Words are powerful. Words can heal, hurt, hinder, humiliate and humble. We take language very seriously at City of Sanctuary UK and acknowledge that language evolves and our understanding of certain words change over time.
City of Sanctuary Ambassadors and the Experts by Experience Advisory group have collated a guide which outlines our preferred terms which we use and encourage City of Sanctuary networks and partners to consider. This guide can be used by anyone supporting our vision of welcome and sanctuary for all, and we encourage the networks of groups and sanctuary awarded organisations to see this as an opportunity to reflect on their use of language in the spirit of openness and our intention to include people seeking sanctuary in all our activities including decision making.
We expect this guide to change over time and we are open to finding better words which reflect our sensitivity and humanity and improve our overall communication. Please feel free to adopt this guide as policy and to share widely.
Language guide
People seeking sanctuary…
People seeking sanctuary is our preferred term in most contexts as this focusses on people first as opposed to their immigration status. It emphasises that people are seeking sanctuary (safety and protection), not specifically asylum and so has a broader application. We avoid using ‘sanctuary seekers’, as like ‘refugee’ or ‘asylum seeker’ it makes no acknowledgment of the person’s humanity.
Move away from simplistic labels to a depiction of people with agency, so the use of any of the following or similar is encouraged: families who are seeking sanctuary, students with a sanctuary seeking background, who have sought sanctuary, women who are stuck in the asylum process or simply people, women, students…
People seeking sanctuary are migrants…
People move, they always have done, and they always will. At City of Sanctuary UK we see people seeking sanctuary as part of wider communities of people who cross borders to live. Whilst they may have specific urgent reasons to do so, anti-refugee and asylum-seeker rhetoric fits within wider anti-migrant discourse and separating people seeking sanctuary from these wider discussions of migration can reinforce false and harmful binaries of those ‘deserving’ empathy and understanding and those that don’t. People move, they always have done, and they always will. Everyone should be treated – and spoken about – with humanity, dignity and respect.
We work with…
We talk about working ‘with’ as opposed to ‘for’ or on behalf of people seeking sanctuary. Working ‘for’ can be experienced as patronising and disempowering. It undermines the engagement of people seeking sanctuary in leadership positions within the network, which is one of our core principles.
Separated children and young people seeking sanctuary…
These are preferable to the use of the acronym/abbreviation UASCs (Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children) or UAM (Unaccompanied Minors). It can be dehumanising to be referred to as an acronym. Unaccompanied can imply a deliberate decision to send lone children into danger and does not reflect the fact that many lose their families in the chaos of fleeing war and other dangers.
Experts by experience…
This term refers to people providing testimony, leaders or advocates (this is preferred and more empowering than saying asylum seekers or refugees). Alternatively we use the term people with lived experience of seeking sanctuary thereby deferring to those whose lived experience is the story. The best persons to tell the story, to consult for advisory support or to lead are the experts due to their lived experience.
Framing principles
- Build your message around morality, not affordability.
Make a moral argument rather than getting bogged down in a debate about pragmatics or a cost-benefit analysis. Our audience wants to think of themselves as good people who believe the right thing. Mixed messages (that appeal to cost as well as values) will shift the conversation away from the more compelling argument about right and wrong. If this policy were the cheap option, it would be no less abhorrent. That doesn’t mean never mentioning cost, clearly it provides additional evidence this is a bad policy. Do not lead with affordability arguments or let them eclipse the moral foundation of your message. - Start with values like family, care, compassion and treating other people how we would want to be treated.
Messages that start by appealing to shared values, rather than the problem, have been shown time and time again to be more effective at shifting public opinion. They invite the audience to reflect on their deeply held principles and connect emotionally to the story. Use this to humanise the people who will be impacted by this policy – reminding the audience of our shared humanity and experience. Do not talk about people as one-dimensional victims or reduce them to their status – instead, remind your audience they are people with families, aspirations, hopes and fears. - Point the finger of blame and name the motivation that underpins this policy.
By attributing blame clearly we expose who is responsible and that things could be different. This policy is the result of political choices made by people – different, and better, choices could be made instead. Go further, by calling out the motivation of the government. Are they intentionally stirring up hatred and division, scapegoating people seeking asylum to both push through hardline policies and distract attention from their failures elsewhere? - Provide aspirational calls to provide something good.
Offer clear solutions and alternatives. Rather than focusing on fixing a broken system, assert better alternatives and solutions. Paint a picture of what will or could happen when we win and the government loses. Messages that provide a vision of how things could be (like people being able to reunite with their loved ones and rebuild their lives) cut through. It shows our audience that things can be different and gives them something to believe in. Offer a solution for today and a solution in the long term. That means detailing a concrete, clear step this government could take right away (e.g. creating safe routes to stop people risking their lives in the channel) as well as offering a longer term systemic solution.
Words and terminology to avoid
Talking about ‘our’ people seeking sanctuary may be experienced as patronising and potentially dehumanising as it suggests ownership. It does not add to meaning and can usually be dropped without changing the grammar of the sentence. If additional meaning is required then
suggested alternatives include ‘people with whom we are working’ or ‘families we know.’