The literature on center-right party reactions to far-right nativist parties that politicize the issue of migration highlights the strategic dilemma between accommodating voters with restrictive preferences and centrists indifferent to or somewhat positive towards migration (Meguid 2005). Center-right parties are supposed to choose first, between salience and non-salience and then between pro- vs. anti- migration positions to develop adversarial, accommodating or indifferent strategies. Using insights from the literature on ethnic boundary-making (Wimmer 2013), I argue that center-right parties have wider options allowing them to increase salience of the issue of migration without having to adopt the accommodating/restrictive frame of far-right nativist parties. They may advocate ethnic exclusivity as a criterion for migration and integration policies, but simultaneously expand the definition of mainstream ethnic categories, tie ethnicity to non-ethnic forms of belonging or explicitly flatten ethnic hierarchies through the use of religious or universalist themes. In this way they diversify the signals they send to their potential voters proving that there "many ways to be right" (Gidron 2020). To test the interpretive framework I rely on an original coding of party manifestos from national elections in 12 West European democracies since the 1960s to map different reactions of centre-right parties to extreme-right challenges on the issue of migration across countries and over time.