The term "migrant" is used here and there, wildly, depending on the paths or news, nations or States... Who can tell us really what this is all about? What is the clear and right definition of this "term"?
In fact, it is often not the term "migrant" which is problematic, but its use at all costs and by extension and "its users" who, very often, cause us to limit this term to some people only, qualified from then on as "migrants". What is implied is that some people would be called "migrants", as opposed to others who are not, and who would then be what? Home-bodies?
A strange and paradoxical situation. Two groups appear, one being arbitrarily defined by the other. And I, in this peculiar game, where am I? Do I accept this rule?
It is a challenge, or even a danger. A radical dialectic appears, which seems to lead to a choice that is just as radical: am I a migrant or am I not?
In fact, for Josefa, we do not have to choose, because, by nature, we are migrants and not "non-migrants".
So, our humanity answers for us if we agree to get out of (or not to go in) a very base narrative which divides and cuts our world in two: "residents" and "migrants", the ones and the others, "migrants" and "non-migrants".
There is only one sustainable voice: all of us, migrants, without compromising the uniqueness of each person, of every migration. This recognition is the only way to Peace.
Gilbert
