Presidential debates in the United States are often little more than a platform for candidates to trade insults and repeat claims, true and false, about various political issues. The debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was no exception.
During the debate, Trump repeated multiple debunked claims about migrant crime. Namely, that criminality in the U.S. was “through the roof” because of “migrant crime.” In fact, the opposite is true: violent crime in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been in 50 years.
At one point, Trump repeated false claims circulating online that immigrants are eating household pets in Springfield, Ohio. Debate moderator David Muir fact-checked Trump, pointing out that Springfield’s city manager said there were no credible reports to back up the claims.
Trump’s argument that immigration increases crime goes against the reality that numerous studies have found: that immigrant populations are often associated with lower crime rates.
The logic is quite simple: asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants can be deported for committing a crime. So, why would they risk being sent back home after the significant effort they made to reach their destination?
Despite these realities, in recent years, both the U.S. and Canada have seen a sharp rise in anti-immigrant rhetoric, emanating from both conservative and liberal politicians.
This rhetoric, while politically expedient, carries dangerous consequences: it legitimizes discrimination, dehumanizes immigrants — especially racialized people — and often turns them into scapegoats for broader societal problems and collective anger.
As the narrative spreads across the political spectrum and across borders, it is essential to unpack how it is being used, what real-life harm it causes and how it diverts attention from systematic inequalities.
Bipartisan anti-immigrant rhetoric
Conservative talking points have long framed migration as a threat to national identity, homeland security and economic stability. Politicians, from far-right populists to centrist liberals, use anti-immigrant narratives to deflect attention from deeper systematic issues such as affordable housing shortages, economic inequalities and failing public services. These narratives not only dehumanize immigrants but also create an environment of fear and hostility for everyone.
Even Harris’s immigration policies reflect this shift in rhetoric. Her focus on border enforcement and deterrence over more comprehensive immigration reform echoes Trump’s approach to securitize the border. Her controversial comments during a 2021 trip to Guatemala, where she told migrants, “do not come,” reinforced narratives that criminalize migration rather than address its root causes.
Harris’s campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, has said if elected, she would continue Joe Biden’s crackdown on asylum claims. Harris has also promised to revive a border security deal that collapsed in Congress earlier this year after Trump told Republicans to reject it. If passed, the legislation would have implemented permanent restrictions of asylum.
In Canada, Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre has said the immigration system is broken, claiming that increased immigration exacerbates housing shortages and strains public services. Poilievre has blamed migrants for the government’s housing and health-care failures.
In 2022, the federal government announced plans to welcome around 500,000 people a year by 2025. More recently, however, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has blamed international students and temporary foreign workers for Canada’s long-standing housing and health-care woes.
In March, the government announced plans to reduce the number of temporary residents and set a cap on the number allowed to come to Canada. While serving as a convenient way to seem tough on immigration, this does little more than mask long-standing underinvestment in education, housing and health care.
Dehumanizing language
Politicians frequently refer to immigrants using inundation metaphors that describe them as “waves” or “floods” and even “swarms.” This dehumanizing language paints them as dangerous, uncontrollable and destructive.
Talking about migrants as an impending deluge strips them of their individuality, dignity and humanity. Asylum seekers, refugees and migrants are no longer seen as people seeking a better life, fleeing persecution or escaping poverty and political unrest. They are turned into a nameless mass threatening social and economic stability.
Trump used this kind of language during the presidential debate saying “we have millions of people pouring into our country.” This also points to the trend of reducing migrants to mere numbers. Trump said there were 21 million migrants entering the U.S. every month, which is wrong.
Racism and xenophobia
Dehumanizing language is often racialized, with Black, brown and Asian immigrants frequently portrayed as criminals, job thieves or drains on public resources. This racism and xenophobia are deeply ingrained in both the U.S. and Canadian immigration systems, which have historically treated racialized immigrants with more suspicion and hostility than their white counterparts.
Take Canada’s swift and humane response to Ukrainian refugees versus the slow and dehumanizing response to refugees from Afghanistan and Gaza. Meanwhile, hate crimes against South Asians have increased dramatically as they become scapegoats for socioeconomic problems.
With a federal election increasingly likely in Canada, both the Liberals and Conservatives will attempt to sound like the ones who can control immigration, securitize borders and prioritize resources for Canadians. Consequently, xenophobic rhetoric will be inevitable.
How we receive and respond to it is up to us as voters. We can fall for the political distractions or we can resist attempts to blame immigrants for the failures of governments and demand more investment in affordable housing, public infrastructure and health care. Only by tackling these issues head-on can we hope to create a society where immigrants are treated not as scapegoats, but as equals.
Yvonne Su does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
