In the United States, the immigration debate has taken a harsher and more inflammatory turn as former President Trump continues to amplify his anti-immigrant rhetoric. According to experts, including Syracuse University political science professor Mark Brockway, Trump’s approach makes little distinction between law-abiding, long-established immigrants and those newly arriving. For Trump, Brockway says, the simple fact of being an immigrant is enough to place someone in his political crosshairs.
The shift in tone is stark compared to earlier years. Back in 2018, Trump denied using the term “shithole” to describe certain countries whose citizens migrated to the United States. Today, however, he embraces the phrase openly, repeating it publicly and expanding on his xenophobic commentary.
During a rally in Pennsylvania this week—an event originally intended to focus on economic policy—the 79-year-old Republican returned to the same language that sparked global outrage during his first term. Before a cheering crowd, Trump retold the story in which he questioned why the U.S. accepts immigrants from what he called “shithole countries” instead of “places like Norway and Sweden.”
He continued by attacking immigrants from Somalia, calling their home country a “disaster” and describing it as “filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime.” Recently, Trump went further, labeling Somali immigrants “trash,” triggering renewed condemnation from lawmakers and advocacy groups.
Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey described these comments as “more proof of his racist, anti-immigrant agenda,” posting his criticism on social media platform X.
Supporters Claim Trump Is “Blunt,” Not Racist
Despite the backlash, Trump continues to maintain strong support among segments of the Republican base. Florida Republican lawmaker Randy Fine defended him, arguing on CNN that “not all cultures are equal and not all countries are equal.” According to Fine, Trump speaks the blunt, unfiltered language his supporters appreciate.
Carl Bon Tempo, a history professor at the University of Albany, noted that anti-immigrant rhetoric has long existed on the far-right. What makes this period different, he told AFP, is that such rhetoric has come directly from someone who once held—and seeks to regain—the highest office in the nation. “There’s no bigger megaphone in American politics,” he said.
The use of dehumanizing language is not new for Trump. During a 2023 campaign rally in New Hampshire, he claimed immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country”—a statement widely compared to rhetoric used by Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler.
Now back in power, Trump’s administration has launched a sweeping deportation operation and suspended immigration applications from citizens of 19 of the world’s poorest countries. Critics argue the policy is designed to drastically reduce migration from non-white regions.
At the same time, Trump has ordered U.S. authorities to prioritize white South African farmers for admission, claiming they were facing persecution in their home country. This selective approach, experts argue, highlights the racial and ideological motivations behind his immigration framework.
Terri Givens, an immigration policy scholar at the University of British Columbia, told AFP that any restraint Trump may have once had is now gone. She argues that his comments reveal an unfiltered hostility toward broad groups of immigrants, regardless of their personal histories or contributions to American society.
Brockway emphasizes that for Trump, individual circumstances—such as obeying the law, contributing economically, or living in the U.S. for decades—do not matter. Instead, immigrants serve as the target for a political narrative that portrays them as threats.
This framing is reinforced by members of Trump’s administration. Earlier this month, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem described some immigrants as “killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies,” rhetoric that analysts say fuels resentment at a time when Americans are worried about inflation, job security, and shrinking federal benefits.
Bon Tempo adds that spikes in anti-immigrant sentiment often occur during moments of economic strain. But in this case, he argues, the debate also taps into deeper historical questions about American identity.
On November 28, following an incident in which an Afghan national attacked two National Guard soldiers in Washington, Trump used his Truth Social platform to call for “REVERSE MIGRATION.” The concept promotes the mass removal of foreigners deemed incapable of assimilating—a view popularized by far-right European theorists like French writer Renaud Camus.
Experts say these ideas echo the nativist politics of the 1920s, when U.S. immigration policy was crafted to favor immigrants from Northern and Western Europe, reinforcing a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant ideal of American identity.
This worldview is reflected in statements like the one recently posted on X by White House senior advisor Stephen Miller: “This is the great lie of mass migration. You are not just importing individuals. You are importing societies.”
His message encapsulates the ideological foundation behind Trump’s latest wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric—an agenda that continues to polarize the nation and reshape the political landscape.
Source- EWN
