At a town hall in Charleston, South Carolina on Wednesday night, Donald Trump once again promised to build a great and “beautiful” wall along the entire length of the United States’s southern border, paid for by the generous people of Mexico. At a separate town hall in Charleston, his closest rival for the GOP presidential nomination, Ted Cruz, bragged about having bravely led the fight to sink bipartisan immigration reform—i.e., “amnesty”—back in 2013. Meanwhile, Marco Rubio, who sponsored and later opposed that bill, reassured wary conservatives that he had never been too crazy about it in the first place.

Across the country in Nevada, which holds its Democratic caucuses on Saturday, the immigration rhetoric coming from Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is markedly less hostile. Nevada is 28 percent Hispanic, making it the first state in a thus-far monochromatic early nominating process in which something pundits call the Latino Vote™ is going to play a meaningful role. On Thursday night, the Democrats will be holding a town hall of their own there, simulcast en español.

Clinton and Sanders understand immigration reform as a conduit to Hispanic voters, which is better than treating it like a button to push on the fragile psyches of whites—but still not as good as recognizing it for the complex international phenomenon it is.

Of the two Democrats, Sanders has the better immigration platform and Clinton the better polling numbers with Latinos. Tonight, they’ll both no doubt express support for comprehensive immigration reform (and the expanded use of executive authority once Congress has blocked it). They’ll both decry the recent wave of deportation raids and rising use of private detention hellholes. At some point, Clinton will probably try to tag Sanders with having voted against a (very bad) reform bill in 2007. And Sanders will go after Clinton for saying she’d deport children back to the killing fields of Central America—provided they’ve had access to a lawyer first. Because this is a special forum, Sanders may even get around to mentioning how much he hates NAFTA.

The differences between Sanders and Clinton, and between either of them and any Republican, are of vital importance to the millions of people whose lives, families, and communities hang in the balance—and, therefore, of vital importance to the country. But as we’re presented with this juxtaposition between nakedly nativist Republicans and outwardly progressive Democrats, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking we’ve been exposed to a real debate. The broad areas of unspoken consensus this campaign has solidified are as significant, in many senses, as the most polarizing resentments it has conjured.