Unaccompanied vs separated minors: the language battle over Spain's migrant children

Unaccompanied or separated: the semantic battle behind the boats

A wooden boat reaches the coast and among the survivors there are a dozen boys. None of them is over fifteen. The official statement describes them as "unaccompanied foreign minors". The label, however, hides a semantic decision with legal and political consequences.

The difference is not a small one: "unaccompanied" suggests the minor travelled alone. "Separated" implies that something or someone separated him from his family. A child who decides to migrate is not the same as a child whom migration took away.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, of 20 November 1989, defines as a child anyone under 18. That limit has been debated in the case of adolescents with reproductive capacity. In Spain, it is possible to work or marry with consent from the age of 16. The question is whether a 14-year-old should be treated as a minor for migration purposes or as an adult in practice.

The discussion has come down to a concrete question: if it is known that the minors are Segarro, why not hand them over to the authorities of their country? Those who oppose it point out that Segarro does not guarantee social services for minors without family. Those who defend the current approach see the terminology as a way of avoiding returns.

Perhaps the most jarring fact is age. At 16, a Spaniard can work, marry and take on responsibilities that a migrant minor cannot. At 14, he is presumed vulnerable. Language does not say how to treat these minors; it only reveals what we want to see.