As November looms, Republican candidates and their supporters are spending tens of millions of dollars on anti-immigrant messaging by paying for television ads that portray the situation at the southern border as an unfolding crisis or even an invasion.
In July, Republican candidates and right-wing groups spent more than $37 million on anti-immigrant ads in both swing and border states, increasing their year-to-date tab for such ads to more than $117 million, far above the $15 million that Democrats have spent on immigration-focused messaging this year, according to the ad-tracking company AdImpact. GOP spending on the ads nearly doubled in the second quarter and reached its highest mark in July when they funded 114 anti-immigrant television ads in federal, state and local elections in 11 battleground states, as well as Montana.
The ads are largely focused on crime, a border wall and what’s perceived as a surge in migrants at the border. Buzzwords such as “border,” “crime,” “wall” and “fentanyl” are deployed frequently in the messages, according to the AdImpact analysis commissioned by the advocacy group the Immigration Hub.
In one ad, former President Trump’s campaign criticizes Vice President Kamala Harris, claiming the Democratic presidential nominee has failed as the nation’s “border czar,” citing millions of illegal crossings, a quarter of a million American deaths from fentanyl and “brutal migrant crimes.” Another spot targets President Biden for reversing Trump’s border policies, which it claims triggered a surge in illegal immigration, increased crime and strained public resources while positioning Trump as the only candidate who can secure the border and “stop the invasion of illegals.”
Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks and analyzes campaign advertising, said Republicans see immigration as an issue that resonates with voters, particularly in areas where the perception of a crisis at the border can be used to sway opinions.
“Republicans think they can make political hay,” Ridout said.
While immigration has been a hot-button issue for years, it may not now have the same day-to-day impact on voters’ lives as more close-to-home concerns such as inflation or health care, he said.
“It’s not inflation — I see that every day when I’m in the grocery store or filling up the tank of gas,” Ridout said. “Immigration is something much less immediate.”
Overall, voters see the economy, inflation and protecting democracy as the top issues in the election, according to a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll. For many Republican voters, however, immigration remains a top concern, according to a Chicago Council Survey, with 69% of Republicans saying immigration will be a significant factor when they decide whom to vote for in this year’s presidential election, compared to 41% of Independents and 26% of Democrats.
The anti-immigrant ads are part of a broader narrative the GOP is trying to construct in which the perception of chaos at the border is tied directly to a larger sense of disorder throughout the country, Ridout said. This, he said, plays into a hardline Republican effort to position the party as the solution to a problem they contend the Democrats have ignored.
While Republicans have aggressively pushed an anti-immigrant narrative, Democrats, including Harris, have been comparatively quiet — perhaps deliberately, as they aim to shift focus to issues that Democrats have traditionally “owned,” such as health care, education and Social Security, Ridout said.
Harris has started to “go on offense” by talking about her record at the border and her efforts to combat the flow of fentanyl.
“Harris would prefer we all be thinking about reproductive health this election, as opposed to immigration,” Ridout said.
For years, Republicans have used immigration as a central theme in their political campaigns, particularly in states such as Arizona and Nevada, where the ads portray the border as lawless and out of control, in order to rally voter support by emphasizing what the GOP views as the Democrats’ failures on immigration, said Beatriz Lopez, deputy director at the Immigration Hub.
That hands-off approach has now started to shift as the election draws close, said Lopez, adding that Democrats are beginning to be more proactive about discussing immigration. Though she might feel more comfortable focusing on reproductive rights or inflation, Harris has started to “go on offense” by talking about her record at the border and her efforts to combat the flow of fentanyl, Lopez said.
In August, Harris released an ad highlighting her record as a prosecutor in California, and declaring that she took on cartels and put gang members behind bars for smuggling weapons and drugs into the U.S.
“As vice president, she backed the toughest border control bill in decades,” the ad says. “And as president, she will hire thousands more border agents and crack down on fentanyl and human trafficking. Fixing the border is tough. So is Kamala Harris.”
During her speech on the final night of the Democratic National Convention, Harris pledged to bring back a bipartisan border bill that Republicans killed in the Senate earlier this year after Trump urged senators to reject it — a move Democrats saw as a political stunt.
“I know we can live up to our proud heritage as a nation of immigrants and reform our broken immigration system,” said Harris at the DNC. “We can create an earned pathway to citizenship and secure our border.”
“Immigration is still a mover of swing voters.”~ Jeremy Hughes, Republican strategist
For years, Democrats have allowed Republicans to define them as being lax on immigration, said Lopez, adding that advocates such as her organization have been urging Democrats to talk about their record on immigration and explain their vision for fixing the nation’s immigration system, including addressing the border and extending legal pathways to citizenship for farmworkers, those who entered the country as minors and others without status.
“It’s going to be important as we move forward for Vice President Harris, in particular, to continue expanding her talking points on this issue,” Lopez said.
Jeremy Hughes, a Republican strategist who has worked extensively in Nevada, said the surge in advertising spending reflects the party’s belief that immigration is a decisive issue for swing state voters. Hughes said that the ads are not merely about convincing voters that immigration is a critical issue, but about positioning the GOP’s stance on border security as a strong alternative to what they see as the Democrats’ failures. In addition to Arizona and Nevada, the ads aired in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, Montana and Wisconsin.
“Immigration is still a mover of swing voters,” Hughes said.
The GOP’s ads frequently use loaded terms like “border,” “crime,” and “wall” to link crime to migrants at the border, despite evidence to the contrary. A 2020 study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that native-born U.S. citizens are more than twice as likely to be arrested for violent crimes than undocumented immigrants. It also found that U.S.-born citizens are two and a half times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes and over four times more likely to be arrested for property crimes compared to undocumented immigrants. Additionally, a National Bureau of Economic Research study showed that immigrants are far less likely to be incarcerated than white or Black individuals born in the U.S.
Hughes said that the language used in the GOP’s ads is carefully chosen to resonate with voters, particularly in battleground states.
“Campaigns don’t run ads that aren’t effective,” Hughes said. “If you’re seeing those phrases and words in the ads, it’s because the campaign has research and focus groups that say these spots will move voters in our direction.”
