migrant. There are other words. I suggest a dictionary might be in order.
