Are Immigrants Really a Threat to a Country?
Exploring the Stories We Tell…
It’s a question that repeatedly surfaces in news headlines, political speeches, and everyday conversations: Do immigrants pose a threat to the economy, security, or culture of a country? On the surface, statistics about employment, crime, and economic growth might seem to answer this question. Yet, the way narratives are crafted often shapes public perception far more than the numbers themselves. Across societies, immigrant communities have been framed alternately as contributors or as threats, and these stories have consequences for policy, social cohesion, and individual attitudes. This raises a crucial inquiry: How much of the perception of immigrants as a threat is rooted in fact, and how much is shaped by the stories we are told?
This question matters because storytelling and narrative framing are central to communication strategy and perception management. Stories influence how people interpret events, assign responsibility, and make judgments about groups of people. Understanding the mechanics of narrative helps distinguish between actual challenges and constructed fears, and allows communicators to design strategies that are both ethical and effective.
Framing Immigrants: Threat or Contributor?
Two broad narratives commonly circulate in public discourse about immigrants, each shaping perception in very different ways.
One dominant narrative frames immigrants as a threat. Within this story, immigrants are portrayed as straining public resources, taking jobs from citizens, or endangering national culture and identity. The storytelling techniques used to reinforce this narrative rely heavily on repetition and emotional framing, particularly fear and loss. Isolated incidents are selectively highlighted and amplified to represent entire communities. This narrative most often travels through high-visibility channels such as news headlines, political speeches, and viral social media posts, allowing it to reach large audiences quickly and repeatedly. Because of this high level of consistency across platforms, the message becomes familiar and, over time, normalized. Emotionally, it appeals to anxiety, anger, and a sense of national or tribal loyalty, often positioning immigrants as an “other” that must be controlled or excluded. The outcome of this storytelling approach is frequently increased polarization, public support for restrictive immigration policies, and the normalization of xenophobic attitudes.
In contrast, a second narrative presents immigrants as contributors to society. This story emphasizes how immigrants fill labor shortages, contribute to economic growth, drive innovation, and enrich cultural and social life. Rather than relying on fear-based framing, this narrative often highlights success stories, economic indicators, and personal experiences within communities. It is commonly shared through documentaries, community-based media, and feature articles that allow for nuance and depth. However, these stories tend to appear less consistently across major platforms and are often overshadowed by more emotionally charged content. The emotional appeal here centers on empathy, shared humanity, pride, and social cohesion. When this narrative gains visibility, it can foster greater public acceptance, support for inclusive policies, and stronger community integration, though its influence is often slower and less immediate than fear-based storytelling.
Taken together, these contrasting narratives illustrate how perception is shaped not only by facts, but by how stories are framed, repeated, and emotionally positioned. The same reality of immigration can produce vastly different public responses depending on which narrative dominates the communication environment.
Real-World Examples
European Migration Crisis (2015–2016)
During the influx of refugees from Syria and other conflict zones, media coverage often emphasized fear-based stories: overcrowded shelters, perceived security risks, and strain on public services. These narratives amplified anxiety, influencing public opinion and policy toward stricter immigration controls. Simultaneously, stories highlighting successful integration, entrepreneurship, and volunteer support existed but received comparatively less attention, demonstrating the asymmetry in narrative amplification.Canada’s Immigration Framing
Canada provides an interesting contrast. Media and government messaging often emphasize the economic and cultural contributions of immigrants, alongside success stories in innovation and labor market participation. This framing has helped shape a perception of immigrants as assets rather than threats, influencing more inclusive policy measures and public attitudes. The difference lies not in the reality of immigration but in how stories about immigrants are structured, repeated, and framed.United States – Political Rhetoric
Political campaigns have frequently used stories of immigrants as a threat to jobs or national security. Fear-based framing — often repeated across speeches, media coverage, and social media — has shaped perceptions of immigrant populations, influencing voter attitudes and policy debates. In parallel, narratives about immigrant entrepreneurship, cultural contributions, and essential workforce roles often receive fragmented or localized attention, illustrating the impact of message consistency on perception.
How Narratives Shape Perception
The repeated patterns across these examples reveal mechanisms that explain why some stories stick and others fade:
Repetition and ubiquity: Messages repeated across platforms and over time gain perceived credibility. Exposure alone can make a narrative feel true, even in the absence of strong evidence.
Emotional resonance: Fear, anger, and anxiety are particularly powerful drivers of memory and sharing. Emotionally charged stories are more likely to influence perception than neutral accounts.
Simplification into dichotomies: Casting immigrants as “us vs. them,” threats vs. contributors, good vs. bad, simplifies complex realities, making narratives easier to adopt and share.
Source credibility and trust: Audiences often accept stories from perceived authorities — politicians, media outlets, or social influencers — which strengthens the narrative’s influence.
Even when positive evidence exists — economic contributions, social integration, or cultural enrichment — it often lacks the narrative clarity or emotional resonance of threat-based stories. This imbalance illustrates how perception is shaped less by facts alone and more by how stories are told and circulated.
Comparing Narrative Effects
Examining the effects of different immigration narratives reveals how deeply storytelling shapes public perception. Threat-based narratives often reduce trust toward immigrants and toward institutions seen as supporting them, framing both as sources of risk or instability. This erosion of trust frequently translates into public support for restrictive, security-focused, or exclusionary policies. At the social level, such narratives tend to heighten polarization and reinforce an “us versus them” mindset, increasing tension between communities and narrowing the space for dialogue or mutual understanding.
Contributor-based narratives, by contrast, can gradually build trust by presenting immigrants as active participants in economic, social, and cultural life. These stories are more likely to encourage support for inclusive and integration-focused policies and to foster empathy, collaboration, and a sense of shared identity. Although their impact may unfold more slowly, repeated positive framing and lived experiences can reshape long-term perceptions, slowly influencing societal norms. Together, these contrasting effects highlight that public perception is not simply a reflection of reality, but a product of how narratives frame events, evoke emotion, and gain authority through repetition and credibility.
Questions for Reflection
Recognizing the power of storytelling in shaping perceptions about immigration opens a space for inquiry rather than simple conclusions:
How do narratives shape policies, laws, and social attitudes?
Which stories are amplified, and which remain untold or underrepresented?
How can communicators craft narratives that convey both truth and empathy without oversimplifying complex realities?
How do audiences critically evaluate emotionally charged stories versus factual reporting?
Instead of closing with a definitive statement, the question remains open: If the stories we hear can shape fear, trust, and understanding so strongly, what stories are we missing, and which ones will we choose to amplify next?
Interesting reads on the topic:
Vertovec, S. (2010). Migration and Social Cohesion: Ethnic Diversity, Narratives, and Public Perception.Alba, R., & Foner, N. (2015). Strangers No More: Immigration and the Challenges of Integration in North America and Western Europe.Khosravi, S. (2010). Illegal Traveller: An Auto-Ethnography of Borders.Zetter, R. (2007). More Labels, Fewer Refugees: Remaking the Refugee Label in the 21st Century.Verkuyten, M. (2018). Immigrant Integration and Intergroup Relations: Perception, Media, and Policy.
