Migrant is too neutral a term

I hear constantly about the plight of men, women, and children fleeing dangerous places only to suffer greatly or die in the process of flight: the news refers to them as "migrants," a very vague and neutral term. In the U.S. they're called "illegal immigrants," a more pejorative and alienating term. Let's call them by more accurate terms: refugees, asylum seekers, humans like you or I.

Can you imagine how bad things would need to be for you to leave your home - most of your belongings behind, your pets, all your friends, your work if you still had any - and risk an incredibly dangerous journey, possibly with small children or elderly parents in tow? There is no effective or streamlined international response to help you and the thousands of others doing the same. You travel hundreds of miles, possibly on foot, to get out of immediate danger. You are now in a liminal place, out of terrible danger but lingering with little or no food and shelter in some in-between zone. So any money you have goes to paying some sketchy guy to transport you to a safer and hopefully more stable and supportive place: he's your only option, and you've already lost so much and seen so much horror and you're desperate. I can't say I wouldn't take the risk if I thought my son might stand a better chance of survival if it worked out.

That above scenario describes in very broad and non-graphic terms the experience of those from Africa, Asia and the Middle East trying to make it to Europe. It also describes the experience of people from Central and South America trying to cross the U.S. border.

Until we stop neutering our labels of others who are suffering - until we stop labeling them at all and seek out their names and stories - we won't do enough to help them.