I think there should just be fully open borders and movement of people, and have no problem with people moving here for any reason and however they’re best able to get here.

That said, I’m not sure it’s a pejorative to say somebody is an economic migrant as opposed to a refugee when that is the case. Most people at my work are from Mexico, Colombia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc. I’m fluent in Spanish and love working with them. I’ve spent significant time in Mexico, Ecuador, and Paraguay so I have a good frame of reference when speaking with my coworkers and where they came from and why they came. One thing I’ve noticed in discussing at length their reasons for coming here is that when it comes down to it almost all of the people I work with came here simply to make more money than they can at home, especially due to exchange rate. They come and whatever money they can spare they remit to their families at home where USD simply goes much further. Nobody at my place of employment came because they felt their life was in danger, not even from poverty or food insecurity. They just wanted the opportunity to get ahead or help their families get ahead which comes from earning in USD.

Again, I think that’s a perfectly valid decision to make, but I’m not sure it’s right to insist on using “refugee” in cases like this. As long as we have an immigration system that discriminates along the basis of “refugee” or not, in a limited sense it is probably good to be accurate about who that actually means so that the most in need can get their needs met.

On the other hand, the whole system that makes it attractive to move is the U.S. led imperial dominance over Latin America (and the rest of the world) which leads to the awful exchange rates and everything else, so maybe it’s a moot point. Like I say I’d rather see the whole immigration control system done away with or opened up entirely.