Why We Need To Hold Ground On Immigrant Rights
More and more political leaders of both parties are reacting to indications that voters are moving in an anti-immigration direction by accommodating this trend. However, reacting to anxieties about immigration by moving toward more restrictive border policies is not just a bad idea—it’s a political miscalculation, a moral failure, and a reinforcement of right-wing framing that weakens democracy itself. Here’s why:
1. THE MYTHS BEHIND THE FEAR: HOW THE RIGHT SHAPES THE NARRATIVE
The rising anxieties among some Democratic voters about immigration don’t originate in a vacuum. They are a product of decades of right-wing disinformation, corporate media fear-mongering, and deliberate framing strategies designed to make immigration a perpetual crisis.
Anti-immigrant advocates have manufactured an association between immigration and:
Crime: Despite the fact that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at significantly lower rates than native-born Americans.
Job Competition: Even though immigration drives economic growth, fills critical labor shortages, and supports Social Security and Medicare.
Wage Suppression: Even though wages are far more impacted by corporate union-busting, deregulation, and wealth concentration at the top than by immigrant labor.
When Democratic leaders validate these anxieties with restrictive policies instead of challenging their premise, they are endorsing the right’s false framing. This not only normalizes anti-immigrant rhetoric but legitimizes the fear-mongering that will be used against immigrants indefinitely.
Once Democrats move right on immigration, they do not neutralize the issue—they concede it to the GOP, which will always push for even more draconian restrictions. If we’ve learned anything from the last 40 years of American politics, it’s that appeasement of right-wing talking points only moves the goalposts further right.
2. HISTORICAL PARALLELS: THE U.S. REFUSAL TO TAKE IN JEWISH REFUGEES
The current moment bears disturbing similarities to the refusal of the U.S. to take in Jewish refugees during the Holocaust.
In the 1930s and 1940s, antisemitic fear-mongering was used to depict Jewish refugees as potential criminals, communists, or national security threats.
The U.S. government claimed it couldn’t take them in because of economic struggles, national security risks, and the supposed burden on social services—all eerily similar to today’s rhetoric about migrants.
The result? Tens of thousands of Jewish refugees were turned away and sent back to Europe, where many were murdered in concentration camps.
Today, migrants from Central America, Africa, and the Middle East are fleeing climate disasters, war, state violence, and political persecution. The U.S. has played a direct role in destabilizing many of the regions from which people are now fleeing, whether through coups, resource extraction, or supporting authoritarian regimes.
Refusing them refuge isn’t just morally bankrupt—it is a repetition of one of the great moral failures of the 20th century.
3. THE STRATEGIC FAILURE OF DEMOCRATS MOVING RIGHT ON IMMIGRATION
The biggest miscalculation in this approach is assuming that Democrats, who have generally leaned toward humane immigration policy reform, can win by trying to sound like Republicans who have long been an anti-immigrant party.
Democrats cannot outflank Republicans on border militarization, deportations, or restrictions—and when they try, they demoralize their own base while still losing anti-immigrant-leaning voters. Moreover, these concessions create more political running room for anti-immigrant leaders to popularize even more inhumane reforms.
The only way to win this argument is to challenge it directly. Instead of playing defense, Democrats must take control of the narrative and make the case that immigrants make the country stronger, that scapegoating immigrants is a tool of oligarchs to divide the working class, and that multiracial democracy depends on solidarity—not exclusion.
When Democrats legitimize right-wing fear-mongering, they are not winning over voters—they are weakening the pro-democracy coalition. The strongest base of Democratic support—Black, Latino, Asian, and progressive white voters—is overwhelmingly pro-immigrant. The moment Democrats move right, they fracture their coalition while gaining nothing from the right.
4. WHAT DEMOCRATS SHOULD DO INSTEAD
Instead of ceding ground on immigration, Democrats must change the conversation and take the offensive:
Expose the Economic Interests Behind Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric
Who benefits when working-class Americans are told to blame immigrants instead of anti-democratic billionaires for our economic and political woes?
Who profits when we spend billions militarizing the border instead of investing in healthcare and housing?
The answer is always the ultra-rich, and Democrats must make that clear, especially because those benefits to the very rich, as they are increased by investments in repression, will likely force the Democratic Party concede to donor demands and move in an increasingly authoritarian direction on immigration.
Reframe Immigration as an Economic and Humanitarian Strength
Immigration boosts the economy and creates jobs—we must make that case relentlessly.
Diversity is America’s greatest strength—a growing multicultural democracy is our future. The alternatives will come at the cost of freedom for most of us.
FINAL THOUGHT
The temptation to move right on immigration is a trap. It’s a strategy rooted in fear rather than power.
History teaches us that when we turn away refugees, when we scapegoat immigrants, when we compromise with xenophobia, we lose more than elections—we lose our moral standing and our democracy.
The right wants us divided by fear. Our task is to fight for a vision of America that is bigger than that—a vision of solidarity, inclusion, and shared power.
We win by standing with immigrants—not by running from the fight.