Talking About Immigration Now: Moving Beyond the ‘Worthiness Trap’ 

In recent months, our communities have been shaken by unconstitutional arrests, detentions, and forced expulsions of immigrants. Amid widespread fear, chaos, and uncertainty, it can be difficult to know how to move forward. While we don’t have all the answers, we join in the shared outrage and want to contribute to ongoing efforts to keep our communities together. What we can offer now is a reflection on narratives about immigrants and how framing can help—or hinder—our work toward systemic solutions. 

Given that reactionary, nativist voices are demonizing immigrants as dangerous, violent interlopers, it’s understandable to want to counter these accusations with evidence to the contrary that immigrants are valued, even exemplary community members worthy of due process, public support, and protection under the law. It seems like the obvious approach, and much of recent discourse on the left has focused on highlighting the moral character or societal contributions of those targeted by the immigration system. Articles like this one exemplify that approach: focusing on how individuals are exemplary parents or valued community members to make the case that they should not be detained or deported. 

But the “worthiness” frame is a trap. It attempts to counter systemic injustice by elevating the merits of individuals, inadvertently reinforcing the idea that only some people deserve rights. This kind of strategy may increase temporary support for the specific individual in question, but it relies upon implicitly differentiating that individual from others who are targeted by the same systemic harms. 

For example, the more we emphasize that Kilmar Abrego Garcia is an upstanding community member, the less opportunity we have to remind people that all immigrants, regardless of their alleged offenses, are guaranteed the right to a fair hearing by our Constitution. This kind of differentiation often happens in the context of the ‘worthy immigrant’ narrative, in which those who enter the country legally or contribute economically are distinguished from those who experience irregular migration or who are unable to contribute to the economy in the same way. When we rely on this frame, we risk reinforcing the same structures that enable injustice by drawing arbitrary lines between the “deserving” and “undeserving.” When this happens, worthiness framing backfires, drawing further criticism and stigmatization of the groups in question. 

So how do we move beyond this trap?

We can think about other framing choices that can help people identify and understand the systemic harms at play: 

1. Don’t name-drop “due process.” Explain it. The immigration system is opaque and Americans have little understanding of how it works and what rights immigrants are guaranteed. Repeated calls for “due process” can sound like jargon and miss an opportunity to help people understand what’s at stake. We need to explain what “due process” means—such as the right to legal representation or to a fair hearing—and why its erosion threatens the integrity of our legal system for citizens and noncitizens alike. While many people in the immigration space have already moved in this direction, it’s important to continue doing this explanatory work to counter the opaque headlines dominating the news cycle. 
2. Appeal to core values. Conversations about constitutional rights are likely to cue thinking about core principles, and leaning into these can create space for concern about attacks on foundational rights. One way to effectively utilize this could be by talking about due process violations as a way of treating people as “guilty until proven innocent,” which goes against our core democratic beliefs.  
3. Name the harm. The situation is rapidly evolving and it’s important that we don’t inadvertently legitimize state-sponsored violence by relying on bureaucratic language. Terms like “deportation” or “repatriation” invoke the legal system, giving it added weight, and can also obscure the reality of what’s happening. Instead, consider describing the systemic harm. For example, in lieu of saying that someone has been deported, you might describe how they’ve been unconstitutionally arrested, detained, and expelled. 
4. Tell stories about systems that highlight the expertise of people with lived experience. To avoid falling into the worthiness trap, center stories that highlight how the system harms people broadly—especially when told by those with lived experience. For instance, explain how legal immigration pathways are deliberately inaccessible and prohibitively expensive, and how these barriers criminalize migration itself. Let individual stories illustrate systemic failure, not exceptional virtue.

We know the threats facing immigrant communities are real, but we also know that efforts to  organize, resist, and press for justice are working. We hope you know we are standing with you and that you can turn to us for support.