“They are criminals,” “they are invading our country,” “they bring disease,” “they are eating the dogs,” “they are changing the culture.” When you read these words, you immediately know who “they” are: the immigrants. You’ve been bombarded with this rhetoric. Insults and de meaning remarks against immigrants have seemingly peaked in recent years and are inescapable. As someone who regularly writes on immigration, I often hear from readers about how incendiary they find the current discourse around immigration. These are people who, honoring the American spirit, welcome peaceful newcomers and know that these attacks are unmerited and damaging, because they know that most immigrants are peaceful, productive people who come here to build a life in freedom. While the way that political leaders and their followers speak of immigrants today may be worse than it was 20 years ago, this phenomenon is not new. America has a long history of hateful rhetoric against immigrants, and this way of thinking and speaking is partially responsible for the horrific policies enacted in American history to keep newcomers out. One of the many examples is the treatment of the Chinese in the 19th century, when they began arriving to America in large numbers.  The Chinese newcomers were different from Americans in their appearance and traditions, and many Americans felt the Chinese were a threat. Americans declared that the Chinese were “taking our jobs” and lowering working conditions. They declared that the Chinese were “uncivilized, unclean, filthy beyond conception” and that they were sexually depraved. They deemed the Chinese an “invasion.” This portrayal of Chinese immigrants became mainstream, to the point where advertisements for home appliances and other goods were banking on the hatred of these immigrants by espousing overtly racist phrases and lines like “the Chinese must go” to sell products. The vilification of Chinese immigrants led to one of the most shameful laws in American history: the Chinese Exclusion Act. This law, among other things, halted the immigration of most Chinese nationals and excluded them from naturalization. In part because the government held that the Chinese endangered certain localities, it became easy to rationalize brutal violence against them. (The law was so racist and had such negative impact that Congress passed a rare resolution in 2011 expressing regret for the legislation.) This legislation made its way through Congress back then in part because there was societal acceptance of the false belief that the Chinese were immutably immoral and threatening. The rhetoric that politicians and other influential actors had pushed against them made it easy to limit their immigration, despite some opposition to this treatment of the Chinese. By the 1920s, the disparagement of immigrants had expanded well beyond the Chinese to other Asians and to Eastern Europeans, who were deemed “inferior” and a threat to America’s “racial purity.” False rhetoric around the alleged built-in inability of these immigrants to assimilate, and claims that they were bringing un-American ideologies that would irreparably harm the culture, were ubiquitous. For example, a 1921 New York Times editorial argued that these immigrants were irredeemably bringing “diseases of ignorance and Bolshevism” to America. Many academics endorsed these ideas and praised eugenics, which became trendy within scholarly circles and the American public. A popular 1916 book by eugenicist Madison Grant titled “The Passing of the Great Race” argued that “inferior” immigrants were out-crowding white Americans, and blamed them for decreasing quality of life, lowering birth rates, among other problems—all false accusations that became widespread in the American culture. Adolf Hitler would later refer to Grant’s book as his “bible.” These ideas paved the way to the 1924 National Origins Act, an immigration law that picked up on the racist accusations against immigrants to justify extremely draconian restrictions to immigration. This law slashed immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe, as well as Asia. It also closed the door to freedom seekers worldwide, including Jewish refugees escaping the Nazis. Madison Grant’s demonization of immigrants was directly cited during the Congressional debates over the 1924 Act.  (It remains a little-known fact that the book that Hitler deemed his “bible” was the same which inspired America’s immigration system in 1924.) The act wasn’t fully repealed until 1965, when it was recognized how unjust and discriminatory this legislation was, though elements of it remain in our current system.  The denigration of immigrants in public discourse over time contributed to creating a fertile ground where these un-American restrictions could flourish. The failure to counteract vilifying rhetoric led to it becoming policy. As Ayn Rand once put it: “The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent, by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other— until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.” When rhetoric reduces immigrants to invaders, criminals, or cultural threats, it paves the way for policies that strip them of their basic rights and humanity and erode freedom for everyone in America. The tribal vilification of the Japanese during WWII facilitated support for the internment of 120,000 Japanese and American citizens in concentration camps, marking one of the most disgraceful eras in America’s history. Some of the arguments that were once used to justify barring Chinese immigrants, restricting Europeans, and turning away Jewish refugees are now used to justify harsh crackdowns, indefinite detentions, and mass deportations. But history has also shown us that these policies age poorly. Most Americans now view them as a shameful stain on the nation’s history. Will Americans continue to repeat the same mistakes that future generations will feel ashamed of? If Americans are to avoid past mistakes, they must resist falling prey to tribalistic discourses. The rhetoric and ideas we accept and don’t contest today shapes the policies of tomorrow. And, with history as our warning, we should be very wary of where this road leads. Agustina Vergara Cid is a Young Voices Contributor. You can follow her on X at @agustinavcid ...read more read less