The short-hand term, “anti-immigrant,” has been used a great deal by journalists these days to describe political parties or people who question or criticize their country’s standing immigration policies.
But we’re starting to see some journalists, especially in Europe, use alternative terms, because they fear “anti-immigrant” is too simplistic.
These journalists and academics worry that “anti-immigrant” doesn’t capture the complexities of the many debates over immigration.
And they’re concerned the term falsely suggests that certain people are against immigrants themselves, rather than opposing certain immigration policies.
Political scientist Prof. Eric Kaufmann says some journalists are now using the terms: “Immigration skeptic” and “Immigration reformer.”
Vancouver-raised political scientist Prof. Eric Kaufmann, of Birkbeck, University of London, says some journalists in Britain (home of the Brexit debate) and elsewhere are now using two alternative short-hand terms:
“Immigration skeptic” and “Immigration reformer.”
What do readers think? Could these be more nuanced, accurate terms?
{The issue reminds me of the ongoing discussion among journalists and others over whether to use terms such as “conservative” or “liberal,” or even “right-wing” and “left-wing. Although the short-hand terms can be crudely helpful, they can also be misleading.}
RELATED: Immigration, refugees and the poor: Rethinking compassion
Ten things most Canadians don’t know about migration
A short history of racism in B.C. – and globally
dtodd@postmedia.com
