Every human deserves to live in dignity. The movement and migrations of people are a natural part of our shared history. Immigration is a hotly contested topic where we often see the words “immigrant” and “refugee” misused for various political reasons. The framing of the whole conversation is meant to be divisive and void of compassion. This leaves us focused on symptoms instead of root causes. By examining the terms we can get beyond the divisive rhetoric and find some common ground for policy reform.
Defining Terms
A Refugee is someone who has been forced to flee their country due to war, persecution, or natural disaster. An Immigrant is someone who chooses to move to another country, usually for economic opportunities, education, or family reunification. However the choice to immigrate can be due to geopolitical forces, trade deals, or indirectly due to foreign political meddling. So when we take a deeper look many immigrants could very-well be considered refugees.
For example: Mexican immigrants in the US jumped from 2.6 million (2% of US workforce) in 1990 to 4.9% (4% of US workforce) in the decade after The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)¹. Though NAFTA did create jobs in some sectors many Mexican Farmers faced economic hardship and migrated north. Many other US interventions in Latin America have led to a flood of migrants heading north. You can learn more in this article.
Whether they should be called immigrants or refugees depends on who is using the term and what their political agenda is. Obviously supporters of NAFTA or US interventions in Latin America would prefer to call these people immigrants. That sounds much better than calling them economic or geopolitical refugees. The interchangeability of these terms is often used to avoid or to affix blame. This trend has intensified and along with it so has the weaponization of language around the topic.
Migrant Crisis or Policy-Driven Crisis?
The issue isn’t limited to the US Southern Border. The EU’s migrant crisis is due in large part to NATO and US bombing campaigns in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Language is weaponized to deflect from the criticisms of these disastrous military interventions and failed neoliberal economic policies. There has been a concerted effort to label popular movements like BREXIT as “far-right”, “nationalist”, and “racist”.
This rhetoric increases polarization and social division but it does very little to address the root causes of these issues. This is by design. The political establishment will do everything they can to avoid addressing how their policies have contributed to the crisis. Let’s take a deeper look.
Bombing Campaigns Create Refugees
NATO was meant to be a defensive alliance during the Cold War. After the Soviet Union collapsed billionaire hedge-fund manager, George Soros had a new vision for NATO. He proposed using NATO as an offensive force to create a “New World Order”. Simultaneously Neocons in the US salivated with imperialist ambitions as the military industrial complex dreamed of post cold-war riches. Thus began a multi-decade catastrophe of color revolutions, coups, invasions, economic warfare, and bombing campaigns.
Below is a list of NATO and US bombing campaigns in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa since then:
- Yugoslavia (1999) — Kosovo War
- Afghanistan (2001–2021) — War on Terror sent millions of Afghans to Europe, Iran, and Pakistan. Germany became one of the largest recipients of Afghan refugees.
- Iraq (2003–2011)
- Libya (2011) — Libya became a major transit hub for refugees from Africa to Europe as many fled to Italy, France, and Spain via the Mediterranean.
- Syria (Ongoing since 2011) — One of the largest refugee crises in modern history. Turkey, Germany, Sweden, and Greece received a majority of the refugees.
- Mali (2013–Present)
- Somalia (2009–Present)
NATO and the US have armed various factions in Sudan and helped destabilize this region without actual bombing campaigns. NATO and US involvement is one of the contributing causes of the Ukraine War which has sent about 7 million refugees into the EU. Asylum seekers, immigrants, and refugees combined (labeled non-EU Citizens) is listed at 23.8 million according to the EU Commission. The war profiteers made hundreds of billions while citizens at home and abroad paid a heavy price.
Cultural Integration in Theory and in Practice
The ideal is that we are one big human family regardless of our skin color and cultural background. The reality is that a massive influx of foreigners can put a strain on the local job market, social services, and community relations.
For example: As a resident in a small Arizona mountain town I often hear people complain about gentrification and newbies from California. Californians usually out-compete locals in the housing market. Plus they drive like they are on the LA freeway in our quaint little town. Integration even across state-lines in your own country can be difficult in practice. Eventually we all learn to live together but it takes time.
In Europe different countries and regions are feeling the influx of people disproportionately. Many of the refugees were forced to leave the land and culture of their ancestors. Then they fled to the very countries who assisted in bombing/destroying their homeland. Some carry the trauma of war, many arrive as second-class citizens in a foreign place needing social or medical assistance. They are forced to compete in the housing and job market with local citizens. This can create resentment on all sides.
Divisive and Weaponized Rhetoric
Politicians, refusing to claim any accountability for the crisis, conveniently divide citizens into binaries and stoke the flames of resentment on each side. If you are a middle-class local citizen feeling squeezed by the influx of foreigners you are called a “racist” or “far-right nationalist”. If you are an angry, traumatized refugee feeling displaced you are called an “ungrateful freeloader” or worse.
When people can’t quite articulate the political and social forces making them feel oppressed they look for someone to blame. Pitting the working class against each other is a common tactic of politicians and the media. The victims of political negligence and corruption are left to fight among themselves while the ruling parties plot future wars.
Here’s Why it Matters
If migrants were forced to flee due to war, economic hardship (often created by sanctions and foreign intervention), neoliberal trade deals, and imperialism then they are victims of the political class and corporate interests. Calling them immigrants makes it appear as if they wanted to leave their home country. Whereas calling them refugees implies that they were forced to leave which begs the question, “why?”
When we start asking, “why do we have this crisis?” we shift away from fighting over the symptoms and begin looking at the cause. This is the only way to have a coherent discussion about solutions. In the meantime we will all benefit from having a little more compassion, better listening skills, and learning policy history.
It is too common for people to be oblivious of their country’s foreign policy. Whatever our country does outside our borders will always eventually come back home. Without resolving our social polarization and making some clear political reforms we may all become refugees before too long.
