LaMalfa and Immigration

When an elected official repeatedly calls immigrants an “invasion,” warns of a “mass influx,” and claims our democracy needs “protection” from non-citizens, he isn’t offering policy—he’s authorizing suspicion. Representative Doug LaMalfa’s record on immigration is a case study in dehumanizing talk that inflames fear, distorts facts, and corrodes civic trust (Mernyk et al., 2022; Smith, 2017). The pattern is consistent: militarize the language, criminalize the people, and cast democracy as a zero-sum fight against “them.” It’s hard-line theater with real-world consequences. 

LaMalfa took a one-minute speech to declare an “illegal immigrant invasion,” claiming undocumented residents “squat” in the U.S. and “distort” congressional apportionment, allegedly shifting “13 to 20” House seats (LaMalfa, 2024, p. H1490). This is a classic threat-construction frame that recasts human mobility as war—precisely the metaphor research shows heightens prejudice and punitive attitudes (Smith, 2017). It also misrepresents constitutional fact: apportionment counts all persons, not just citizens.

When the administration moved to end Title 42 expulsions, LaMalfa warned of a “mass influx,” tying migrants to cartels and trafficking and calling Title 42 “one of the most effective tools” for limiting crossings (LaMalfa, 2022). The message: migration equals criminality. That framing lumps asylum seekers and families with traffickers—exactly the conflation that scholars identify as dehumanizing and radicalizing (Link, 2024; Ahmed et al., 2024).

LaMalfa attacked the Dream and Promise Act as “mass amnesty,” arguing legalization “incentivizes” illegal immigration (LaMalfa, 2019; LaMalfa, 2021). That caricature erases the economic and civic benefits of legalization while priming voters for punitive policy (Mernyk et al., 2022).

LaMalfa’s line that “every State is now a border State; every town is now a border town,” paired with claims Democrats want to house migrants in national parks, functions as a contagion metaphor (GovInfo, 2023). It’s a textbook dog-whistle that evokes demographic anxiety without saying race outright (Smith, 2017).

After passage of the SAVE Act (H.R. 22), LaMalfa hailed it as protecting “actual American citizens” from “non-citizen influence” (LaMalfa, 2025). Yet non-citizen voting in federal elections is already illegal and empirically rare (AP News, 2024; Brennan Center, 2024a, 2024b). By promoting the myth anyway, LaMalfa fuels a conspiracy that justifies voter restrictions aimed at lawful voters.

When LaMalfa finally held in-person town halls in August 2025, constituents in Chico and Red Bluff erupted—boos, jeers, and rebukes over his immigration rhetoric and budget cuts (Mizuguchi, 2025; Adams, 2025; Pierce, 2025). Attendees quoted his own language back at him—proof that his words had saturated local discourse and stoked division.

1. Dehumanization shifts policy preferences. Studies show that “invasion” language drives support for punitive policies over humane solutions (Smith, 2017; Ahmed et al., 2024; Link, 2024).
    
2. Ambiguity lowers norms against hostility. When leaders blur migrants into criminals, they lower the social cost of prejudice (Mernyk et al., 2022).
    
3. The election-fraud narrative is false. Non-citizen voting is nearly non-existent, yet LaMalfa invokes it to undermine trust (AP News, 2024; Brennan Center, 2024a, 2024b).
    

LaMalfa’s through-line is unmistakable: marshal fear, collapse distinctions, and tell citizens their power is being “stolen.” That’s not leadership—it’s demagoguery. Leaders who talk like this don’t defend democracy; they degrade it.