magazine issue 9 2025 / Issue

The viral power of migrant crime messaging: Fear, emotion, and algorithms

• written by Mary Ortega
• edited by Jana Dreston

Reviewer: Audrey Halversen.

Editorial Assistant: Parnian Kourang Beheshti.

Fear-driven stories about migrant crime continue to circulate widely across social media platforms. This article examines how emotional triggers, psychological shortcuts, and platform design interact to influence public perception. The result is a digital environment where fear spreads faster than facts and reinforces harmful stereotypes.

Figure 1: AI-Generated Phone Overload - A dramatic image of a smoking/overheated phone metaphor for emotional burnout and algorithmic overload in digital mediaYou are scrolling through social media when a headline pops up: “Migrant Crimewave Overwhelms America.” The post is dramatic, alarming, and demands your attention. You pause, maybe even click, and without realizing it, your perception of migration may already be shifting.

This kind of content is not new, but the speed and scale of its delivery have changed. Every scroll, every click, and every share makes the narrative more powerful. In an attention economy, where human attention is the scarce resource that platforms compete to capture and monetize, emotionally charged messages reflect and shape public sentiment [1, 2]. They push people to see social issues mostly as something to fear [3]. Public concern over immigration has become especially salient, with recent surveys identifying it as one of the nation’s top priorities [4]. This article unpacks how that happens.

These narratives persist even when they contradict research showing that immigrants are less likely to engage in crime than native-born citizens in the U.S. [5–7]. Today, fear is used to shape public opinion. Platforms like Truth Social, a social media network founded by President Donald Trump, allow messages that frame migrants as criminals to circulate widely [8, 9]. These messages work by triggering fear and identity threats, making people feel that their safety, values, or group status are at risk. They frame issues as urgent moral wrongs that demand action [10, 3]. Digital spaces intensify their reach and impact, amplifying these reactions beyond the original audience.

The Psychology of Threat 

To understand why these stories resonate, we must examine how the human brain responds to danger. People tend to group themselves with those they identify as similar and separate themselves from those seen as different, which is often described as “Us vs. Them” [11]. According to social identity theory [11], this tendency brings people in the same group closer together, but it can also push outsiders away.

These cognitive shortcuts are not flaws. They evolved as survival strategies but can be manipulated in modern media environments [8]. We often rely on mental shortcuts where ease of recall stands in for frequency or likelihood [12], rather than careful analysis. Political actors can exploit this by crafting messages that feel intuitively true even when they are factually misleading [12]. These dynamics also connect to the behavioral immune system, which triggers fear and avoidance when outsiders are perceived as potential contaminants [13].

Integrated threat theory outlines two types of perceived danger: realistic and symbolic threats [10]. Realistic threats involve concerns about physical safety or job security [10]. Symbolic threats arise when people worry that newcomers will disrupt shared values or traditions [10]. Messages about migrant crime trigger both types of concern, presenting immigrants as both unsafe and culturally incompatible. This framing is commonly found in political rhetoric and media narratives [5, 7].

Another layer comes from moral foundations theory [3]. According to this framework, conservatives tend to be especially attuned to values like loyalty, authority, and purity, while liberals emphasize care and fairness [3]. When political figures claim that migrants threaten families or the nation, they tap into deep moral intuitions [3]. This is not accidental. It is strategic, and research shows that emotionalized and moralized content is more likely to spread and influence audiences [1].

For example, in several 2024 Truth Social posts in the U.S., Trump described migrants as invaders and used the phrase “poisoning our blood,” a term linked to White nationalist rhetoric [9]. This type of language activates fears of cultural contamination. This is the belief that contact with outsiders will corrupt or dilute a community’s perceived purity, identity, or values and aligns with the behavioral immune system response that frames outsiders as dangerous to the community [13].

Fear as Strategy: The Migrant Crime Narrative 

Fear is not only a reaction. It is used deliberately. Messaging around migrant crime is carefully designed to produce fear, reduce complexity, and support harsh policies [1].

Trump’s use of polarizing language illustrates this approach. By repeatedly describing migration as an “invasion” or suggesting that cities are being “overrun,” he encourages audiences to associate migrants with criminality and threat [9]. This framing taps into the behavioral immune system, the set of psychological responses, such as disgust and avoidance, that evolved to protect humans from potential sources of danger [13]. When migrants are portrayed as outsiders who could contaminate or destabilize communities, this system is activated, heightening fear and hostility [13]. At the same time, Trump’s messaging appears to activate the availability heuristic, making rare events feel common [12]; for example, through repeated, vivid stories about border drug seizures [9]. By spotlighting rare but sensational crimes allegedly committed by immigrants, he makes those incidents far more cognitively accessible than statistical realities [5]. Together, these psychological processes make his messaging particularly effective, even when it contradicts empirical evidence [5]–[7], [8].

This strategy is not unique to the United States. Around the world, similar tactics have been used to promote nationalism and justify strict immigration policies [2]. What sets Trump apart is the intensity and coordination of the messaging [8]. Influencers, media personalities, and online communities reinforce his statements [8]. The repetition builds a closed system of belief [1].

In a 2024 campaign speech, Trump told the story of a mother whose son died from an overdose. He blamed the death on drugs brought by migrants [9]. Stories like this link personal tragedy with immigration, even when the connection is anecdotal or unproven.

Through emotional stories and simplified explanations, politicians create a narrative that feels undeniable [1]. The frame is clear: citizens versus outsiders, safety versus chaos. In this environment, fear is not just persuasive; it is also effective. It is profitable.

Consistency reinforces the message [1]. People are not easily persuaded, but repetition may have a way of normalizing certain ideas [1]. Even when statistics contradict these stories, the emotional pull remains stronger [5–7]. That is why slogans like “American carnage” or “migrant invasion” are repeated [9]. They create mental shortcuts that connect migration with danger [12].

Why It Works So Well Online 

Figure3: Social Media Stress Wheel - Visual metaphor for being trapped by social media pressure and emotional triggers. Social media platforms amplify emotional content. Posts that provoke strong reactions, especially fear and anger, are more likely to be shared [1]. Algorithms prioritize this type of content, promoting it to a broader audience [8]. On platforms like Truth Social, which are known for their minimal content moderation, audiences are already primed to respond to partisan messages [8]. Posts that are short, emotionally charged, and morally urgent perform best [1]. These messages are designed for fast scrolling and instant reactions [1]. The platforms benefit from this. More engagement leads to more profit [8]. Truth often takes a back seat to virality [8]. Even people who disagree with the message may share it out of outrage or concern, unintentionally boosting its visibility [1]. Each interaction increases a post's reach. In this way, platform design turns fear into a business model [8].

Research supports this. Hosseini and Staab [2] found that fear-based and emotionally charged posts spread widely online, regardless of their veracity. These findings support the idea that emotional simplicity travels farther than nuance [1]. Digital platforms such as Truth Social, Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter) do not operate as neutral spaces [8]. They influence not only what users see but also how they interpret what they see [8]. When people interact with fear-based content, the algorithm responds by showing them more of the same [8]. Gradually, these dynamics may foster a digital environment where fear-driven narratives are amplified and reinforced [8].

In the absence of media literacy, the capacity to question sources, recognize bias, and decode media techniques, fear-based narratives often go unchallenged. Many users lack the tools or training to distinguish between sensational headlines and accurate reporting. Schools and institutions have only recently begun to emphasize critical consumption of digital content [14]. Meanwhile, some influencers with large followings exploit emotional vulnerabilities to gain attention, making it harder to sort fact from fearmongering [1]. This is particularly concerning when the same themes emerge across different types of content. Migrant crime narratives often appear alongside conspiracy theories, such as claims about stolen elections or deep state actors [2]. This reinforces a worldview grounded in fear and distrust [1]. When everything feels like a threat, any challenge to these beliefs can be seen as suspicious or even hostile [13].

Consequences: Division, Disinformation, and Dehumanization 

These narratives have real effects. First, they distort reality. Studies consistently show that immigrants are less likely to engage in criminal activity than those born in the country [5-7]. Still, the myth of migrant criminality persists [7]. Second, they deepen political divides. They turn migration into a moral crisis and position opponents as enemies [3]. Fear replaces dialogue with blame [1]. Third, they encourage dehumanization. When migrants are portrayed as criminals or invaders, it becomes easier to justify harmful actions like family separation or mass detention [6,10, 11]. This rhetoric leads to exclusion and discrimination, as shown in research on threat perception and intergroup conflict [6, 10, 11].

In early 2024, a Pew Research survey found that sixty-two percent of Republican voters listed migrant crime as a top concern, even though crime rates have been falling [4]. The gap between perception and evidence may suggest the potential influence of emotional messaging on public opinion [1, 12]. At the societal level, these messages erode trust. They undermine belief in journalism, science, and the legal system. When fear drives the conversation, it weakens the foundations of democratic life [8].

Resisting the Fear Feed 

Understanding how this works is the first step. Fear-driven political messaging targets our instincts [13]. But we can learn to spot the signs and respond differently. Ask why a post feels urgent or upsetting. Check the facts. Remember that stories designed to scare are often incomplete or misleading. Researchers are creating tools to help. New browser extensions and apps are being tested to flag content that uses intense emotion or unsupported claims. These tools are still in development, but they demonstrate a growing recognition that media literacy needs to be an integral part of digital life [14].

Still, education alone is not enough. Platforms need better design and stronger accountability [8]. Regulation, transparency, and digital literacy can all play a role [8]. Media companies must take responsibility for the systems they build [8]. More explicit rules, greater transparency, and improved public awareness are all necessary to slow the spread of manipulative messages [8]. Even more importantly, individuals need to resist the urge to react instantly. Slowing down and reflecting before sharing can prevent harmful messages from gaining traction. Reposting is not a neutral act. It is an endorsement that gives the original message more power and reach.

Moving Forward 

Migrant crime messaging is effective, easy to share, and difficult to challenge [1]. However, understanding how it works is a powerful step toward making a change. The future depends on more than correcting facts. It requires building trust, designing more effective systems, and fostering thoughtful engagement [8]. In a world flooded with emotional triggers, slowing down and thinking critically may be the most radical act of all [14].

Fear does not have to define our choices. We can choose to respond with clarity, with compassion, and with a commitment to truth. Even more importantly, individuals need to resist the urge [12] instantly. Spotting emotionally charged posts as a cue to pause, and remembering that every share helps harmful content spread, can make people more likely to slow down [14]. Reflection may take only seconds, but it can make a real difference in keeping fear-based messages from dominating our feeds [1, 14].

Bibliography

[1] W. J. Brady, J. A. Wills, J. T. Jost, J. A. Tucker, and J. J. Van Bavel, “Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., vol. 114, no. 28, pp. 7313–7318, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114

[2] A. S. Hosseini and S. Staab, “Emotional framing in the spreading of false and true claims,” in Proc. 2023 CHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Syst., 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3578503.3583611

[3] J. Haidt and J. Graham, “When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize,” Social Justice Research, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 98–116, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z

[4] Pew Research Center, “Public priorities for 2024: Economy, health care, and immigration,” Feb. 29, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/29/americans-top-policy-pri...

[5] M. T. Light and T. Miller, “Does undocumented immigration increase violent crime?,” Criminology, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 370–401, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12175

[6] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, The Integration of Immigrants into American Society. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/21746

[7] G. C. Ousey and C. E. Kubrin, “Immigration and crime: Assessing a contentious issue,” Annu. Rev. Criminol., vol. 1, pp. 63–84, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092026

[8] Z. Tufekci, “Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency,” Colorado Technology Law Journal, vol. 13, pp. 203–218, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/ctlj/vol13/iss2/4

[9] “POISONING THE BLOOD: $10.2M of Meth & Coke Seized at US Border,” The National Pulse, Dec. 28, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/12/28/poisoning-the-blood-10-2m-of-met... (accessed Aug. 17, 2025).

[10] W. G. Stephan and C. W. Stephan, “An integrated threat theory of prejudice,” in Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination, S. Oskamp, Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press, 2013, pp. 23–45.

[11] H. Tajfel and J. C. Turner, “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict,” in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, W. G. Austin and S. Worchel, Eds. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1979, pp. 33–47.

[12] A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability,” Cognitive Psychology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 207–232, 1973. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9

[13] M. Schaller and J. H. Park, “The behavioral immune system (and why it matters),” Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 99–103, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402596

[14] A. M. Guess, M. Lerner, B. Lyons, J. M. Montgomery, B. Nyhan, J. Reifler, and N. Sircar, “A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., vol. 117, no. 27, pp. 15536–15545, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920498117

Figure Sources

Figure 1: AI-Generated Phone Overload

Figure 2: Artificial Technology Brain Vector

Figure 3: Social Media Stress Wheel