US election: How political rhetoric against immigrants conveniently masks bigger problems

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 US was “through the roof” because of “migrant crime.” In fact, the opposite is true: violent crime in the US 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 US 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 legitimises discrimination,...

Read more