Migrants vs. Refugees

Migrants vs. Refugees Migrants vs. Refugees Migrants vs. Refugees By Maeve Maddox A reader wonders about the use of these words in the media: Please explain the difference between migrants and refugees. The news has provided nonstop coverage of migrants flocking to Europe from the Middle East and northern Africa. It seems to me these people should be more accurately described as refugees. Why are they suddenly considered migrants? Applied to human beings, the word migrant has a basic meaning of â€Å"a person who moves temporarily or seasonally from place to place.† The noun is also used attributively, as in â€Å"migrant camps† and â€Å"migrant policies.† In the United States, the most common use of migrant is in the context of agricultural workers: Between one and three million migrant farm workers leave their homes every year to plant, cultivate, harvest, and pack fruits, vegetables and nuts in the U.S.    In Australia, the word migrant is commonly applied to immigrants who have come to make a permanent home in the country: Settlement services are intended to assist new migrants to participate as soon and as fully as possible in Australia s economy and society. A migrant chooses to leave home, but a refugee is forced to seek a place of safety elsewhere, often in a foreign country. People flee their homes for causes that include war, religious persecution, political troubles, and natural disaster. The earliest use of the word refugee in English was in reference to Protestants who fled France in the seventeenth century. In the media, the word migrant is sometimes used alone in reference to the hordes of people presently moving into Europe, but increasingly, the two words are used together: Tens of thousands of  migrants and refugees  have entered Germany in recent weeks after making arduous journeys through multiple countries. All of the people flooding into Europe from Syria and elsewhere are migrants, but not all are refugees according to the international legal definition. As defined by international law, a refugee is a person who has fled a country to escape war or persecution and can prove it. Refugees are entitled to basic protections as defined by a United Nations convention. Verified refugees cannot be sent back to countries where their lives would be in danger.   Migrants, on the other hand, move from one place to another for reasons that may be understandable, but are not sufficient to classify them as refugees. For example, some migrants are fleeing poverty. Others may have been living above poverty in their home countries, but decide to emigrate in search of better economic opportunities. Note: Although people fleeing the devastation of natural disasters are often referred to as refugees, they are not at present included in the international legal definition. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Misused Words category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:30 Religious Terms You Should KnowWhat's a Male Mistress?20 Names of Body Parts and Elements and Their Figurative Meanings

Definition of Wilmot Proviso

Definition of Wilmot Proviso The Wilmot Proviso was a brief amendment to a piece of legislation introduced by an obscure member of Congress that set off a firestorm of controversy over the issue of slavery in the late 1840s. The wording inserted into a finance bill in the House of Representatives would have repercussions that helped bring about the Compromise of 1850, the emergence of the short-lived Free Soil Party, and the eventual founding of the Republican Party. The language in the amendment only amounted to a sentence. Yet it would have had profound implications if approved, as it would have prohibited slavery in territories acquired from Mexico following the Mexican War. The amendment was not successful, as it was never approved by the U.S. Senate. However, the debate over the Wilmot Proviso kept the issue of whether slavery could exist in new territories in front of the public for years. It hardened sectional animosities between North and South, and ultimately helped put the country on the road to the Civil War. Origin of the Wilmot Proviso A clash of army patrols along the border in Texas sparked the Mexican War in the spring of 1846. That summer the U.S. Congress was debating a bill which would provide $30,000 to begin negotiations with Mexico, and an additional $2 million for the president to use at his discretion to try to find a peaceful solution to the crisis. It was assumed President James K. Polk might be able to use the money to avert the war by simply buying land from Mexico. On August 8, 1846, a freshman congressman from Pennsylvania, David Wilmot, after consulting with other northern congressmen, proposed an amendment to the appropriations bill that would ensure slavery could not exist in any territory which might be acquired from Mexico. The text of the Wilmot Proviso was one sentence of less than 75 words: Provided, That as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said Territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall be first duly convicted. The House of Representatives debated the language in the Wilmot Proviso. The amendment passed and was added to the bill. The bill would have gone on to the Senate, but the Senate adjourned before it could be considered. When a new Congress convened, the House again approved the bill. Among those voting for it was Abraham Lincoln, who was serving his one term in Congress. This time Wilmots amendment, added to a spending bill, moved on to the Senate, where a firestorm broke out. Battles Over the Wilmot Proviso Southerners were deeply offended by the House of Representatives adopting the Wilmot Proviso, and newspapers in the South wrote editorials denouncing it. Some state legislatures passed resolutions denouncing it. Southerners considered it an insult to their way of life. It also raised Constitutional questions. Did the federal government possess the power to restrict slavery in new territories? The powerful senator from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun, who had challenged federal power years earlier in the Nullification Crisis, made forceful arguments on behalf of the slave states. Calhoun’s legal reasoning was that slavery was legal under the Constitution, and slaves were property, and the Constitution protected property rights. Therefore settlers from the South, if they moved to the West, should be able to bring their own property, even if the property happened to be slaves. In the North, the Wilmot Proviso became a rallying cry. Newspapers printed editorials praising it, and speeches were given in support of it. Continuing Effects of the Wilmot Proviso The increasingly bitter debate over whether slavery would be allowed to exist in the West continued through the late 1840s. For several years the Wilmot Proviso would be added to bills passed by the House of Representatives, but the Senate always refused to pass any legislation containing the language about slavery. The stubborn revivals of Wilmots amendment served a purpose as it kept the issue of slavery alive in Congress and thus before the American people. The issue of slavery in the territories acquired during the Mexican War was finally addressed early in 1850 in a series of Senate debates, which featured the legendary figures Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and Daniel Webster. A set of new bills, which would become known as the Compromise of 1850, was thought to have provided a solution. The issue, however, did not die completely. One response to the Wilmot Proviso was the concept of â€Å"popular sovereignty,† which was first proposed by a Michigan senator, Lewis Cass, in 1848. The idea that settlers in the state would decide the issue became a constant theme for Senator Stephen Douglas in the 1850s. In the 1848 president the Free Soil party formed, and embraced the Wilmot Proviso. The new party nominated a former president, Martin Van Buren, as its candidate. Van Buren lost the election, but it demonstrated that debates about restricting slavery would not fade away. The language introduced by Wilmot continued to influence anti-slavery sentiment which developed in the 1850s and helped lead to the creation of the Republican Party. And ultimately the debate over slavery could not be solved in the halls of Congress, and was only settled by the Civil War.