This study conducted a comparative analysis of the framing and rhetorical devices used by President Biden (2021) and President Trump (2025) in their executive orders relating to immigration. Executive orders are a powerful tool used by presidents, as they solely require the president's approval before put into action. The methodology used was multidisciplinary, with Fairclough’s three-dimensional model and close reading from literary studies. Furthermore, the theories applied included Benedict Anderson’s ‘Imagined Communities’ and George Lakoff’s ‘Framing Theory’. The analysis focused on three themes: defining immigration and who an immigrant is, framing American identity in relation to immigration, and humanitarianism vs. securitisation. Biden's framing and rhetorical language aimed to portray immigrants in a more positive and progressive light. Whereas Trump focused on weaponised language and framing immigration as a nuisance to the American people. Additionally, the study found that the presidents utilised ethos, pathos, and logos differently.