The misuse and misinterpretation of terms allow governments to downplay their obligations by shaping how we perceive and categorize certain groups or issues through manipulative and misleading rhetorics. A clear example of this is the misinterpretation of the terms “asylum seekers,” “refugees” and “migrants,” which allows governments to downplay human rights obligations and silence vulnerable groups. By accurately defining labels, we can foster greater accountability to frameworks such as international human rights laws and treaties, and prevent generalizations that overlook, or even contribute to, abuse.
Asylum seekers, refugees and migrants are three terms that we often use when referring to an individual who has left their country and crossed borders. Asylum seekers and refugees are frequently designated as groups of individuals who have fled their country due to life-threatening circumstances. Migrants are often seen as a big group of foreign people who do not possess a nationality from the country to which they have moved, making refugees, asylum seekers and people who migrated for non-life-threatening circumstances part of this big group. Though this understanding is not entirely wrong, there are two main issues with it:
1. Refugees are not the same as asylum seekers.
2. Refugees are not migrants.
Both asylum seekers and refugees are people who have fled their own countries because of a risk of severe human rights violations and persecution to which their government isn’t able to provide any protection. They have no choice but to seek safety outside their country. Now, if they are supposed to be the same group of people, what makes these two terms different? The answer is a legal distinction.
Refugees are groups of people who have been given the refugee distinction in the country in which they sought asylum. This means that they have demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, and are unable or unwilling to return to their home country. The government or an immigration authority of the host country reviews the claim and decides whether the person qualifies for refugee status (if they have proven they are fleeing the situations mentioned above). Once granted refugee status, they are legally protected from being forcibly returned to their home country and are granted the right to live and often work in the host country. They also gain access to essential services such as healthcare, education and social support. In some cases, refugees may also be eligible to pursue permanent residency or citizenship. Refugees have the right to international protection of signatory countries of the 1951 Refugee Convention (UNHCR, n.d).
Asylum seekers are people who have not yet been legally recognized as refugees but have claimed asylum. They are “pending,” waiting to receive a decision from the country in which they are seeking asylum. Unlike refugees, the international community is not obliged to receive or protect them in their countries, due to their “state”.
Now, what is a migrant? First, it is important to mention that there is no accepted legal definition of a migrant. Nevertheless, Amnesty International understands the term as “people staying outside their country of origin, who are not asylum seekers or refugees.” Migrants, unlike refugees, are not fleeing persecution in their countries but are leaving them in search of a better life. It can help to think of refugees and asylum seekers as people who would face almost certain death if sent back to their countries, people who lack the protection of their government back home.
It is vital to understand the difference between these three terms, especially when trying to understand why people cross borders. Immigration was a major issue in the 2024 presidential election, with both candidates presenting contrasting approaches. President-elect Donald Trump has proposed measures like mass deportations, ending birthright citizenship and expanding the border wall, aiming to carry out “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” On the other hand, current Vice President Kamala Harris focused on creating a pathway to citizenship, addressing the root causes of migration from Central America and supporting a bipartisan border bill to strengthen both restrictions and legal immigration pathways.
Asylum seekers are often “unintentionally” left out of discussions due to the dangerous generalizations we tend to make as a result of the knowledge we lack regarding their distinctions. Consequently, many cases where the government has perpetrated several violations of the rights of asylum seekers due to their “pending” migration status — such as holding them at detention facilities in hostile places such as the Guantánamo Bay military base in Cuba — have been overlooked by the people and not even discussed by our political leaders as the alarming and important issue it is.
More broadly, complex and confusing legal terminology like the distinctions between refugees, asylum seekers and migrants takes our attention away from really important issues that aren’t convenient for governments to discuss. For example, Trump frequently used terms such as “illegal aliens” during his campaign, as well as exaggerating numbers to misrepresent immigrant populations. In fact, in Springfield, Ohio, he claimed that 30,000 “illegal aliens” were “dropped” into the community, creating an impression of lawlessness and overwhelming numbers. In reality, most immigrants there are legally present under the Immigration Parole Program, (immigration process that allows certain foreigners to enter the United States temporarily, even if they do not meet all the requirements to obtain a visa) and they chose to move there for economic opportunities, not because of government resettlement. This misleading language paints a distorted picture of immigration that causes fear and hostility. Another example of this could be the UK’s “Illegal Migration Act”, which limits asylum claims for people arriving via so-called “irregular routes,” despite the lack of safe and legal pathways. By framing these asylum seekers as “illegal” solely based on how they arrived, the government dehumanizes vulnerable individuals fleeing persecution. This rhetoric discourages empathy and undermines their right to seek safety while portraying them more as a “bunch” of people who want to enter the country one way or another, rather than a group of people who are fleeing persecution and their lives being at risk.
When we make generalizations, we reinforce misinformation and contribute to further silencing the voices of millions of people who are not usually listened to. These examples show how governments use terminology to manipulate public opinion on immigration, deflecting attention from systemic issues and making it harder for asylum seekers and immigrants to receive fair treatment. By choosing our words carefully and questioning the narratives handed to us, we can help shine a light on truth, compassion and justice—ensuring that those seeking safety and dignity, who unfortunately don’t have a voice to express their point of view, are met not with barriers, but with understanding, hope and empowerment.
