Published Media / Jul 2, 2025
How metaphors catalyze and crystallize anti-immigrant sentiment and policy
Name of publication: The Contrarian
To shift the dialogue, we can open a conversational 'side door' into a topic that Americans typically enter through well-worn partisan arguments.
Metaphors need not dehumanize immigrants to justify harsh, violent, or cruel policies. Take the metaphor of “invasion”— an aggressive, unwanted incursion, an attempt at conquest. It’s not technically dehumanizing, but it is demagoguery. War-footing framing of immigration rhetorically transforms people seeking refuge or opportunity into enemy combatants, legitimizing a response predicated on force and conflict. Comparing our national borders to a “war zone” justifies militaristic responses, from building walls to deploying National Guard troops and the Marines. With “invasion,” it’s hard to make the case for anything but aggressive action, because retreat, in this mental scenario, is failure, and breach is defeat.
These metaphors are not accidental; they are strategic. They channel attention to supposedly threatening aspects of immigration—such as the fear of a drain on public resources—while de-emphasizing benefits, such as our collective economic, civic, and personal relationships with people who were born elsewhere, but now live, laugh, and love with us.
How can we shift the discourse?
Issues: Immigration
Countries: United States