The new right and its hatred of migrants

The American political landscape is undergoing a worrying shift in authoritarianism, driven by a new right wing, which has made immigration the focus of its hateful rhetoric. This sector promotes regressive policies, erects physical and legal barriers, and revives conspiracy theories such as the "Great Replacement" narrative: an openly racist narrative that denounces a supposed plan to replace the native white population through "mass immigration."

Under the leadership of figures like Donald Trump, rhetoric translates into concrete actions that violate fundamental human rights. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) acts as a repressive force with broad powers to detain, deport, and harass (incidentally, American systems engineer Danielle Harlow created the Missing Persons Tracker to track more than 4,000 people detained during Trump's immigration raids and prevent them from getting lost in the system).

Project 2025, promoted by the Heritage Foundation (one of the main think tanks of the new American right), falls within this framework of hate speech and persecution. It proposed mass raids, detention centers, the elimination of asylum, and the militarization of borders. This agenda is carried forward by figures such as Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem (who even justified cruel practices such as shooting her own pet because she "couldn't train it"), and finds echoes in Latin American leaders such as Nayib Bukele, whose authoritarian administration is celebrated by figures such as Argentine Minister Patricia Bullrich.

In a few months, when Christmas arrives and many New Right politicians and activists devoutly attend Mass, it will be opportune to recall a contradiction that reveals the depth of their hypocrisy. While promoting policies that persecute refugees and criminalize migration, they will enthusiastically celebrate the birth of a child who, according to their own faith, was part of a refugee family desperate for asylum. Mary and Joseph (a young couple from the Middle East) sought refuge in desperate conditions (Matthew 2:13-15). Moreover, according to Matthew 25:35-40, Jesus is said to have said: “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”

I'm an atheist, but if you're going to introduce religion into public life (something that's not only wrong, but profoundly dangerous), at least have the consistency not to betray the values ​​you claim to defend when they become inconvenient. Jesus was, literally, a political refugee child. So if you're going to set up a Nativity scene while applauding deportations, detention camps, and inhumane policies, face it: you're celebrating a history that, deep down, you contradict with every act and comment you make throughout the rest of the year.

In short, the story of Jesus begins with his parents fleeing persecution. This highlights how religious symbols are manipulated to justify nationalism, ignoring compassion. The contrast is eloquent: if Jesus were to return today as Christian tradition presents him (poor, a migrant, a carpenter, undocumented, without visas, and with no European appearance), he would hardly be welcomed with open arms by those who today hold crosses with one hand and seal deportation orders with the other. Those same people who consider a fertilized egg to be a "person" with full rights do not hesitate to deny the humanity of entire families fleeing for their survival through jungles and deserts.

“Those poor people are going to steal our jobs.”

Aporophobia (the rejection or contempt for the poor) has become a central theme of the new right of Trump, Milei, Meloni, Abascal, and others. The harshest immigration policies are not directed against those who arrive with capital or connections, but against those fleeing poverty and war. This is no coincidence: no one puts obstacles in the way of investors. As Irene Vallejo (2025) points out, “no one calls a millionaire athlete or a foreign executive an immigrant.” The logic is clear. A few months ago, when Donald Trump was asked if Russian oligarchs could access the Gold Card (a visa sold by the Trump administration for $5 million), he replied that they could, and that he even knew several. “They are very nice people,” he said.

No immigrant crosses a border to invade, destroy a culture, or “contaminate” a “national identity.” This idea is a delusional fantasy of supremacist racism, sustained by two big lies: that there are “superior and inferior races,” and that there are groups of people (whom they call woke today, meaning anyone who doesn't submit to their medieval worldview, and who, moreover, have been historically persecuted and murdered) conspiring to replace heterosexual white men (many of the latter, those who adhere to the New Right, are enraged and blame feminism for the fact that misogyny is no longer socially acceptable as it once was).

Paranoia serves as a justification for hatred, violence, and exclusionary policies, presented as acts of "self-defense" against the supposed "woke cancelers." The new right, for example, complains that it can no longer make racist, homophobic, or transphobic jokes without consequences, and markets this as a threat to freedom of expression. The paradox is that this complaint is made from the biggest microphones: mass media, social media, podcasts, and platforms with millions of followers.

“Immigrants are invading us.”

Milei, Trump, Meloni, and others insist on referring to immigration as an “invasion” because they need to turn it into a threat. In fact, Tom Cotton, a well-known Republican senator from Arkansas, obsessed with attacking trans people and a close Trump ally, said that Biden “welcomed a Third World invasion.” But let's remember: when a country is invaded, it's invaded by armies, not by people seeking jobs. Immigrants don't cross borders to conquer, but to work, survive, and build a better life. Equating them with an invading force is not only false, but deeply dehumanizing.

In fact, immigrants start businesses at a significantly higher rate than the US-born, and they also expand demand for goods and services as active consumers, in addition to contributing a considerable portion of tax revenue. They don't destroy the country, not even those who don't speak English. According to the Immigration Research Initiative, they contribute 17% of GDP, and most of them are of working age. Immigration drives economic growth and GDP per capita. If jobs were a fixed number, population growth would have increased unemployment, but that's not the case. Claiming that immigrants "steal jobs" is simply false: they expand the labor market and create new opportunities. They don't migrate for social benefits, they migrate to work.

In fact, the data show that immigrants are not a "burden" on taxpayers, as the new right populists would have us believe: according to the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), in 2020, immigrants consumed 27% less social benefits per capita than native-born citizens. In other words, the latter make greater use of state resources. Furthermore, millions of undocumented immigrants pay taxes without receiving Social Security benefits, many of them working with other people's numbers or documents to enter the labor market.

On average, an immigrant and their descendants contribute $80,000 more in taxes than they receive. If they have a college education, that net contribution rises to $198,000. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act had already significantly restricted immigrants' access to social programs, further reducing their use of these benefits. In short, immigrants contribute more than they consume and, in the long run, generate substantial tax benefits. The argument that immigrants should close the doors for fear of "free riders" from the welfare state is commonplace among politicians obsessed with "public spending" (although that zeal disappears when it comes to items that really matter to them).

“Immigrants are criminals.”

Generally speaking, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. This is the empirical evidence. In the United States, available data indicates that crime and incarceration rates are lower among immigrants, even among those in an irregular immigration status. This is explained, in part, by the fact that many immigrants are particularly motivated to respect the law, since any violation could jeopardize their ability to obtain residency or citizenship. Those in an irregular status also tend to avoid public exposure so as not to jeopardize their stability, their assets, or the personal investment (of money and time) that migrating entails.

In fact, US citizens commit more crimes than immigrants: three-quarters of drug traffickers are Americans, and most drugs and weapons enter the country through legal ports. Furthermore, sexual assault is more common among US citizens than among immigrants, whether legal or undocumented. Reports by the National Academy of Sciences (2015) and the Marshall Project in conjunction with The New York Times have documented that, between 1980 and 2016, in more than 200 US counties, the increase in the immigrant population was not associated with an increase in crime; in many cases, a decrease was even recorded.

In Europe, a report by the German Institute for Economic Policy (IFO) concluded in 2024 that there was no higher crime rate in Germany, nor was there a correlation between crime and the presence of immigrants and refugees between 2018 and 2023. Despite these data, the false narrative persists in the electoral discourse, promoted by figures such as Alice Weidel, leader of the far-right AfD party, which in 2025 consolidated its position as the second-largest political force in Germany. The myth that immigration "drives crime" does not stand up to comparison with the data. It is propaganda, not statistics; the core of racism disguised as public policy.

“They are going to replace us and destroy our purity.”

Donald Trump, the grandson of German immigrants and the son of a Scottish immigrant, has cultivated a selective xenophobia. He expresses his preference for immigrants from Nordic countries while launching attacks against Latin American communities. He called Mexicans “criminals, traffickers, and rapists,” although he later added: “Some, presumably, are good people.” In 2015, he declared: “I want nothing to do with Mexico except to build an impenetrable wall.” During a debate, he claimed without evidence that Haitian immigrants in Ohio “are eating the dogs, the cats, the pets.” Local officials denied his claims, but his remarks were followed by attacks on the Haitian community. A racist lie from the podium can turn into real violence. If that isn't racism, then what is?

Hate targets “others” with different cultures, languages, and colors, who are blamed for the country's ills. In 2023, during a rally in New Hampshire, Trump declared, “They're coming from Africa, Asia, Latin America... They're ruining our country. They're destroying the lifeblood of our country.” The reality is that we tend to think the Nazis disappeared with the defeat in World War II. But no: they're still there, and they're increasingly comfortable showing themselves in public.

The new right thrives on the joy of cruelty. Politicians, influencers, podcasters, businesspeople, and incels find pleasure in destroying others, turning fear and hatred into spectacle. They revel in the humiliation of their neighbors while proclaiming themselves defenders of a supposed "religion of love." This blatant hypocrisy reveals the essential truth: behind the moralistic facade and the "transformative power of God," what truly drives them is the pleasure of excluding, of subjugating, of exercising power through cruelty.

*Writer, international speaker, and analyst, with a degree in International Relations and Political Science. She is the author of several books, most recently, The New Right: What It Is, What Its Obsessions Are, and Why It Represents a Danger to Our Democracies.