They Don’t Care About Crime, They Care About Colour

Wilful Blindness: The Selective Morality of the Anti-Immigrant Movement

In the fierce and often toxic arena of immigration debate, a glaring contradiction frequently emerges. Those who advocate for the toughest borders and the harshest treatment of immigrants often frame their arguments around crime and security. They speak of protecting “our way of life” from external threats. They speak of protecting our women and children. Yet, this fervent concern for law and order appears to vanish when the crimes are committed not by outsiders, but by powerful, wealthy, and often white individuals within our own society.

The question is: why does the anti-immigrant movement so often turn a blind eye to a spectrum of crimes—from sex offences and fraud to evasion and murder—when the perpetrator doesn’t fit the “foreign criminal” narrative?

The Power of the “Dangerous Other”

At its core, much anti-immigrant rhetoric relies on creating a “Dangerous Other.” This is a well-established political and psychological tactic where a group is defined as an existential threat to the safety, purity, or economic security of the native population. Immigrants, particularly those of a different race or religion, are easily cast in this role. Their crimes are not seen as isolated incidents but as evidence of a collective character flaw, thereby justifying broad-stroke policies against the entire group.

Conversely, crimes committed by wealthy, established individuals are treated as just that: individual acts. A billionaire charged with fraud or a celebrity convicted of a sex crime is portrayed as a “bad apple,” their actions separated from their identity as a wealthy white person. There is no collective guilt assigned, no suggestion that their background or privilege is to blame. This double standard allows the narrative of immigrant criminality to persist, unchallenged by the reality of homegrown wrongdoing.

The Crimes That Don’t Count

When we examine the types of crimes that are routinely overlooked, the selectivity becomes even more apparent.

• Sex Crimes: High-profile cases involving wealthy businessmen, media moguls, or entertainers often unfold for years with whispers and non-disclosure agreements, rather than immediate public outcry from anti-immigrant circles. The focus remains on rare but highly publicised cases involving immigrants, which are used to tarnish entire communities.
• Financial Crimes (Fraud, Evasion, Embezzlement): These crimes can devastate thousands of lives, erode public trust, and cost the treasury billions—funds that could be used for schools, hospitals, and social care. Yet, a politician or corporate executive found guilty of massive fraud rarely sparks the same visceral fear or calls for systemic reform as a single incident of street crime attributed to an immigrant. The financial crime is seen as complex and victimless, while the street crime is immediate and tangible.
• Murder and Violent Crime: While any murder is a tragedy, those committed within powerful circles are often treated as salacious tabloid fodder rather than evidence of a decaying society. There is no attempt to link them to the perpetrator’s ethnic or social background in the way a crime committed by a foreign national instantly would be.

The Mechanics of Disregard

This blind spot is not accidental; it is maintained through several mechanisms:

1. Privilege and Power: Wealth and influence provide a buffer. They afford the best legal defence, control over media narratives, and social connections that can dampen consequences. A crime can be litigated for years in complex courts, far from the public eye, whereas an arrest of an immigrant is often immediate and politically potent.
2. Cultural Proximity: There is an unconscious tendency to identify with those who share a similar background. The crimes of a wealthy white individual can be rationalised or minimised (“a moment of madness,” “a lapse in judgement”) in a way that the crimes of a perceived outsider cannot.
3. Political Utility: For politicians and commentators who build their platforms on anti-immigrant sentiment, focusing on “foreign criminals” is strategically useful. It simplifies complex issues into an “us vs. them” battle. Highlighting the crimes of the elite, however, would complicate the message and risk alienating powerful allies or benefactors.

A Question of True Motives

Ultimately, this selective outrage calls into question the true motivation behind the anti-immigrant movement. If the primary concern were truly about public safety and the rule of law, then the focus would be on all crime, proportionally and fairly. The fact that the anger is so narrowly and exclusively directed at one group suggests that the issue is not crime itself, but the identity of the criminal.

It points to a movement driven less by a desire for justice and more by a fear of social change, a resentment of cultural difference, and a need for a simple scapegoat for complex social and economic problems. Until the conversation about crime and safety includes an honest accounting of wrongdoing in the highest echelons of society, accusations of hypocrisy, xenophobia and bigotry will rightly continue to dog those who claim to speak for law and order.