The inadequacy of the English language

Of all the thousands of languages, English is considered to have the richest vocabulary – and yet, it’s inadequate when it comes to accurately describing current events.

Consider the “Migrant Crisis” for example, or the ongoing immigration policies of Western countries. Here’s a situation where official governments allow (or even invite) vast numbers of foreigners into their respective countries, with the intention of reducing the native population to minority status.

Let’s examine some of the words used to describe the “migrants” to Europe:

Migrant. Merriam-Webster defines it as “a person who moves regularly in order to find work especially in harvesting crops.” The implication is that said migrant will return home after the work is done; his arrival, and departure, is seasonal.

We all know that most of the “migrants” to Europe have no intention of ever returning home. Furthermore, the term “migrant” implies that it’s a harmless phenomenon; it does not imply any sort of demographic threat.

Refugee. M.W. defines it as “a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution.” Again, the implication is that the refugee will return home after the danger has passed.

We all know that most of the “refugees” have no intention of ever returning home. Furthermore, the term “refugee” implies that said person is a harmless victim, whose fate is at the mercy of the host country, whose population suffers little, or no, harm from his presence.

We have witnessed, over and over again, that the presence of these “refugees” is indeed harmful to native populations. This has given rise to the term:

Rapefugee. Oddly enough, Merriam-Webster does not recognize this word. Recognized or not, this term is useful for describing the criminal element that accompanies such groups of people. Unfortunately, it’s not good enough for us; even if every single one of the “refugees” was law-abiding and respectful, they still pose a demographic threat, and they have no right to be in Europe. The use of this term carries with it an implication that, if only they were peaceful, we would be okay with it. This is not the message we should be sending.

Economic-Refugee. M.W. does not recognize this term, but Wikipedia has this to say about it:  “Although the term economic migrant is often confused with the term refugee, economic migrants leave their regions primarily due to harsh economic conditions, not fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group.”

Will they go home once things have improved? Unlikely, unless conditions in their home countries become equal, or better, than in their host country. Additionally, this term doesn’t take into account the fact that the ruling class of the host country is using them as a demographic/political tool. It implies that such a migration is simply “something that naturally happens” – and it DOES naturally happen. But, in our case, the migrants are encouraged to come, so that they can serve other, nefarious, purposes. When borders are ignored, NGOs provide ships, and Mediagov covers up their crimes, then the term “economic-refugee” is inadequate to describe such players.

Economic-Migrant. Again, M.W. does not recognize this term, but Wikipedia has this to say about it: “An economic migrant is someone who emigrates from one region to another, including crossing international borders, seeking an improved standard of living, because the conditions or job opportunities in the migrant’s own region are insufficient. The United Nations uses the term migrant worker.”

In other words, the situation in the home country is not as dire as in the case of an economic refugee. There are simply not enough jobs.

It’s a well-known fact that most of the “migrants” in Europe don’t have jobs, and many are not even interested in jobs. They live comfortably enough from taxpayer-funded welfare programs. As such, most of them are parasites.

But even if all of these “migrants” were willing to make an honest living, they must still be sent home; they’re still tools of a hostile elite. Their presence still poses a demographic threat.

Invader. M.W. defines it as a person who “enters for conquest or plunder.”

This term is popular on the political right. Unfortunately, it carries a lot of historical baggage, and implies a military invasion specifically. Historically, the term has not been used to describe masses of unarmed people waltzing over borders.

Another problem with this term is that it implies that the invaders arrive to overthrow an existing government, and to install their own. In our case, the existing government ENCOURAGE their arrival. If we view the native population as a political entity in its own right, then it would be accurate to describe this influx as an invasion – since it’s certainly a violation of the autonomy of the native peoples.

If we’re speaking of the Islamic aspect of this influx, then it would certainly fit the definition of “invasion,” since many Muslims have explicitly stated that their move to Europe is to conquer it. Also, the leaching of government funds can be considered “plunder.” Taxpayers didn’t willingly give up their hard-earned Euros in order to support invaders… on second thought, some of them probably did.

What about non-Muslim “migrants?” They come for easy benefits, for jobs, for white women or for more freedom. But they still have no right to be there. They still pose a demographic threat. Whether they’re technically “invaders” or not, their presence, in large numbers, spells doom for Europe. If allowed to remain, Native Europeans will become extinct.

Immigrant. M.W. defines it as “a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence.”

As stated, most of these “migrants” do intend to “take up permanent residence.” But this term makes no distinction between a small, assimilable, group of people and an enormous influx of unassimilable people who will eventually overwhelm the native population.

Additionally, the term “immigrant” assigns all of the volition to the “immigrant.” It completely ignores the other side of the equation: The hostile elites of the host country, who believe they’ll benefit from such an influx. They play an active role in this, and the term we use should reflect this.

Asylum seeker. M.W. does not recognize this term, but the BBC, in a 1995 article about this very same topic, says it… “refers to someone who has applied for refugee status and is waiting to hear the result of their claim.

Again, this term assigns all volition to the “asylum seeker,” and none to the hostile elites of the host country. It also fails to take the demographic threat into consideration.

Undocumented migrant. This term, suggested by the above BBC article, is too sanitary; we can lump it in with “undocumented immigrant” as part of the Left’s useless euphemisms.

People have been moving around since before we were even human, and much of that movement has been involuntary.

The Assyrians pioneered the tactic of forced resettlement toward various ends. From Ha’aretz:

During the mid-eight century B.C.E., the Assyrians under the leadership of Tiglath-Pileser III grew in all directions. Order was maintained in the realm by means of a program of mass deportation and transplantation of conquered peoples.

More recently, Stalin imposed forcefully deported many peoples in the Soviet Union. If not for the fall of the Soviet Union, Estonians and Latvians would might have become minorities in their own lands. From Wikipedia:

Immediately after the war, a major influx from other USSR republics primarily of ethnic Russians took place in the Baltic states as part of a de facto process of Russification…

In Latvia and Estonia, less was done to slow down Russian immigration. By the 1980s Russians made up about third of the population in Estonia, while in Latvia, ethnic Latvians made up only about half of the population. In contrast, in 1989 only 9.4% of Lithuania’s population were Russians.

To the best of my knowledge, however, never before in human history has a representative government intentionally reduced its own native population to minority status.

Now that this is happening, throughout the West, it’s no wonder that we don’t have a word to describe the people whose importation brings this about.

I do have one suggestion, and please feel free to submit your own in comments:

Pawnigrant. This refers somebody who willingly migrated to a foreign country, with no intention of returning to his homeland, who is one of a multitude, and whose arrival is supported by a local hostile elite toward a large-scale economic, political, or demographic, goal.