Why Trump’s migration narrative ignores the real causes of displacement

By Mashitah Hamidi

During his recent address at the United Nations, US President Donald Trump delivered more than a mere political speech. He issued a challenge.

For him, migration was not about aiding individuals, generating profit or engaging in conventional diplomacy. It was portrayed as a conflict between powerful nations that safeguard their borders and weaker ones that fail to protect their people.

The symbolism was evident. The UN has historically been a forum for collaboration, negotiation and the employment of diplomatic discourse. For Trump, it became a battleground. His remarks, occasionally apocalyptic, sardonic or self-congratulatory, conveyed the message that the world faced peril and that he alone understood the situation.

Spectacle rather than policy

Trump’s remarks were more significant for the imagery they conveyed than for the information they provided. Migration was not discussed as a succession of displacements resulting from warfare, natural disasters or economic disparities. Rather, it was described as a monster, a force capable of destroying national identities.

Migrants were reduced to symbols of peril rather than being recognised as individuals – families, workers, students and refugees, each with their own dreams and worries.

This is potent material for his admirers. It claims to provide clarity in a frequently perplexing world. However, clarity can be deceptive.

Trump circumvents the most significant issues by asserting that nations ought to seal borders and remove undocumented foreigners.

But what happens to individuals fleeing violence? How do economies reliant on migrant workers survive in their absence? What about nations, such as the United States, whose histories are founded on migration?

Symbolic exchange of roles

What stood out was Trump’s attempt to alter the conventional narrative. Rather than receiving admonitions about human rights or humanitarian obligations, he positioned the US as the instructor.

People from Europe were particularly reprimanded for permitting an excessive influx of migrants, who were perceived as undermining local cultures. He warned that this influx was destroying countries.

The symbolism extends beyond mere border walls. The issue pertains to the who defines ‘good governance’ in the 21st Century.

Trump’s America seeks to disengage from the global order. It conveys to others that the system is defective and that only stringent sovereignty – rigid borders, a robust national identity and scepticism towards outsiders – can provide salvation.

Five problems with Trump’s framing

Some observers felt his performance was commendable. Yet, his message raised numerous issues.

First, oversimplifying matters: Migration encompasses more than simply individuals ‘entering’ or ‘being kept out’.

Push factors encompass warfare and climate change. Pull factors include employment opportunities and security.

It is inaccurate to assert that migration ceases solely when leaders adopt a stringent approach. The data doesn’t indicate this, either in the US or abroad.

Second, terminology that excludes individuals: Trump portrays immigration as a cultural menace by asserting that “you have nothing in common” with unfamiliar immigrants.

This may be politically advantageous. However, it adversely affects those groups who need protection the most.

Third, autonomy versus reliance: Trump is right in claiming that nations have the right to control their borders.

But in a world where climate disruptions and refugee migrations can swiftly cross borders, absolute sovereignty is an illusion. No barrier can stop the rise in sea levels or regional volatility. Collaboration isn’t just important – it’s a question of survival.

Fourth, dismantling without rebuilding: Critics who perceive the UN as sluggish and ineffective appreciated his criticism of it.

However, his address lacked any proposals for making change. Disassembling institutions without providing strategies for their reconstruction can result in deeper deficiencies.

Fifth, tone and reception: Diplomacy requires respect, even during disagreement. Trump garnered attention by informing other leaders that their nations are “going to hell”.

However, he did not have any actual authority over them. International collaboration requires more than mere rhetoric that elicits applause. It requires trust and confidence.

The world should take note

One could easily dismiss the speech as mere Trumpian rhetoric. But the significance of the symbolism is crucial.

Leaders in Europe, Africa and Asia clearly recognise that Trump’s worldview is unchanged and has become more pronounced: prioritising sovereignty over solidarity, erecting obstacles instead of building bridges, and favouring confrontation over compromise.

In nations such as Malaysia, where migration is intricately associated with economic development and humanitarian responsibilities, this mindset presents significant questions.

Do we view migrants solely as problems to be solved? Or do we recognise them as integral to the fabric of contemporary society?

Do we accept narratives rooted in fear? Or do we seek a balance between security and compassion?

Trump’s address underscores that discussions about migration transcend mere statistics. The focus in these quarters is on identity, authority and the narratives leaders construct on inclusion and exclusion. His message was clear: nations that fail to secure their borders undermine their own interests.

But history illustrates that nations can falter when they isolate themselves and disregard the constant movement of people.

One final thought

Ultimately, Trump’s address at the UN prioritised narrative change over the formulation of solutions. He transformed migration into a symbol of chaos and positioned himself as the solution.

This may resonate with certain people’s concerns and grievances.

But for others, it represents a dangerous constriction of perspective that can impede the collaboration essential for addressing global issues.

The global community must determine whether they want to repeat his narrative – or create a new one. A new framework where migration is approached with empathy, key institutions are reformed rather than dismantled, and leadership is evaluated not just by power but also by accountability.

Associate Professor Mashitah Hamidi is the director of the Malaysian Population and Migration Research Centre, University of Malaya.

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: