Author: Leila Yukou Lai (Speakers and Academics Officer)
During the 2024 elections in both the UK and the US, immigration emerged as a prominent issue in political campaigns. Figures like Farage claimed that,
“Immigrants are causing divisions in communities and have made the UK unrecognisable”
Similarly, Trump’s campaigns included assertions such as,
“They are eating the cats and dogs”
“They are taking away your jobs”
Some of these statements are partial truths, while others are false information. This article will fact-check the prominent immigration-related claims from the 2024 elections. We will examine how political campaigns leverage concerns like economic threats, national security fears, and cultural anxieties to create sensationalised perceptions of immigration that shape public discourse in ways often misaligned with the underlying realities of the issues. Additionally, we will examine the psychological roots and impacts of immigration narratives.
We will further discuss practical strategies for addressing and countering such narratives in everyday life in our Feb 4th Event, so please register to join if it interests you.
Fact-Checking Prominent Claims & The Psychological Roots
Economic Threats
| Claim | Facts |
| “Mass immigration is making Britain poor……half of those that have come aren’t coming to work, they’re coming as dependants”Farage | The former part of the claim can be debunked by research led by Professor Dustmann from UCL, which found that immigrants to the UK, particularly those from the EEA and post-2004 EU accession states, made significant positive fiscal contributions, with EEA immigrants contributing 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits and recent EU immigrants adding £20 billion to the public purse. In contrast, UK natives’ tax payments fell 11% short of the benefits they received, resulting in a net cost of £617 billion. The latter part of the claim is partially accurate. The inaccuracy lies in the overall visa statistics, as only one-third of visas issued (all types) in the most recent reporting period were for dependents. However, regarding work visas specifically, he is almost correct—43% were dependents. Nevertheless, he omitted the fact that these dependents are ineligible for benefits but allowed to work, positioning them to potentially contribute to the economy rather than becoming a burden which he falsely implies. |
| “Immigrants are taking away your jobs”Trump | This claim can be debunked by insights from Economics research and experts. Firstly, economists from the Brookings Institution suggest that immigrants often fill labor-intensive positions, such as gutting fish or working in farm fields, which are typically shunned by native-born workers. This suggests that immigrants are not necessarily competing for the same jobs as the majority of American workers. In addition, analyses from the US National Bureau of Economic Research (2024) reports that immigration does not significantly drive down wages for American workers overall. Building on this, it’s noteworthy that, although immigrants represent around 15 percent of the general U.S. workforce, they account for about a quarter of the country’s entrepreneurs and inventors, according to Harvard Business Review. By creating new businesses and innovations, immigrants contribute to job creation and economic growth, further undermining the notion that they simply displace American workers. |
National Security Threats
| Claim | Facts |
| “We have more terrorists coming into our country now than we’ve ever had – ever in history, and this is a bad thing. We have thousands of terrorists coming into our country” Trump | This claim implies more terrorists have entered the US under the Biden ministration, which is misleading. Data from U.S Department of Homeland Security indicates that the actual number of individuals on the terrorist watchlist caught at the border is in the hundreds (139 at the southern border and 283 at the northern border as of July 2023), not the thousands as Trump claimed. Furthermore, since the 2021 fiscal year (the beginning of the Biden administration), the number of individuals on the U.S. government’s terrorist watchlist apprehended at the borders has increased each year. This trend indicates that border screening measures have become more rigorous, rather than more lenient as Trump suggested. |
| “We need to prepare for Channel migrant ‘invasion’ from countries ‘with terrorism, gang culture and war zones”Farage | While it is true that the top foreign nationals involved in UK terror-related offenses from 2002 to 2021 were people from Algeria, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Somalia, India, and Sri Lanka, it is important to note that these offenses represent a small fraction of their respective communities in the UK. In the year ending 30 September 2024, the highest number of terrorist crimes were still conducted by UK nationals and those who are ethnically White, according to data from the Home Office. Research published in the British Journal of Political Science shows there is little evidence indicating more migration unconditionally leads to more terrorist activity, especially in Western countries. |
Cultural Anxieties
| Claim | Facts |
| “Immigrants are causing divisions in communities and have made the UK unrecognisable”Farage | Concerns about cultural identity are rather subjective and difficult to address purely with data. However, Farage’s claim can still be challenged, a review conducted by the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society at the University of Oxford, which concludes that higher ethnic diversity in UK localities does not consistently correlate with higher social tension. Instead, local economic factors (e.g., unemployment, funding for public services) are more predictive of community conflict. Therefore, this claim of immigration undermining social cohesion lacks credibility. |
| “In Springfields, they are eating the cats and dogs”Trump | This claim was fostered by a comment made by Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, who later admitted in an interview with CNN that he was willing to “create stories” to get his message across. According to state officials from Ohio, even Republican leader Mike Dewine, there is no credible evidence to support the rumor that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are stealing or eating pets. Local law enforcement and animal control records do not reflect any such incidents, and no verified reports exist. |
Sensationalised Language, Psychological Impact of Immigration Narratives
Having clarified the relevant facts, let’s now examine the linguistic choice employed by conservative leaders in their claims about immigration. Even if some of their claims are partially correct, it is undeniable that the statements are highly sensationalised and crafted to elicit strong emotional responses. This dynamic was evident in Ohio, where baseless allegations about the Haitian community in Springfield eating pets triggered public panic and a wave of hoax bomb threats. Similarly, in England, false narratives claiming that an asylum seeker was the perpetrator of a knife attack in Southport, though not directly linked to Farage’s claims, led to widespread riots spanning from Plymouth to Sunderland.
One reason such rhetoric remains effective is its reliance on several psychological phenomena, including in-group/out-group biases and the negativity bias. For instance, using language like “invasion”, Farage portrays migrants as an external force poised to disrupt national order, framing the situation in a way that elicits anxiety and heightens threat perception. This framing aligns with Social Identity Theory, whereby the in-group (domestic population) feels compelled to defend itself against the out-group (immigrants). Similarly, when Trump claims immigrants are “taking away your jobs” or there are “thousands of terrorists coming into our country”, he is tapping into the negativity bias which refers to the human tendency to pay more attention to, and be more influenced by, negative or threatening information than by neutral or positive details. These emotional depictions overshadow data indicating, for instance, the benefits that immigration brings to local economies or that instances of immigrant-linked terrorism are statistically rare.
In addition, repeated exposure to a single narrative can increase people’s belief in its accuracy, even when that information is demonstrably false. Therefore, simply by the virtue of repetition, political campaigns can embed the same message into public consciousness without necessarily adhering to factual accuracy. As a result, it is challenging for data-driven clarifications about immigration to break through the emotional impact of sensational rhetoric. Nonetheless, recognising these psychological levers is a crucial step toward fostering more nuanced, evidence-based discussions on immigration, rather than allowing panic and misinformation to drive policy and public sentiment.
Susceptibility to Immigration Misinformation
Research suggests that individuals with higher levels of ethnic moral disengagement are more likely to believe in racial hoaxes. Moral disengagement occurs when an individual justifies or rationalises harmful beliefs or behaviours, often by dehumanising out-groups or reframing actions as morally acceptable. This cognitive process allows individuals to convince themselves that commonly accepted ethical standards don’t apply to them, hindering their empathetic capacity, especially toward marginalised groups. Such tendencies are often linked to authoritarian worldviews, which favor strict hierarchies and resist social change, making these individuals particularly susceptible to immigration misinformation.
Our speakers for the upcoming event, Dr. Tessa Buchanan and Malia Marks, have both conducted research on the relationship between authoritarian tendencies and susceptibility to immigration misinformation, and they will share their findings with us further at the event. Their insights will not only shed light on the psychological dynamics of misinformation but also equip us with tools to critically assess narratives surrounding immigration. We invite you to join us on Feb 5th at the Queen’s College, Cambridge for a fruitful discussion.
Discover more from Students Against Pseudoscience
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Students Against Pseudoscience 