Immigrants and revolutionists
The history of the Mexican-American border and immigration is a complex and evolving narrative shaped by territorial changes, labor needs, political tensions, and social movements. This story reflects the broader relationship between Mexico and the United States, marked by conflict, cooperation, and the ongoing challenges of migration.
The modern U.S.-Mexico border was largely defined by the events of the 19th century, particularly through war and territorial expansion. In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War and resulted in Mexico ceding nearly half of its territory to the United States, including present-day California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming. This territorial shift established the framework for the contemporary U.S.-Mexico border. The Gadsden Purchase in 1853 further adjusted the border, adding a small section of land in southern Arizona and New Mexico to the U.S.
Before these borders were drawn, migration between what became the U.S. and Mexico was fluid, with people moving freely across the vast, sparsely populated regions of the American Southwest. Indigenous communities, Spanish settlers, and Mexicans lived in areas that would later become contested by the U.S., particularly in Texas, where American settlers outnumbered Mexican residents by the 1830s. The 1836 Texas Revolution led to Texas' independence from Mexico and, eventually, its annexation by the United States in 1845, further setting the stage for conflict and shifting borders.
After the U.S. gained vast territories from Mexico, Mexican labor became a vital component of the American economy, significantly contributing to America's rise as a global economic power. With the annexation of the Southwest following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the U.S. found itself with vast stretches of land that needed to be developed, particularly in agriculture, mining, and railroad construction. Mexican laborers, who had long been familiar with the region, were indispensable in this transformation. Their work helped build the infrastructure that would support America’s burgeoning economy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
In the agriculture sector, Mexican workers were integral to the development of the American Southwest’s vast farming and ranching economy. As large-scale farming expanded, particularly in states like California, Arizona, and Texas, American farmers relied heavily on Mexican laborers to plant, tend, and harvest crops. The climate and geography of the Southwest allowed for year-round agricultural production, but this also required a constant supply of labor. Mexican workers, many of whom had experience with farming in similar conditions, filled this need. Their labor helped turn the Southwest into one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world, feeding not only the U.S. but also contributing to global markets.
In addition to agriculture, Mexican labor was critical to the booming mining industry that emerged in the newly acquired U.S. territories. The discovery of gold, silver, and other valuable minerals in the Southwest and California during the mid-19th century led to a rush of prospectors and mining companies, but there was a persistent need for skilled labor. Mexican miners, who had been working in mines for centuries under Spanish and Mexican rule, were often recruited to provide the expertise needed to extract these resources. Their contributions helped fuel the industrial expansion of the U.S. by supplying essential raw materials, further driving the nation’s economic growth.
The construction of the U.S. railroad system, particularly the expansion of the transcontinental railroad, was another area where Mexican labor played a crucial role. Railroads were key to connecting the vast American landscape, enabling goods to be transported efficiently across the country. This infrastructure was essential for economic growth, facilitating trade and the movement of people, but building the railroads required immense amounts of manual labor. Mexican workers were often hired to lay tracks, clear land, and maintain the railways. Their work was physically demanding and often dangerous, but it was essential for connecting the growing American economy, particularly in the West, to the rest of the nation.
The reliance on Mexican labor during this period also coincided with relatively open borders between Mexico and the United States. Migration was fluid, and Mexican workers frequently moved back and forth between the two countries. This arrangement benefited both nations: the U.S. gained a reliable workforce to build its infrastructure and grow its economy, while Mexico saw some economic relief through remittances sent home by migrant workers. This open migration played a significant role in shaping the demographics and culture of the American Southwest, which remains deeply influenced by Mexican heritage.
However, as the U.S. grew more economically powerful, the reliance on Mexican labor also revealed underlying tensions. As Mexican workers became more visible and essential in sectors such as agriculture, mining, and railroads, there were growing concerns about their impact on wages and job opportunities for white Americans. These concerns, particularly during times of economic downturns, led to waves of anti-immigrant sentiment and policies, including mass deportations during the Great Depression.
World War II brought a new chapter in Mexican-American immigration with the establishment of the Bracero Program in 1942, an agreement between the U.S. and Mexico to bring Mexican laborers to the U.S. to address labor shortages caused by the war. The Bracero Program lasted until 1964 and brought over 4 million Mexican workers to the U.S., primarily to work in agriculture and on the railroads. The program provided essential labor to the U.S. economy, but it was also marked by exploitation and poor working conditions for many of the workers.
Although the Bracero Program was officially regulated, it set the stage for large-scale undocumented migration. Many Mexican workers remained in the U.S. after their contracts expired, and the border became more porous as people crossed back and forth in search of work. The end of the Bracero Program did not diminish the demand for Mexican labor, and the U.S. economy, particularly in agriculture, continued to rely on undocumented workers.
The 1960s and 1970s saw a rise in undocumented immigration, spurred by economic instability in Mexico and the continuing demand for labor in the U.S. sectors like agriculture, construction, and service industries. The U.S. responded with a combination of policies designed to control immigration, such as increased border enforcement and deportations, but the economic pull of jobs in the U.S. meant that migration continued at high levels.
In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed under President Ronald Reagan, which granted legal status to approximately 2.7 million undocumented immigrants, most of whom were Mexican. The law also introduced sanctions for employers who hired undocumented workers and increased border security. However, despite these measures, undocumented immigration continued as economic conditions in Mexico, including the Mexican Peso Crisis of 1994, led more people to seek opportunities in the U.S.
The implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 had significant implications for Mexican migration. NAFTA aimed to liberalize trade between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, but it also had unintended consequences for Mexico’s economy, particularly in the agricultural sector. Cheap, subsidized American agricultural products flooded the Mexican market, displacing millions of small farmers. Many of these displaced workers migrated north in search of work, contributing to a sharp increase in undocumented immigration to the U.S. As a result, the U.S. government began investing heavily in border enforcement. The mid-1990s saw the launch of Operation Gatekeeper, which increased security along the U.S.-Mexico border, particularly in high-traffic urban areas like San Diego and El Paso. However, this strategy pushed migrants into more remote and dangerous areas of the desert, leading to an increase in migrant deaths while not significantly reducing the overall flow of immigration.
The early 21st century saw a dramatic rise in political tensions over immigration. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, national security concerns became intertwined with immigration policy. The U.S. government created the Department of Homeland Security and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, both of which ramped up efforts to control immigration through deportations and border security.
In the 2000s and 2010s, U.S. political discourse on immigration became increasingly polarized. Debates centered on issues like undocumented immigration, border security, and the treatment of migrant workers. During this time, the U.S. experienced large surges in migrants from Central America, particularly from countries like El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, as violence, poverty, and political instability in those regions led people to seek asylum in the U.S.
The presidency of Donald Trump marked a sharp turn in U.S. immigration policy. His rhetoric and policies, often focused on Mexican and Latin American immigrants, brought a harsh spotlight to the issue of immigration, framing it in terms of crime, economic threat, and national security. This narrative capitalized on existing fears and stereotypes, reinforcing the view that immigrants, particularly those from Mexico and other Latin American countries, were harmful to American society.
One of Trump’s most controversial moments occurred during his 2015 campaign launch, where he famously said, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” This statement encapsulated much of the anti-immigrant rhetoric that would become a hallmark of Trump’s campaign and presidency. By painting Mexican immigrants as criminals, drug dealers, and rapists, Trump appealed to fears about immigration, especially in communities where economic instability or changes in demographics heightened anxieties.
Trump’s rhetoric aligned with a long-standing stereotype that immigrants, particularly from Mexico, were dangerous and a burden on society. The false narrative that Mexico was sending criminals and people from "insane asylums" into the U.S. taps into xenophobic beliefs that immigrants disproportionately contribute to crime, when, in fact, research consistently shows that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. Yet, this stereotype persisted and was further amplified by Trump and his supporters, helping to bolster calls for harsher immigration policies.
One of the central themes of Trump’s campaign and presidency was the notion that immigrants, particularly those from Mexico and Latin America, were taking jobs away from American workers. This economic argument, although widely debunked by economists, gained traction with working-class Americans who had seen wages stagnate and job opportunities decline due to broader economic trends such as globalization and automation. By scapegoating Mexican immigrants, Trump shifted the blame for these economic problems away from systemic issues and toward a vulnerable population. This narrative further fueled anti-immigrant sentiment, with many Americans believing that immigrants were responsible for their economic hardships, despite evidence showing that immigrant labor is vital to many sectors of the economy, particularly agriculture, construction, and service industries.
Beyond economic concerns, Trump’s focus on immigration was also framed as a national security issue. His administration implemented a range of restrictive policies designed to curb both legal and illegal immigration, most notably the “zero-tolerance” policy that resulted in the separation of thousands of families at the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump repeatedly described immigrants crossing the southern border as a threat to American safety, associating them with violent crime, drug trafficking, and terrorism. His administration’s efforts to build a physical wall along the U.S.-Mexico border symbolized this broader strategy of exclusion and fear. While the wall itself became a political flashpoint, it represented a much deeper effort to stoke fear and resentment toward immigrants, casting them as an existential threat to the nation.
Trump’s hardline immigration policies and rhetoric also resonated with a segment of the population that viewed the changing demographics of the U.S. with concern. As the U.S. became more diverse, with a growing Hispanic population, some Americans saw immigration as a challenge to their cultural identity and values. Trump’s framing of immigrants as dangerous and economically harmful played into these anxieties, fueling a broader backlash against immigration and diversity.
Trump’s presidency also coincided with the growth of far-right movements and white nationalist groups that openly embraced xenophobia. These groups, emboldened by Trump’s rhetoric, saw immigration as a threat to white supremacy and rallied behind policies that would reduce the number of immigrants, particularly from non-European countries. The “great replacement” theory, which suggests that immigrants are being deliberately brought into the U.S. to replace white Americans and erode their political and cultural power, gained traction in far-right circles during Trump’s presidency. While Trump himself did not explicitly endorse this theory, his policies and rhetoric provided a platform for those who believed in it.
The rise of anti-immigration sentiment in the U.S. under Donald Trump mirrors other nationalist movements in history, where political leaders have exploited fears of outsiders, economic insecurity, and cultural change to galvanize support. These movements often frame immigration and diversity as existential threats to national identity, purity, or security, and scapegoat marginalized groups for broader societal problems. This tactic has been employed by nationalist leaders throughout history, perhaps most infamously by Adolf Hitler during the rise of the Nazi regime in Germany, but it can also be seen in other authoritarian and nationalist movements worldwide.
In Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler exploited the economic hardship, social unrest, and national humiliation that followed World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler's Nazi Party blamed Jewish people, as well as other minority groups, for Germany’s economic struggles, political instability, and loss of national pride. The party used rhetoric that portrayed Jews as dangerous outsiders who undermined German society, much like how modern nationalist movements vilify immigrants. Hitler’s strategy was to construct a narrative that connected Germany’s problems to a supposed "enemy within," positioning Jews as an existential threat to German culture and purity. This demonization of a group of people—based on exaggerated and false claims—was central to Hitler’s consolidation of power and the eventual horrors of the Holocaust.
Similarly, during Donald Trump’s rise to power, a narrative of "America First" echoed the themes of nationalism that have often been employed by authoritarian figures. Trump's rhetoric consistently portrayed Mexican and other Latin American immigrants as criminals, rapists, and economic threats to American workers, despite evidence showing that immigrants, by and large, commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens and contribute significantly to the U.S. economy. Trump’s exaggerated claims played into existing anxieties about changing demographics and economic insecurity, much like Hitler’s propaganda used existing anti-Semitic sentiments to unite people behind a scapegoat. Both movements capitalized on a perceived loss of status—whether it was the fall of the German Empire or fears about the decline of American global dominance.
Moreover, Trump’s call for a border wall and his demonization of Mexicans and Latin Americans align with historical nationalist strategies of creating "in-groups" and "out-groups." In nationalist movements, the idea of "us" versus "them" is central. In Nazi Germany, Jews, Roma, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others were framed as the "other," threatening the supposed purity and safety of the Aryan race. Trump’s rhetoric followed a similar logic: framing immigrants, particularly those from Mexico and Central America, as a threat to the American way of life, safety, and economic security. This echoes the nationalist and fascist strategy of stoking fear and division to unite a population against a common enemy.
Beyond Trump and Hitler, these tactics have appeared in other nationalist and authoritarian regimes throughout history. In Fascist Italy, Benito Mussolini rose to power by capitalizing on fears of communism and economic instability, positioning himself as the defender of Italian identity against both internal and external threats. He frequently portrayed immigrants and non-Italians as dangers to the state and used aggressive nationalism to rally support. Similarly, in post-colonial Africa, some nationalist movements focused on expelling ethnic or political minorities in the name of national unity, blaming them for economic struggles or societal decline, as seen in the Ugandan regime of Idi Amin, who expelled the Asian minority, blaming them for Uganda’s economic problems.
In each of these cases, nationalism fueled by the fear of an "other" was used to gain and maintain power, often with devastating consequences for marginalized groups. The targeting of immigrants or minorities, whether Jews in Nazi Germany, Mexicans in Trump’s America, or other groups in various nationalist regimes, follows a disturbing historical pattern. Leaders exploit fears of loss—whether economic, cultural, or demographic—and present a simple solution: exclude or suppress the "outsiders" to restore national greatness.
One of the most dangerous parallels between these movements is how they employ propaganda and misinformation to spread their ideas and dehumanize targeted groups. Hitler’s propaganda machine was instrumental in creating an environment in which the persecution of Jews and other minorities became acceptable. In a similar, albeit less extreme vein, Trump’s use of misinformation, particularly around immigration, became a central aspect of his political strategy. By repeatedly linking immigrants to crime, job loss, and economic decline—despite substantial evidence to the contrary—Trump, like other nationalist leaders before him, manipulated public perceptions to serve his agenda.
At the heart of much of the fear and opposition to immigration in the U.S. is a demographic anxiety held by some white Americans about the possibility of becoming a minority. This fear is rooted in the belief that increasing numbers of immigrants—especially those from Latin America, Asia, and Africa—will disrupt the current racial and cultural makeup of the country. As the U.S. becomes more racially and ethnically diverse, many fear a loss of political, cultural, and economic dominance that white Americans have historically held. This anxiety is often exacerbated by right-wing political rhetoric that frames immigration as a threat to the nation’s identity and stability, fostering xenophobia and resistance to demographic changes.
The reality of the U.S. population is that it is becoming increasingly diverse. Census data shows that the white population is steadily declining as a proportion of the total U.S. population, while non-white groups, particularly Hispanics and Asians, are growing. Projections indicate that by 2045, white Americans may no longer be the majority demographic, which is often cited by far-right groups as evidence of a "threat" to white supremacy or dominance. This looming demographic shift has fueled much of the anti-immigration sentiment seen today, with some politicians and pundits capitalizing on these fears to rally support for more restrictive immigration policies and nationalist agendas.
The concept of the "Great Replacement Theory" has emerged as a particularly dangerous expression of this fear. This conspiracy theory falsely claims that immigrants, particularly non-white immigrants, are being brought into the U.S. to "replace" the native-born white population, leading to their eventual minority status. While fringe for many years, this theory has gained traction in some political circles and has been echoed by extremist groups. These ideas have been amplified by some media outlets and politicians who use coded language, warning that immigration is changing the fabric of America or undermining its cultural values, subtly alluding to the racial implications of this change.
Donald Trump tapped into this anxiety during his rise to power, frequently referring to the dangers of immigration and promoting the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. His rhetoric often portrayed immigrants as invaders who would destroy the "American way of life," tapping into the underlying fear that an increasingly diverse America would marginalize white Americans. Phrases like "make America great again" became synonymous with a desire to return to a time when white Americans were the clear majority, culturally and politically dominant.
This fear is also connected to a sense of economic insecurity, as some white Americans feel that their job opportunities and social status are being eroded by immigrants. Politicians often fuel this belief by framing immigration as an economic threat, suggesting that immigrants are taking jobs away from native-born workers or draining social services. While these claims are largely unsupported by evidence—immigrants tend to complement the workforce rather than compete with native-born workers—they nonetheless play into the larger narrative of white decline and perceived loss of privilege.
The reality, however, is that immigration has always been a vital part of the American story. The U.S. was built on the contributions of immigrants from all over the world, and its strength lies in its diversity. Despite frequent negative rhetoric around immigration, the reality is that immigrants, including those from Mexico, contribute significantly to both local and federal economies, pay taxes, fill essential labor gaps, and are statistically less likely to commit crimes compared to native-born citizens. Their hard work, resilience, and economic contributions are indispensable to the American economy and society.
Historically, immigrants have shaped the infrastructure and agricultural backbone of the U.S. economy. Mexican immigrants, in particular, have been critical in the development of key industries such as agriculture, construction, and manufacturing. In the early 20th century, Mexican labor helped build the railroads that connected the nation and supported the booming agricultural economy in the Southwest. Today, Mexican and other immigrant labor remains a cornerstone of industries like agriculture, where immigrants make up about 73% of the U.S. agricultural workforce. Without immigrant labor, many sectors of the economy would suffer from severe labor shortages, driving up prices and limiting the availability of goods.
One of the most significant contributions of immigrants is to local economies. Immigrants often settle in areas where job opportunities are abundant but where native-born populations are either unwilling or unable to fill certain positions. They start businesses at higher rates than native-born Americans; in fact, immigrants are almost twice as likely to start a business. Immigrant-owned businesses employ millions of Americans and contribute to economic revitalization in many regions. As of 2017, 45% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children, showing that immigrants' entrepreneurial spirit helps drive innovation and economic growth. In communities where immigrants are active, local economies benefit from increased consumer spending, job creation, and a higher tax base.
At the federal level, immigrants contribute significantly to the tax base, often without receiving the full benefits of the social services they help fund. It is estimated that undocumented immigrants alone pay $11.74 billion in state and local taxes annually. All immigrants, regardless of legal status, pay a wide array of taxes, including income, property, and sales taxes. Legal immigrants, including those with temporary work visas, paid $405 billion in federal taxes and $150 billion in state and local taxes in 2017 alone, according to the New American Economy. Immigrants are crucial in supporting programs like Social Security and Medicare, which depend on younger workers’ contributions to support an aging native-born population. Despite paying billions in taxes, many immigrants, especially undocumented workers, are ineligible for many of the social benefits, such as Social Security and Medicaid, they help fund.
Mexican and other immigrants also fill labor gaps that are essential to the functioning of the U.S. economy, often in jobs that are physically demanding, low-paying, and unattractive to many native-born workers. These jobs include farm labor, construction, food service, and caregiving. Immigrants are overrepresented in several key industries: they make up 36% of workers in the agricultural sector, 26% of workers in construction, and 22% in manufacturing, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Despite working long hours in tough conditions, they often receive lower wages than their native-born counterparts. This wage gap is partly due to lack of access to labor protections and legal work status, but it highlights how immigrants are filling critical roles at an economic disadvantage, allowing American businesses to remain competitive and profitable.
In addition to working harder for less pay, immigrants are also less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. Research consistently shows that immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans. A 2018 study by the Cato Institute found that the arrest rate for undocumented immigrants was 50% lower than for native-born Americans. Similarly, a study from the National Academy of Sciences found that higher concentrations of immigrants were associated with lower crime rates in U.S. neighborhoods. Despite widespread myths suggesting that immigration leads to higher crime, the data tells a very different story—immigrants are contributing to safer communities, not making them more dangerous.
Immigrants also play a crucial role in helping America remain competitive in the global economy, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. 25% of all STEM workers in the U.S. are immigrants, and they make up a significant portion of the country's innovators, researchers, and entrepreneurs. These contributions are particularly important as the U.S. seeks to maintain its competitive edge in the global marketplace. In addition, international students and highly skilled immigrants help drive technological advancements and innovation, contributing disproportionately to patent filings and research outputs.
Despite the narravtive, approximately 77% of immigrants in the U.S. are legally present, while the remaining 23% are undocumented. This means that the vast majority of the U.S. immigrant population consists of legal immigrants, including those who are naturalized U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents (green card holders), refugees, asylees, and individuals on temporary visas (such as work or student visas). Approximately half of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. originally entered the country legally on temporary visas (such as student, tourist, or work visas) but overstayed their permitted time, according to a 2019 report from the Center for Migration Studies. This leaves only half (about 5 million) undocumented immigrants entered the U.S. by crossing the border without going through legal checkpoints or obtaining legal permission. This includes individuals who entered through the southern border from Mexico or other nearby countries.
The estimated 5 to 6 million undocumented immigrants who crossed into the U.S. illegally contribute to a wide range of industries and sectors, playing an essential role in the U.S. economy. Despite their undocumented status, many work in labor-intensive and often low-wage jobs that are vital for certain industries. In agriculture, a large percentage of undocumented workers handle essential tasks like planting, harvesting, and packing crops, ensuring the nation's food supply runs smoothly. Similarly, a significant portion work in construction, contributing as laborers, roofers, and carpenters, helping to build homes, offices, and infrastructure. Many undocumented workers are employed in the hospitality and service sectors, taking on roles such as housekeepers, dishwashers, cooks, and janitors, filling vital labor gaps and keeping costs low for businesses. Additionally, undocumented immigrants are key contributors in manufacturing, particularly in food processing plants and warehouses, where their labor is essential to maintaining operations in demanding, low-wage jobs. In domestic work, they serve as nannies, caregivers, and housekeepers, providing crucial care for families, children, and the elderly. The landscaping industry also relies on undocumented workers for lawn care, gardening, and grounds keeping, tasks that are labor-intensive but critical for businesses and homeowners alike.
The harsh truth is that many American jobs are being lost, but not for the reasons often suggested. It’s not immigration that’s displacing workers, but the increasing consolidation of economic power among a small number of corporations in America. As these corporations grow in influence and control over key sectors of the economy, the result is a monopolization of opportunity, leaving American workers with fewer jobs, lower wages, and diminished career prospects.
One of the most direct ways corporations are affecting American jobs is through consolidation, where larger companies acquire smaller ones or merge with competitors. This process often leads to layoffs, as redundant positions are eliminated in the name of efficiency. For example, when major retail chains merge or when tech companies consolidate their operations, the immediate effect is often a reduction in the workforce. Additionally, as large corporations dominate industries like retail, technology, and manufacturing, smaller businesses struggle to compete, leading to closures and job losses in local economies. This consolidation concentrates economic power in fewer hands, while leaving workers, especially those in smaller enterprises, vulnerable to job displacement.
In addition to this, the automation and offshoring practices employed by these corporations compound the issue. As global corporations seek to maximize profits, they increasingly rely on automated processes that replace human labor, particularly in manufacturing and service industries. Offshoring jobs to countries with lower labor costs further exacerbates the problem, as American workers lose their livelihoods to cheaper labor markets abroad. While these practices may increase corporate profits, they often come at the expense of job security for American workers, especially in sectors like manufacturing, customer service, and even high-tech fields like software development.
The concentration of economic power in the hands of a few corporations is often seen as a defining characteristic of an oligarchy—where a small group holds disproportionate control over a nation's economic and political systems. In America, this trend is becoming more pronounced as corporations wield increasing influence over government policy, lobbying for regulations that benefit their interests at the expense of the broader public. Through campaign contributions and lobbying efforts, these corporations can shape legislation that affects labor laws, environmental regulations, and tax policies, often to the detriment of workers.
For example, the weakening of labor unions and the rollback of worker protections can be directly linked to corporate lobbying efforts aimed at increasing profitability. Unions, which historically served as a counterbalance to corporate power, have seen their influence diminish as corporations push for "right-to-work" laws and other measures that limit collective bargaining. As a result, wages have stagnated, benefits have been cut, and workers' rights have been eroded. This creates a cycle where the rich become richer, while the working class faces increasing economic insecurity.
Another key effect of the rise of corporate power is the widening gap between the wealthy elite and the rest of the workforce. As corporations prioritize shareholder profits and executive compensation, wage growth for average workers has stagnated. Over the past few decades, the productivity of American workers has increased, yet wages have not kept pace with this productivity. Instead, the gains have been funneled to corporate executives and shareholders, leading to a growing divide between the top 1% and the rest of the population.
This inequality has profound implications for the broader economy. As the purchasing power of the middle class declines, economic growth becomes more dependent on consumer spending from the wealthy elite, creating a more fragile and imbalanced economy. Meanwhile, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few corporations allows them to exert even more control over the political process, further entrenching their power and limiting opportunities for upward mobility for the average worker, as the middle and lower class are busy pointing their fingers at the border.
When it comes to crime and national security, right-wing extremists have emerged as the most violent and dangerous threat to public safety and national security in the U.S., despite the political rhetoric scapegoating immigrants. Data from law enforcement and intelligence agencies consistently reveal that far-right extremists—especially those motivated by white supremacist ideologies—pose a greater domestic terror threat than any other group. While anti-immigrant narratives continue to dominate certain political circles, the evidence points to white right-wing extremists as the primary perpetrators of violent acts, including mass shootings, hate crimes, and domestic terrorism.
According to a 2020 Department of Homeland Security report, "racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists—specifically white supremacist extremists—will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in America."
One high-profile example is the 2019 mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, where a white supremacist targeted Hispanic shoppers, killing 23 people. This attack was driven by the shooter’s anti-immigrant beliefs, echoing the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory—a belief that white Americans are being systematically replaced by non-white immigrants. Similar ideologies fueled other violent attacks, such as the 2015 Charleston church shooting and the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, both of which were carried out by white supremacists. These tragic events are just a few examples of the deadly toll that right-wing extremism has taken on American communities.
The fixation on immigrant criminality is largely a political tool, used to stoke fear and justify harsher immigration policies. This narrative serves to distract from the real and growing threat posed by white right-wing extremists, whose violent actions have claimed far more lives than any perceived threat from immigrant populations. By shifting the blame onto immigrants, some political leaders not only perpetuate harmful stereotypes but also fail to address the real security risks that the country faces.
One of the most concerning aspects of this issue is the way that political rhetoric can inflame right-wing extremism. In recent years, some political leaders have either downplayed the threat posed by these extremists or, in some cases, openly sympathized with their grievances. For instance, during the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, white supremacist groups marched openly with weapons and racist banners, leading to violent clashes and the death of a counter-protester. Rather than unequivocally condemning the white supremacists, Donald Trump famously remarked that there were "very fine people on both sides," a statement that was widely criticized for its failure to condemn hate groups.
This type of rhetoric, which normalizes and legitimizes extremist beliefs, has emboldened right-wing extremists to take more drastic and violent actions. By failing to denounce these groups, political leaders can indirectly contribute to the spread of extremist ideologies and create an environment where violence is more likely to occur. Furthermore, the demonization of immigrants and minorities by some political figures only serves to deepen the divisions within American society, giving extremists more fuel for their hateful agendas.
Ultimately, America has always benefited from immigrants, and it continues to do so today. Immigrants have been integral to building the country's infrastructure, driving innovation, and supporting key sectors of the economy, from agriculture to technology. They contribute significantly to local and federal economies through taxes, labor, and entrepreneurship, while also enriching the cultural fabric of the nation. Despite these undeniable contributions, it is the xenophobic and self-serving rhetoric of Donald Trump and the Republican Party that perpetuates the false narrative that immigrants are harmful to America. By exploiting fear and stoking division, they create the illusion that immigrants are to blame for economic and social challenges, when in reality, immigrants are an essential force driving the nation's continued success. Rather than succumbing to this misguided narrative, the U.S. should embrace its immigrant population as a vital component of its prosperity and future growth, and take a cold, hard look in the mirror.
