The ”Othering” of America
Today’s Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric
As mental health advocates and professionals, we recognize how dehumanizing rhetoric harms both targeted communities and society at large. We hear it in the subtle language of patients, clients, and even neighbors, and witness the consequences in our conversations. Currently, many of us are increasingly hearing anti-immigrant language which employs classic “othering” tactics that parallel historical patterns of marginalization and persecution. Be mindful of the language being used and those who are using it. Not to police it, but to raise awareness and call it out for what it is in the same way we might ask another to notice their language use.
Key Figures & Their Rhetoric
Stephen Miller (Senior Advisor & Homeland Security)
Miller has been the primary architect of anti-immigrant language and policy, consistently framing immigration as an existential threat through several key narratives:
Criminalization: Miller routinely links immigrants to crime despite contradictory data, speaking of “innocent victims of illegal immigrant crime” and emphasizing “transnational cartels.” His “zero tolerance” policy deliberately separated families to send the message that “no one is exempt,” treating immigrants as threats to be “hunted down” rather than individuals with rights. This is the current language coming from the federal government. While some rhetoric links immigrants to crime, studies have shown that immigrants are significantly less likely to be incarcerated than native-born citizens.
Economic Scapegoating: Miller consistently portrays immigrants as taking jobs and draining resources while contributing nothing, pushing policies to reduce legal immigration and suspend green cards under the guise of protecting American workers.
Cultural Threat: Miller has promoted ideas from white nationalist literature like “The Camp of the Saints,” a racist novel depicting refugee “invasion.” He appears to take pleasure in mocking diversity as America's “national religion” and opposes birthright citizenship, suggesting even U.S.-born children of immigrants don't truly belong. Diversity has always been a strength of America, and immigrant families now make up over 25% of the population.
National Security: He championed the “Muslim ban” and advocates ending visas for Chinese students, painting entire nationalities and religious groups as security threats.
Kristi Noem (Secretary of Homeland Security)
Noem's rhetoric also reinforces these themes with stark us-versus-them language:
“Invasion” Narrative: She consistently describes border crossings as an “invasion,” narrowly framing immigrants as hostile forces “taking our jobs” rather than individuals seeking refuge.
Criminalization: “If you come here and break our laws, we will hunt you down. Criminals are not welcome,” she states, equating all undocumented immigrants with criminality despite scientifically verifiable lower crime rates among immigrant populations. Without due process, ICE is in fact usurping the law.
Economic Burden: Noem claims immigrants exploit taxpayer resources: “The gravy train is over... if you are an illegal immigrant, you should leave now.” This creates a false zero-sum narrative while ignoring immigrants’ economic contributions and just under $100 Billion in tax payments.
The Pattern of "Othering"
This rhetorical language employs four classic “othering” tactics:
Dehumanization: Reducing immigrants to threats, criminals, or burdens rather than recognizing their humanity.
Scapegoating: Blaming complex societal problems on immigrants.
Existential Threat Narrative: Portraying immigrants as dangers to national security, economy, and identity.
Invasion Metaphor: Using warfare language to justify harsh policies and public fear.
Historical Parallels
These and other tactics follow well-documented patterns used against marginalized groups, including the systematic dehumanization campaigns of Nazi Germany against Jews, Romani people, and political dissidents, and the KKK's “invasion” rhetoric particularly against Black Americans. The pattern remains consistent: depict targeted groups as criminals, economic burdens, or cultural pollutants to justify exclusion, persecution, or worse. It seeps into our more intimate conversations. Since when did this become acceptable? Of course, the internet and the echo chambers of social media have something to do with it.
The systematic “othering” of immigrants, as exemplified by the rhetoric of figures like Miller and Noem, is not a spontaneous phenomenon but rather a carefully constructed narrative. This process aligns with Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's concept of “manufacturing consent,” where powerful institutions, including the mass media, shape public opinion to align with the interests of those in power. Through their “propaganda model,” Chomsky and Herman demonstrate how filters like the invocation of an external threat (here, immigrants as an “invasion” or “criminal element”) and the reliance on official sources amplify dehumanizing rhetoric. This constant exposure to a singular, fear-mongering narrative subtly shifts societal norms, leading to the “normalization of deviance,” (see below) where previously unacceptable language and policies against marginalized groups become psychologically palatable and widely accepted as just the way things are.
Years ago, I had a teenage client with whom I had built a very strong therapeutic alliance. At the beginning of the session we eased into the serious work with some warmup chit-chat about the weather or whatever is in the air that day. He casually proceeded to share with me an antisemitic joke alluding to Jews and ovens. I suspect he noticed the altered look on my face when I gently reminded him that I grew up in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood with friends who had relatives perish in the Holocaust. It was a “teachable moment” and he immediately apologized for his thoughtless attempt at humor.
The Psychological Consequences
The corrosive and often emotionally charged rhetoric creates measurable psychological harm. Targeted communities experience chronic stress, hypervigilance, and social withdrawal that can lead to anxiety, depression, and trauma responses—especially in children. Meanwhile, the broader society outside of social media suffers from increased polarization, erosion of empathy, and moral injury.
Beyond individual psychological harm, this charged rhetoric predictably escalates to vigilante violence and mob behavior by the deeply disturbed. History shows how dehumanizing language precedes hate crimes, vigilante “justice,” and mass demonstrations where crowds become frenzied and violent. The psychological distance created by “othering” often makes participants feel justified in their actions, believing they're defending their community rather than attacking fellow humans. This insidious process aligns with what sociologist Diane Vaughan termed “the normalization of deviance,” where repeated exposure to and acceptance of previously unacceptable rhetoric and practices—such as the systematic dehumanization of immigrant groups—gradually shifts social norms. What was once considered extreme or abhorrent becomes ordinary, making increasingly harsh treatment of the “othered” group not just possible, but psychologically palatable by extremists. We are seeing it unfold before us now as it has done so for centuries.
Identifying and understanding these rhetorical patterns through a mental health lens reminds us that words can indeed shape our experience. We aren’t here to police language, but to be attuned to it and its consequences. Recognizing “othering” language is essential for protecting the psychological well-being of all communities and preventing the normalization of dehumanization that has historically led to increasingly cruel systematic oppression.
(Note: This has been a brief introduction to a much deeper dive into the nuanced use of “anti-woke” rhetoric I explore in my next piece. Stay tuned.)
So key that we speak out: As Benjamin Franklin said, "A republic if you can keep it.."