Understanding Migrants: Definition and Context in Migration Studies

Migration is one of the oldest and most defining features of human civilization. Yet, when we ask a seemingly simple question – “Who is a migrant?” – the answer turns out to be far more layered than most people expect. The term carries legal weight, political implications, and deeply personal meaning. How we define a migrant shapes everything from government policy and humanitarian aid to public perception and individual rights. Let’s break down what the term actually means, how it differs from related labels, and why the distinction between voluntary and forced migration matters so much.

What does “migrant” actually mean? 🔗

At its most basic level, a migrant is anyone who moves away from their usual place of residence. This movement can be temporary or permanent, internal (within a country) or international (across borders), and driven by any number of reasons. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) describes migration as the movement of people away from their usual residence to a new one, either across an international border or within a state. The IOM also acknowledges that there is no universally agreed-upon definition of “migrant.”

This broad, umbrella-like quality of the term is deliberate. The IOM uses “migrant” to cover a vast range of people moving away from their homes – regardless of legal status, whether the movement is voluntary or involuntary, what the causes are, or how long the person stays. This inclusive approach is meant to capture the full complexity of human movement, rather than reducing people to narrow legal categories.

The United Nations, for statistical purposes, defines an international migrant as any person who has changed their country of residence, regardless of legal status, the nature of their movement, or their motive. The UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs further specifies that a long-term migrant is someone who lives outside their country of origin for at least 12 months. By 2024, the global number of international migrants had reached approximately 304 million – nearly double the 154 million recorded in 1990.

The socio-political context behind the definition 🔗

Definitions don’t exist in a vacuum. The way societies, governments, and international bodies define “migrant” is deeply shaped by political priorities, economic interests, and cultural attitudes. As the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford notes, there is no consensus on a single definition of “migrant,” and different definitions have significant consequences for how many and which types of people are counted – and, in turn, how the impacts of migration are understood.

For example, some datasets define a migrant by country of birth (anyone born outside the country is a migrant), while others use nationality (anyone holding foreign citizenship). Still others rely on length of residence – whether a person has moved to a new country for at least a year. Each of these definitions produces very different numbers and captures different groups of people. A person born abroad who later becomes a citizen might be counted as a migrant under one definition but not another.

The public use of the term “migrant” is often even more fluid. In everyday media and political debate, the word is frequently mixed up with terms related to immigration status, race, ethnicity, and asylum. This loose usage can produce inaccurate reporting and complicate policy discussions. Who gets labelled a “migrant” – and who doesn’t – is not just a technical question; it is a political one with real consequences for people’s rights and lives.

Migrant vs. immigrant vs. emigrant: understanding the labels 🔗

One of the most common areas of confusion in migration studies involves the terms migrant, immigrant, and emigrant. Although they are often used interchangeably in casual conversation, they have distinct meanings that matter, especially in legal and policy contexts.

Migrant: the umbrella term 🔗

“Migrant” is the broadest of the three terms. It applies to anyone who moves – whether within their own country or across international borders, whether temporarily or permanently. A farm worker moving from a rural village to an urban centre for seasonal employment is a migrant. A software engineer relocating from one country to another for a better job is also a migrant. The term does not presume any particular legal pathway, length of stay, or reason for moving.

Immigrant and emigrant: two sides of the same border 🔗

The words “immigrant” and “emigrant” describe the same act of movement, but from different geographical perspectives. As the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) explains, an emigrant is someone leaving their home country, while an immigrant is someone arriving in a new country. A person moving from India to Canada is an emigrant from India’s perspective and an immigrant from Canada’s. The distinction is entirely about the reference point of the observer.

Unlike the general term “migrant,” the words “immigrant” and “emigrant” almost always imply crossing an international border. Dictionary definitions sometimes also suggest a degree of permanence – an immigrant is typically understood as someone who intends to settle in their new country, whereas a migrant may be temporary. However, in practice, these distinctions are blurry and frequently ignored in both public debate and academic research.

Foreign-born: a statistical category 🔗

Another important term in migration research is “foreign-born.” This is a purely statistical label: it applies to anyone living in a country where they were not born, regardless of their current citizenship. According to Our World in Data, for the majority of countries the UN defines immigrants or emigrants based on country of birth, meaning someone born in a different country from their current residence is classified as a migrant – even if they later acquire citizenship. This definition is widely used in economic analyses and census data, but it has limitations. A person born abroad during a temporary family trip may technically be “foreign-born” without ever having actually migrated in any meaningful sense.

The key takeaway here is that labels are context-dependent. The same person can be a migrant, an immigrant, an emigrant, and foreign-born all at once – or none of these, depending on which definition is being applied and by whom. This fluidity is not a flaw in the system; it reflects the genuine complexity of human movement.

Voluntary vs. forced migration: the spectrum of choice 🔗

One of the most critical distinctions in migration studies is between voluntary and forced migration. On the surface, it seems straightforward: some people choose to move, while others are compelled to. But in reality, the boundary between these two categories is one of the most debated topics in the field.

Voluntary migration 🔗

Voluntary migration occurs when a person decides to move primarily out of personal choice – for better employment, education, family reunification, or an improved quality of life. The IOM has stated that the term “migrant” was usually understood to cover cases where the decision to move was taken freely, for reasons of personal convenience, without external compulsion. Students moving abroad for higher education, professionals accepting overseas job offers, and families relocating to be closer to relatives are all common examples of voluntary migration.

But even “voluntary” migration is rarely a simple, free choice. As the European University Institute notes, people who migrate often do so under strong pressure from economic hardship, family obligations, or lack of opportunities at home. Migrating involves significant material and emotional costs, and the decision is seldom taken lightly. A person who moves because there are no jobs in their hometown is technically migrating “voluntarily,” but the degree of genuine choice involved is debatable.

Forced migration 🔗

Forced migration, by contrast, involves movement driven by coercion, violence, or life-threatening conditions. The IOM defines forced migration as a migratory movement that involves force, compulsion, or coercion, even though the specific drivers can be diverse. This category includes refugees fleeing armed conflict, internally displaced persons (IDPs) uprooted by violence within their own country, victims of human trafficking, and people displaced by natural disasters or large-scale development projects.

The legal cornerstone for forced migrants – specifically refugees – is the 1951 Refugee Convention. Under this framework, a refugee is someone who has fled their country due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group. Amnesty International explains that refugees have a right to international protection, whereas an asylum seeker is someone who has left their country seeking such protection but whose claim has not yet been legally decided.

The blurred line between choice and compulsion 🔗

In practice, the forced-voluntary distinction is more of a spectrum than a binary. Many scholars and international organizations now recognise that most migrants fall somewhere between the two extremes. A person fleeing economic collapse may not qualify as a refugee under international law, but their movement is hardly “voluntary” in any meaningful sense. Similarly, a refugee who has gained asylum in one country but then moves to another for better living conditions is engaging in a form of secondary movement that blends forced and voluntary elements.

This complexity is significant because legal status and rights depend on these categories. Refugees are entitled to specific protections under international law, including the principle of non-refoulement – the guarantee that they will not be forcibly returned to a country where they face persecution. Voluntary migrants, on the other hand, are subject to the immigration laws of the countries they enter, and may have fewer formal protections. The academic literature on voluntariness identifies several conditions that must be met for migration to be truly voluntary: absence of coercion, adequate alternatives to migration, exit options from the destination, and sufficient information about what awaits the migrant.

When these conditions are not met – when a person’s only alternatives are destitution, violence, or severe deprivation – calling their migration “voluntary” stretches the meaning of the word beyond usefulness.

Why definitions matter: policy, rights, and human dignity 🔗

The question “Who is a migrant?” is not academic trivia. The definitions we use directly determine who receives protection, who gets access to services, and who is excluded. When governments define migration categories narrowly, people can fall through the cracks – those who do not qualify as refugees under international law but who face genuine danger at home are one prominent example.

As the Oxford Migration Observatory points out, how we define migrants affects how many are counted, which shapes analysis and public understanding of migration’s impacts. A country using a “foreign-born” definition will count more migrants than one using “foreign nationality.” These numbers, in turn, influence political narratives. High counts can fuel anti-migrant sentiment; low counts can be used to downplay the scale of migration and the need for support services.

The UNHCR has traditionally used “migrant” to refer to people who move by choice rather than to escape conflict or persecution, and stresses the importance of distinguishing refugees from other migrants so that the specific protection needs of refugees are not overlooked. At the same time, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has advocated for using “migrant” as a neutral term for people who lack citizenship attachment to their host country – a definition that keeps the focus on rights rather than categories.

The tension between these approaches reflects a deeper challenge: how to recognise the unique vulnerabilities of refugees without devaluing the rights and dignity of all other people on the move. Every migrant – whether voluntary or forced, documented or undocumented, temporary or permanent – is entitled to the protection of their fundamental human rights.

Internal migration: the often-overlooked dimension 🔗

Most public discussions about migration focus on people crossing international borders. But internal migration – movement within a country’s borders – is far more common globally and affects hundreds of millions of people. The IOM includes internal movement within its understanding of migration, defining it as people moving within the same country, whether from rural to urban areas or between regions.

Internal migrants face many of the same challenges as international migrants: language barriers, cultural adjustment, discrimination, and economic vulnerability. They may lack access to healthcare, education, and housing in their new locations. Yet because they have not crossed an international border, they often fall outside the frameworks designed to protect migrants’ rights. Their legal status within their own country is typically not in question, but their social and economic standing may be deeply precarious.

The evolving nature of migration terminology 🔗

Migration terminology is not static. It evolves alongside political, economic, and technological changes. The UN itself has revised its definitions over time – moving from a focus on length of stay (one year or more) to broader, more inclusive language. The term “illegal migrant” has been discouraged by the United Nations since 1975, with “irregular” or “undocumented” preferred as more accurate and humane alternatives. Language shapes perception, and the shift towards neutral, rights-based terminology reflects a growing recognition that how we talk about migrants affects how they are treated.

New forms of mobility – digital nomads, remote workers, circular migrants who move back and forth between countries – are also challenging traditional definitions. These patterns of movement don’t fit neatly into the old categories of “temporary” versus “permanent” migration, and they are likely to become more common as technology and globalisation continue to reshape how and where people live and work.

What do you think? If the line between voluntary and forced migration is as blurred as scholars suggest, should international law develop new categories to protect people whose movement falls somewhere in between – or would more categories only create more bureaucratic barriers?

References

1. https://www.iom.int/fundamentals-migration
2. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/migration
3. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/who-counts-as-a-migrant-definitions-and-their-consequences/
4. https://www.icmc.net/2025/11/26/whats-the-difference-between-a-migrant-an-immigrant-and-an-emigrant/
5. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/migration
6. https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/migration-facts/0/steps/34214
7. https://www.migrationdataportal.org/themes/forced-migration-or-displacement
8. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants/
9. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ethics-and-international-affairs/article/voluntary-and-involuntary-migrants-on-migration-safe-third-countries-and-the-collective-unfreedom-of-the-proletariat/EAFF8E66805012075802FC3964CF06B0
10. https://emergency.unhcr.org/protection/legal-framework/migrant-definition