Why labels matter when talking about migration

An old word has suddenly become controversial. For over two hundred years, US laws used “alien” to describe people who are not citizens. That term appeared long before the country’s independence, in a law from 1790, and stayed in official use since 1798. The word simply filled a gap—there was no better label at the time. Yet during a recent talk in Berlin, an American actor drew loud applause by calling the same word insulting. He claimed it was a new low in political language, ignoring years of legal history. By comparing today’s political tone to past extremes, the speech suggested danger lies in words, not in actions or policies.The actor also shared his own family’s move from England on a ship called the Mayflower in the 1600s. He said his ancestors traveled in search of safety and opportunity, just like migrants today. The comparison is interesting but shaky—those travelers arrived as settlers, not people seeking refuge from conflict or poverty. Still, the story made the audience nod in agreement. In the same week, at a human rights event in Norway, the same speaker warned about the rise of dictatorship “monsters, ” using a recent visit to a Nazi camp as proof. The jump from a current political debate to 1930s Germany feels sharp. It asks listeners to trust that language alone predicts doom, without deeper evidence. Meanwhile, headlines call the president reckless, labeling him a “maniac. ” Labels stick, but they rarely explain. When words change meaning overnight, it’s worth asking whether the real issue is vocabulary—or the policies behind it.