Immigration has been a central topic on political agendas across Western democracies for more than a decade. Most existing cross-national studies of party competition related to immigration examine the varying salience of the topic and the positions that different parties take. We argue, however, that to understand the political dynamics around the topic, a key dimension is missing: attention to rhetorical style. We zoom in on politicians’ moral rhetoric – that is, the extent to which they use language that portrays immigration as a matter of fundamental values; of right and wrong. Using a newly developed and validated moral dictionary in different languages, we examine how moral rhetoric on immigration varies across time, space, and political parties in the US, Canada, the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden. Given the implications for political debate and polarization associated with moralizing rhetoric, our study has the potential to deepen our understanding of the potency and divisiveness associated with immigration discourse. In addition, focusing on moralization as a rhetorical style, our paper offers a new take on party competition with potential implications for understanding political debate and agenda-setting more generally.