It is not hard to envision. One hundred thousand migrants arrive at the U.S. southern border. They carry backpacks, little ones, and all the cash they own. Human rights volunteers listen to their horror stories of gangs and tell them they can apply for asylum. Yet when they attempt to do so, the officer tells them that they must first apply in Mexico and be denied before they can do so in the United States. Never mind the rape, kidnapping, assault, and death of fellow migrants that they witnessed in Mexico. Never mind the fact that Mexico’s asylum system is not set up to handle the hundreds of thousands of applicants. When they protest, they are told they can download an app to try for one of a handful of appointments. Their phone was stolen in Tapachula, and the wifi in the migrant shelter is restricted, but they nonetheless realize this is their only hope. They spend their days in the shelter waiting for the one computer, clicking frantically and trying to ignore the cast of unsavory characters just outside. 

This is not immigration under Trump. This is 2023. Yet the xenophobic tendencies he stoked still loom large. It is no secret that the Trump Administration approached international issues with a zealous vilification of “the other,” particularly in immigration. What is less expected is that Biden would continue this legacy. Yet in February 2023, Biden released a rule that is a direct replication of a Trump-era policy. The proposed rule prohibits migrants arriving on the southern border from seeking asylum unless they have first applied and been denied in another country they pass through. 

Biden campaigned on a more humane approach to immigration. Yet his policies have not mirrored his campaign rhetoric because of the continued xenophobia dominating domestic narratives. Continued demonization of migrants has allowed conservative states to stall Biden’s efforts in the courts, fueled fury over increased border crossings, and thwarted any ability to pursue comprehensive immigration reform. Other countries, such as Germany, have also faced strong nationalistic pressures regarding immigration. Yet the German government has not let these forces run rampant in policy. Rather, Germany has tempered anti-immigrant sentiment, rejecting xenophobia as the norm. If the U.S. wants to transcend the Trump era and mend the gap between rhetoric and policy in immigration, it needs to learn from Germany in how to reframe public visions of refugees. Only then can it have the necessary latitude to uphold even its most basic of commitments to refugee rights, rights that were once considered the norm.   

Domestic Pressures, For Better or Worse 

While there are certainly differences, Germany nevertheless could provide a useful template in how to temper domestic xenophobia and prevent it from becoming the prevailing norm. Key similarities make for a useful comparison. First, both Germany and the U.S. have faced a surge in anti-immigrant sentiment in the last ten years. In Germany, one 2019 study found that over 54% of respondents expressed negative opinions regarding asylum seekers, representing an increase of 10 points since 2014 and five points since 2016. Because migration to Germany peaked in 2015 and 2016, anti-immigrant sentiment thus increased even as actual migration numbers decreased. Even in 2022, 36% of Germans believed their country should not except any more refugees. 

The U.S. has seen similar trends in sentiment. Public opinion has trended more anti-immigrant post-Trump, with more Americans saying they want less legal immigration than in 2018. Indeed, it remains a highly salient issue on the right, with twice as many Republicans saying that it was their top issue in October 2022 as Democrats. Ahead of the 2022 midterms, media outlets reported how describing immigration in terms of an invasion moved from fringe discourse to mainstream on the right, likely because studies show that fear-based narratives on immigration capture more attention. Even democratic moderates began to parrot Trump-like calls for border security and physical barriers ahead of the 2022 midterms. Such trends illustrate how anti-immigrant sentiment on the right thus tends to control the narrative, as it is more easily distilled into a catchy soundbite.

Additionally, both the U.S. and Germany are democracies that remain highly cognizant of public opinion in foreign policy, domestic affairs, and issues that span both realms. However, key divergences lie in both their differing electoral systems and the fact that Germany remains beholden to the European Union (EU) in terms of immigration policy. Proportional representation in Germany certainly allows for moderating coalitions to form, which help thwart extremist wings. This key difference makes rooting out xenophobic policies easier in Germany. Additionally, the EU’s Dublin Regulation provides a mechanism, at least in theory, for arriving refugees to receive similar levels of protection irrespective of the EU country they enter. In practice, however, asylum legislation still varies, and domestic factors influence these policies. Thus the U.S. can still learn from the ways in which Germany has kept ahold of the narrative on migration.    

Tempering Anti-Immigrant Sentiment in Germany 

Despite some underlying similarities, the U.S. and German administrations have diverged in how they frame asylum-seekers. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel set the tone in 2015, when she famously said “Wir schaffen das” or “We will manage this” in response to the spike in refugees arriving primarily from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. While her remark and policies certainly generated backlash for years and further radicalized far-right politics, Merkel did not cave to the backlash. Rather she continued to paint asylum as an essential duty, asserting positions such as “If Europe fails on the question of refugees, then it won’t be the Europe we wished for.” 

The resulting backlash also did not elect a subsequent anti-immigrant federal government. Rather, Chancellor Olaf Scholz of the pro-immigration Social Democratic Party set the tone by reassuring that “Germany is an immigration country” in his speech laying out plans for the coming years. Along with a strong response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Germany under Scholz has taken in over 1 million Ukrainian refugees, the majority of whom report feeling welcome in Germany. Scholz has frequently framed the issue as one of moral responsibility, proclaiming “the responsibility for refugees goes above and beyond what is often discussed in this country. It isn't just Germany, but all of Europe has a responsibility.” Although it may be easier to Scholz to speak to German’s sense of moral duty towards asylum-seekers that share a similar ethnic background, the U.S. can nevertheless learn from the language of responsibility when it comes to characterizing its refugee situation. 

Despite the prevailing anti-immigrant sentiment, Germany’s strong governmental stance on migration has allowed it to pursue common-sense policies. In addition to continuing to accept high numbers of refugees, the new coalition government has made integrating new immigrants a priority. One rule allows even rejected asylum-seekers to stay in Germany permanently if they have a job with sufficient income and have learned German. An additional 2021 coalition agreement allows dual citizenship, speeds up asylum and residency applications, creates more visa opportunities, and makes family reunification easier for refugees. 

Meanwhile, the Biden Administration has been unable to remove multiple Trump-era policies, never mind advance comprehensive immigration reform. When Biden sought to terminate a Trump-era policy known as Remain in Mexico—which forced asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases worked through the asylum courts—a federal judge in Texas issued an injunction blocking termination. This lawsuit rested on public claims that immigration was straining the states’ education and healthcare systems. As a result, the policy was kept in place for another seven months until the Supreme Court issued a mandate. Such changes were largely moot anyway because Biden has kept an overarching policy, known as Title 42, in place. Title 42 is an obscure public health law that has been used since the beginning of the pandemic to shut the U.S.-Mexico border down to asylum seekers. With the COVID-19 public health emergency set to expire in May 2023, Title 42 will expire as well. Instead of allowing for comprehensive access to asylum, Biden is instead proposing a transit ban that would in practice still bar migrants arriving at the southern border from seeking U.S. asylum. In doing so, he is allowing the lingering wave of xenophobia to define his legacy on immigration.

Lessons from Germany

When a top-down, populist leader like Trump unleashes and legitimizes rampant xenophobia, it doesn’t disappear overnight with a new administration. Rather, such a narrative may require a subsequent top-down approach to temper it. A new leader may need to convince the population towards a particular path, in this case, one of moral and practical responsibility. Biden faced this situation when he stepped into office. His failure to fundamentally reframe immigration and the public image of today’s refugees led to his inability to sufficiently galvanize his base on this issue enough to withstand the pressures from the right. This in turn has led to the persistence of Trump-era approaches. Yet it is not too late. Biden can still take the bolder road that Angela Merkel took in 2015. He can reframe immigration as a challenge the United States can handle. He can recharacterize migrants as people fleeing unbelievable situations, worthy of both rights and human dignity.  

To accomplish such reframing, Biden should take several key lessons from Germany. Biden should begin by normalizing discourse around migration to transcend frames characterizing it as a perpetual crisis. With climate change propelling displacement, migration is going to be a key mode of adaptation, and the number of migrants arriving at the southern border will only increase. Framing human mobility as a crisis —rather than our response to it as the crisis—overly focuses on stemming inexorable migration and avoids responsibility. Biden should instead characterize migration as an understandable response to global crises, rather than an individual choice. 

Once defining the long-term nature of migration, Biden should then return to an emphasis on values to argue that the U.S. has a responsibility to accept refugees. This duty stems not only from its role as a global hegemon but also from America’s purported emphasis on immigration as essential to its core identity. This is the type of messaging Biden pursued during his campaign, and studies show that these messages tend to resonate best with Americans. Just as Angela Merkel warned that a Europe failing on refugee affairs would be a failed Europe, Biden should remind us that shutting out immigrants pulls us farther from the country’s proclaimed principles.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz is also not afraid to speak practically about migration, and Biden should take note. Scholz has been reminding Germans that encouraging immigration will be crucial to support its aging population. Biden can also speak practically by returning to an emphasis on the fact that immigrants are essential workers that fill crucial jobs and keep our economy running. Such discourse was commonplace during the COVID-19 pandemic, frequent in Biden’s campaign, and could be leveraged once again. 

Local leaders often push back on pro-immigrant reforms out of fear of being overwhelmed and stretched for resources. This is true in both Germany and the U.S. In Germany, the coalition government responded with an agreement to provide two billion Euros to federal states to help integrate and accommodate Ukrainian refugees. Despite the political games played by states such as Florida and Texas (who transported immigrants to Democratic states to make a point), Biden should acknowledge the integration costs on states. Rather than compromising with Republicans by ramping up border security, he should compromise by vowing to ramp up support for immigration systems and integration efforts in their states. His new refugee resettlement program, which allows private citizens to sponsor individual refugees, is an attempt at spreading out responsibility by decentralizing integration efforts. The Administration should highlight such approaches as evidence that they are working to streamline the system. 

Lastly, Biden has not yet implemented his transit asylum ban, and he unquestionably must not. Republicans will spin renewed access to asylum as they will, but if Biden reclaims the narrative, he can survive the consequences. Like Germany, the U.S. must recommit in rhetoric and policy to its self-image as an immigrant society, recharacterizing itself as a country capable of providing refuge and broadening its own perception of who it can be. This task begins with the man in the Oval Office.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent those of any previous or current employers, the editorial body of SIPR, the Freeman Spogili Institute, or Stanford University.