In recent years, the political landscapes of the United Kingdom and the United States have undergone significant transformation, marked by the rise of nationalism, the emergence of populist leaders, and an escalating phobia toward immigrants. Two pivotal events—Brexit in the UK and the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States—illustrate this global trend. Both phenomena were significantly fueled by nationalist ideologies and anti-immigrant sentiments. In this essay, I explore the interconnections between Brexit, Trump’s ascent, and the rise of xenophobia, examining the factors that propelled these movements and their shared impact on public perceptions of immigration.

Brexit and Nationalism in the UK

The Brexit referendum, in which the UK voted to leave the European Union (EU) in 2016, was influenced by multiple factors, with immigration fears at the forefront. The “Leave” campaign adeptly tapped into anxieties regarding the perceived loss of national sovereignty and the impact of immigration. Slogans like “Take Back Control” resonated with voters who felt disempowered by globalized institutions such as the EU. Prominent figures like Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), employed provocative rhetoric to amplify public fears, famously stating, “We want our country back,” which linked immigration to the erosion of British identity and economic stability.

The 2015 refugee crisis, characterized by a substantial influx of asylum seekers from regions like Syria, further intensified fears surrounding immigration. Many Britons expressed concern over the potential strain on public services, job availability, and housing. Boris Johnson, a leading figure in the Leave campaign, exploited these anxieties by warning that remaining in the EU would result in “more uncontrolled immigration, putting more pressure on our NHS, schools, and public services.” This rhetoric reflected a deeper societal fear that immigrants were undermining British culture and posing an existential threat to traditional ways of life.

Brexit represented not merely a rejection of the EU but also a broader societal backlash against globalization and the role of immigration. The campaign effectively utilized concerns about the free movement of people within the EU, framing immigrants as scapegoats for economic challenges and social dislocation. As scholar David Goodhart argues, Brexit manifested as a response from those who felt “left behind” by globalization and multiculturalism, driven by a desire to safeguard national identity.

The Rise of Donald Trump and Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric

Parallel to Brexit, Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States in 2016 was grounded in a platform heavily centered on anti-immigration rhetoric. His campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” resonated with voters who believed that immigration, among other factors, had weakened the nation. Trump made bold promises to construct a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and to implement a ban on all Muslims entering the United States, extreme manifestations of fear and suspicion directed at immigrants and refugees.

Trump’s rhetoric framed immigrants as threats to American jobs, security, and culture. In a campaign speech in 2015, he stated, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best… They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” This dehumanizing language played on longstanding xenophobic sentiments, tapping into fears related to crime and terrorism that became central to his base’s concerns. His administration’s policies, such as the travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries and the controversial separation of families at the southern border, reinforced the notion that immigrants posed an inherent danger to national security.

Economic insecurity significantly contributed to Trump’s rise as well. Many of his supporters, especially from the working class, felt marginalized by globalization and believed that immigrants were responsible for job losses. Trump positioned himself as the champion of the “forgotten” American worker, framing immigrants as the root cause of economic decline. Scholars Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart note that Trump’s victory was emblematic of a broader populist trend, wherein traditional elites and international institutions were perceived as failing to protect national interests.

US-Mexico Border

Immigration Phobia: A Global Phenomenon

The phobia toward immigrants that characterized both Brexit and Trump’s rise reflects a broader global trend: the resurgence of nativism and nationalist sentiment. Right-wing populist movements across Europe and the United States have gained traction by identifying immigration as a primary source of societal issues. These movements often depict immigrants as “others,” portraying them as culturally incompatible, economically burdensome, and dangerous.

The fear of immigrants has been exacerbated by a confluence of economic and cultural factors. Economically, the repercussions of globalization—such as outsourcing, automation, and the decline of manufacturing—have disproportionately impacted working-class communities, leading to increased insecurity. This insecurity has been redirected toward anti-immigrant sentiment, as immigrants are frequently scapegoated for economic struggles. Culturally, the growing visibility of immigrant communities has sparked fears of cultural dilution. Sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild highlights that many supporters of both Brexit and Trump articulate a “deep story” of loss and resentment, feeling like “strangers in their own land” as demographic shifts transform their societies.

Politically, leaders like Farage and Trump have exploited these anxieties, framing immigration as a threat to national identity and security. Their rhetoric is characterized by a sharp rejection of multiculturalism and a call to restore a perceived lost sense of national purity. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, another populist figure, encapsulates this sentiment, asserting, “We do not want our color, traditions, and national culture to be mixed with those of others.” This nativist rhetoric has proven effective in mobilizing voters who feel marginalized by globalization and multiculturalism, underscoring the complex interplay of nationalism and anti-immigration sentiment in contemporary politics.

The Role of Immigration Phobia in the 2024 U.S. Elections: A Catalyst for Trump’s Return

As the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaches, immigration has re-emerged as a pivotal issue, particularly among pro-Trump voters. Despite Donald Trump’s involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection—widely viewed as an attempted coup—his support base remains fiercely loyal. The potential for immigration phobia to act as a platform for Trump’s return to the White House should not be underestimated. His re-election campaign is once again highlighting a hardline stance on immigration, resurrecting many of the anti-immigrant themes that defined his 2016 campaign.

A substantial portion of Trump’s voter base continues to harbor the belief that immigrants threaten American jobs, security, and cultural identity. This sentiment has persisted into the 2024 election cycle, enabling Trump to redirect attention away from controversies surrounding the January 6 insurrection and his theft of national documents. Many voters deeply concerned about immigration might overlook Trump’s role in the Capitol riot and theft of document, rationalizing that his immigration policies are more crucial to the country’s future. Political analyst Thomas Edsall (2023) notes, “For many voters, immigration is not just another policy issue, but a lens through which they view the world. This makes it a powerful mobilizer, even in the face of Trump’s democratic transgressions.”

Trump frequently employs inflammatory rhetoric about immigrants to energize his supporters. During a recent rally, he reiterated his familiar assertion that immigrants are “invading” the U.S., proclaiming, “We’re going to stop the invasion at our southern border. We’re going to put America first, as we did before” (Trump, 2024). Such statements resonate with the fears that fueled his initial rise in 2016 and continue to echo among voters who perceive immigration as a primary cause of economic and social decline.

A key strategy of Trump’s campaign is to frame the election as a battle to protect the nation from external threats, with immigrants positioned as a significant danger. Historian Jill Lepore (2023) argues that “Trump’s immigration narrative is deeply tied to his vision of a restored America, one that many of his supporters feel has been undermined by demographic changes.” By concentrating on this narrative, Trump fosters a sense of urgency and fear among his base, convincing them that only his leadership can secure the nation’s borders.

Immigration Phobia as a Political Tool

The phobia toward immigrants is not merely a reflection of societal fears but also a powerful political instrument. In the context of the 2024 election, this fear is being wielded to obscure Trump’s anti-democratic actions during his presidency. By emphasizing immigration, Trump can sidestep accountability for the January 6 insurrection and his theft of national security documents; many of his supporters prioritize border security and national identity over the democratic principles threatened during the event of January 6. As one commentator observed, “For many pro-Trump voters, the coup attempt is seen as a secondary issue compared to what they perceive as an existential crisis at the border” (Eberstadt, 2023).

The upcoming election will likely hinge on the tension between concerns over democracy and fears regarding immigration. Trump’s ability to deflect criticism of his role in the Capitol riot by focusing on immigration highlights the pervasive xenophobia within the U.S. political landscape. Polls consistently rank immigration among the top issues for Republican voters, often overshadowing concerns about Trump’s behavior while in office. According to a Pew Research Center survey, 70% of Trump voters in 2024 identified immigration as one of the most pressing issues facing the country, while only 15% cited concerns about the January 6 insurrection (Pew Research, 2023).

Furthermore, the persistence of misinformation regarding immigration—particularly around crime and economic impacts—intensifies this phobia. Trump has effectively amplified these fears through both mainstream and social media, portraying immigrants as direct threats to American sovereignty. His messaging appeals to voters’ insecurities, particularly those who feel left behind by globalization and perceive immigrants as the source of their economic struggles. Political scientist Michael Tesler (2023) argues, “Trump’s campaign has effectively fused economic populism with nativism, creating a potent narrative that resonates with voters who feel that the country is slipping away from them.”

Understanding U.S. Immigration: Visa Overstays vs. Border Crossings

The discourse surrounding immigration in the United States has long been contentious, often focusing on illegal immigration, visa overstays, and border security. However, a more nuanced understanding reveals that the so-called “immigration problem” is more complex than political figures like Trump often portray.

The perception of illegal immigration has largely been shaped by images of individuals crossing the southern border, overshadowing a critical reality: a significant portion of unauthorized immigrants are not border crossers but visa overstayers. According to reports from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), nearly half of the undocumented population in the U.S. consists of individuals who initially entered the country legally on work or tourist visas but subsequently overstayed their permitted duration. As of 2023, it is estimated that around 42% of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. fall into this category (PolitiFact, 2023).

While the number of border encounters has surged in recent years—U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recorded 2.1 million encounters in fiscal year 2023, primarily from Mexico and Central American countries—the distinction between border crossers and visa overstayers is critical. In fact, as border crossings have declined, the proportion of unauthorized immigrants due to visa overstays has steadily increased (Pew Research Center, 2022).

The primary difference between these two categories lies in their entry methods: border crossers enter the country without authorization, while visa overstayers enter legally but remain beyond their allowed duration. This distinction has significant policy implications, as the current political narrative tends to emphasize border security while neglecting the growing issue of visa overstays.

With the above in mind, it must be noted that immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—play a multifaceted role in the U.S. economy, contributing in both beneficial and challenging ways. A prevalent criticism of immigration is that it creates job competition, with the narrative that immigrants are “stealing” jobs from native-born workers. However, extensive research indicates that the effects of immigration on the labor market are far more nuanced than this simplistic view suggests.

Immigrants, especially those who enter the U.S. legally, are integral to the labor force, particularly in critical sectors such as agriculture, construction, education, IT, and healthcare. They often occupy jobs that native-born workers are unwilling or unable to fill. According to the Pew Research Center, unauthorized immigrants represent about 4.8% of the U.S. workforce, serving as an essential labor supply in various industries (Pew Research, 2023). Furthermore, immigrants contribute to economic growth by paying taxes; many unauthorized immigrants contribute billions of dollars in state and local taxes, even though they are ineligible for most federal benefits.

Additionally, immigrants are significant contributors to entrepreneurship. Research shows that immigrants are more likely to start businesses than native-born Americans. Notable companies such as Apple, Google, and Tesla were founded by immigrants or their children. These enterprises not only create jobs but also drive innovation and contribute to overall economic expansion.

Despite these positive contributions, immigration presents certain challenges. One of the main concerns is that an influx of low-skilled immigrants may suppress wages for native-born workers, particularly those with lower educational attainment. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that while immigration can enhance overall productivity, it may also lead to modest wage reductions in specific low-skilled sectors (NBER, 2021). Furthermore, local governments—especially in border states—often face financial burdens associated with providing public services such as healthcare and education to unauthorized immigrants.

The Role of Propaganda in Shaping Immigration Perceptions Among Pro-Trump Supporters

A core element of Donald Trump’s political platform, particularly during his 2016 campaign, was the assertion that immigrants were “stealing jobs” from native-born Americans, especially in working-class sectors. This narrative resonated with many voters, particularly those who felt economically displaced by immigration and globalization. However, this perception overlooks the complexities of labor market dynamics and the significant positive contributions of immigrants to the U.S. economy.

Pro-Trump hardliners, particularly within the white working class, are often influenced by this anti-immigrant propaganda. They frequently observe immigrants filling roles in industries where they themselves may be unemployed or underemployed. Jobs in sectors such as agriculture, construction, and services are often physically demanding or offer relatively low wages, making them unattractive to many native-born workers. Ironically, these sectors have long depended on immigrant labor, as they are difficult to fill with native-born individuals.

A 2016 study from the National Academy of Sciences indicated that immigrants generally do not displace native-born workers; rather, they complement them. Immigrants typically take on low-skilled, labor-intensive jobs that native-born Americans are reluctant to pursue. This contribution enhances overall productivity and sustains crucial industries like agriculture, where immigrant labor helps keep food prices low (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016). Despite this evidence, many Trump supporters are drawn to the oversimplified narrative of job theft, as it offers an easily identifiable scapegoat for their economic challenges.

The propaganda linking immigration to job loss also obscures broader economic realities, such as the effects of automation and globalization on traditional manufacturing and blue-collar sectors. Many jobs in these areas have vanished due to technological advancements and the outsourcing of labor to countries with lower production costs, rather than immigration (Autor, Dorn, & Hanson, 2013). Nevertheless, the anti-immigrant rhetoric provides an emotionally satisfying explanation for those feeling left behind in a shifting economy, distracting from systemic issues like economic inequality and the transition to a service-oriented labor market.

Moreover, the skill sets of immigrants and native-born workers often do not significantly overlap. Immigrants are represented in both low-skilled and high-skilled jobs—fields where either native-born workers lack the necessary qualifications or are unwilling to work. For example, immigrants play a vital role in information technology and healthcare, sectors experiencing a shortage of skilled labor. However, these positive contributions are frequently overshadowed by fears surrounding job competition in blue-collar industries (Pew Research Center, 2023).

In reality, immigrants are essential to addressing labor shortages in various sectors. Yet, the “job stealing” myth persists because it simplifies a complex economic landscape into an easily digestible narrative. Politicians like Trump have effectively leveraged this narrative to rally support among disillusioned workers, presenting immigrants as a visible cause of their problems, even as broader structural forces are at play.

Conclusion

The rise of nationalism, populism, and anti-immigrant sentiment in both the UK and the U.S. reflects a broader reaction to the perceived threats of globalization. Key events such as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump exemplify this global trend, driven by fears surrounding economic insecurity, cultural erosion, and a perceived decline in national identity. In both instances, political leaders have employed anti-immigration rhetoric to rally support, portraying immigrants as scapegoats for societal issues. While these movements may provide a temporary sense of empowerment for individuals who feel marginalized, they also exacerbate societal divisions and fuel xenophobia.

As the 2024 election approaches, fears surrounding immigration continue to resonate with many voters, potentially becoming a pivotal issue in Trump’s campaign for re-election. The focus on immigration has become a powerful force in American politics, enabling Trump to divert attention from his involvement in the January 6 coup attempt and redirect the conversation towards border security and national identity. This phenomenon underscores how deeply ingrained xenophobia is within certain voter segments. As the election progresses, it remains uncertain whether immigration concerns will overshadow the need to hold Trump accountable for his anti-democratic actions.

The U.S. immigration system is intricate, with both visa overstays and unauthorized border crossings contributing to the undocumented immigrant population. While political discourse often emphasizes border security, it is crucial to consider the broader context of immigration, including the significant role that visa overstays play. Economically, immigrants undeniably benefit the U.S. economy by driving growth, fostering innovation, and filling essential labor market gaps. However, concerns about job competition and the cost of public services must also be acknowledged.

In summary, the portrayal of immigration as a “problem” in America is frequently exaggerated for political gain, with fear-mongering overshadowing factual analysis. A balanced approach to immigration policy should recognize both the challenges and the substantial contributions of immigrants to American society, moving beyond divisive rhetoric to encourage informed and constructive dialogue. Addressing visa overstays, refining border policies, and establishing pathways for legal immigration could provide a more comprehensive solution, benefiting both immigrants and the native-born population.

The persistent belief that immigrants are “stealing” jobs is not only misleading but also dangerous, as it fosters division between working-class Americans and immigrants, who often fill crucial roles in sectors that rely on their labor. By fixating on immigrants as the source of economic woes, many pro-Trump supporters overlook larger economic forces, such as automation and outsourcing, that are the true culprits of job displacement. A more nuanced understanding of immigration and labor market dynamics reveals that immigrants are not the root cause of economic challenges for working-class Americans; rather, they play a vital role in sustaining essential industries.

References

Autor, D., Dorn, D., & Hanson, G. H. (2013). The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States. American Economic Review, 103(6), 2121-2168.

Eberstadt, N. (2023). Immigration and Trump’s Base: How Xenophobia Shapes Political Allegiances. Politico.

Edsall, T. (2023). How Immigration Became the Defining Issue of 2024. The New York Times.

Farage, N. (2016). “We want our country back.” The Guardian.

Goodhart, D. (2017). The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics. C. Hurst & Co.

Hochschild, A. R. (2016). Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. The New Press.

Johnson, B. (2016). “We can control immigration if we leave the EU.” The Telegraph.

Lepore, J. (2023). The Trump Era: Immigration, Nationalism, and the Future of American Democracy. The Atlantic.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge University Press.

Orbán, V. (2018). “We do not want our color, traditions, and national culture to be mixed with others.” The New York Times.

Pew Research Center. (2022). What we know about unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org

Pew Research Center. (2023). Immigrants in the U.S. Workforce. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org

Pew Research Center. (2023). Top Issues for Republican Voters in 2024: Immigration Dominates. Pew Research Center.

PolitiFact. (2023). Visa overstays account for ‘half’ of all people in the country illegally. Retrieved from https://www.politifact.com

Tesler, M. (2023). Economic Populism and Nativism in the Trump Era. Journal of Political Science.

Trump, D. (2015). “When Mexico sends its people.” Campaign speech transcript.

Trump, D. (2024). Campaign Speech. Rally in Arizona.

USAFacts. (2023). US Immigration & Border Security Statistics and Data Trends. Retrieved from https://www.usafacts.org