In his latest tirade against immigrants in the Denver suburb of Aurora, Colorado, on October 5, 2024, Trump vowed to “rescue America” from what he described as “rapists,” “bloodthirsty criminals,” and the “most violent people on earth,” claiming they are destroying the fabric of the country and its culture. This rhetoric is yet another example of his xenophobic and racist attacks on migrants and minority groups, whom he portrayed as genetically predisposed to criminal behavior. He positioned himself as the only one capable of saving the country from these individuals, whom he labeled as “animals,” “stone-cold killers,” “the worst people,” and “the enemy from within.”
He is no longer just discussing keeping immigrants out of the country, building a wall, or banning Muslims from entering the United States. Now, he warns that migrants have already “invaded,” destroying the country from within its borders. He uses this narrative to justify a second-term policy agenda that includes constructing massive detention camps and carrying out mass deportations.
During his inflammatory speech, which resonated well with his supporters who endorse white supremacist views, Trump launched a broadside against thousands of Venezuelan migrants in Aurora. He declared that he would invoke the Alien Enemies Act, which allows a president to authorize the roundup or removal of individuals from enemy nations during times of war, to target migrant gangs and criminal networks. He also blamed Kamala Harris for “importing an army of illegal alien gang members and migrant criminals from the dungeons of the third world,” claiming that she had resettled individuals from prisons, jails, insane asylums, and mental institutions into American communities to prey on innocent citizens.
Trump and US Constitution
Since the September 10 presidential debate, Trump has increasingly used dark, graphic language to demonize minority groups, particularly migrants, in his speeches. His rhetoric can be described as political fear mongering, echoing authoritarianism and even elements of Nazi ideology. This consistent vilification of both legal and illegal immigrants has instilled a widespread sense of fear, uncertainty, and insecurity within immigrant communities across the country.
Trump’s rhetoric on immigration, particularly his demonization of migrants and minorities, represents a significant deviation from the core principles of the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause guarantees that “no state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By broadly labeling immigrants as “rapists” or “animals,” Trump undermines this constitutional mandate, promoting discrimination based on nationality and ethnicity. His language, which paints entire groups of people as inherently criminal, conflicts with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, which requires that laws and policies must not unfairly target specific groups without justification.
The 5th and 14th Amendments also enshrine the right to due process, stating that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Trump’s proposals for mass deportations and the construction of detention camps raise serious concerns about violating due process. Historically, due process has been interpreted to mean that all individuals, including immigrants, must be given a fair hearing before being subjected to punitive measures such as deportation. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in cases such as Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that even non-citizens are entitled to procedural fairness under the Constitution.
Additionally, Trump’s rhetoric around the Muslim travel ban and his discriminatory remarks about Mexican immigrants contradict the First Amendment, which protects religious freedom. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from favoring or disfavoring a particular religion, as emphasized in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah (1993), where the Court ruled that laws targeting specific religious practices are unconstitutional. Trump’s Muslim ban, justified through rhetoric that broadly frames Muslims as potential terrorists, flies in the face of this protection and has been widely criticized as unconstitutional.
Beyond constitutional violations, Trump’s rhetoric sharply diverges from the broader societal and political norms of American democracy. The U.S. is historically a nation of immigrants, and the American civic identity has long embraced diversity and multiculturalism. Trump’s statements that immigrants are “destroying the fabric” of the country contradict the American ethos of being a “melting pot,” where people from diverse backgrounds contribute to society. The Pew Research Center has shown that immigrants—both legal and undocumented—are integral to the labor force, with over 17% of the U.S. workforce consisting of immigrants. Deporting large numbers of people, particularly without due process, risks destabilizing communities and entire industries that rely on immigrant labor.
Furthermore, Trump’s inflammatory language undermines the norms of respect and civil discourse that have long been foundational to U.S. politics. His labeling of immigrants as “animals” and “stone-cold killers” deviates from the accepted standards of political debate, where even contentious issues have typically been discussed within a framework of civility. This kind of rhetoric can have real consequences: studies by the FBI and Southern Poverty Law Center show that hate crimes surged following the 2016 election, fueled in part by inflammatory political language. Such outcomes illustrate how rhetoric that deviates from constitutional norms and societal expectations can foster a dangerous atmosphere of division, hatred, and violence.
Economically, mass deportations would severely disrupt industries that rely heavily on immigrant labor, such as agriculture, manufacturing, and services. Immigrants contribute billions of dollars in taxes and are integral to the workforce, and their removal would lead to labor shortages and increased costs for businesses and consumers. Moreover, the financial burden of implementing such policies, including the establishment of detention camps, would fall on taxpayers. Politically, Trump’s alienation of immigrant voters could mobilize them to vote against him in large numbers, particularly in swing states like Michigan, where immigrant communities play a key role. His divisive agenda not only threatens the economy and public order but also risks deepening polarization in an already fractured society.
