Historical problems of Donald Trump’s xenophobic policy

ARTIGO CURTO ​​ ORIGINAL

Historical problems of Donald Trump's xenophobic policy

João Oliveira Ramos Neto¹; Fernando da Rocha Rodrigues²; Dienes Januário de Souza³

.

.

1. Introdution

During the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign, Donald Trump attacked immigrants several times in speeches made at rallies. He stated that immigrants act like animals, poison the nation’s blood, are prison escapees, responsible for most of the crimes in the country, and that they would be eating pets. As Marshall explains, "it all boils down to this concept of ‘us versus them’ and the walls we build in our minds. Sometimes the ‘other’ has a different language or skin color, a different religion” (Marshall, 2021, p. 29) [1].

During the campaign, Trump also pledged that, once elected, he would carry out the largest mass deportation operation. After winning the election for his second term, he stated that he would close the border with Mexico. The fight against immigrants was also a central theme of his first term (2017-2021), where he promised to build a wall to prevent the illegal entry of immigrants (Marshall, 2021, p. 64) [1]. In the 2024 campaign, he promised to complete the construction of the wall, which had been halted during the presidency of Democrat Joe Biden (2021-2024).

During his first term, Republican Trump faced difficulties in gaining congressional support for the construction of the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. The Democrats opposed it. In addition to being the opposition party and holding a more humanitarian stance than the Republicans, the main reason for the Democrats' opposition to Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric is that they believe it is not a financially viable policy. It is a very large sum of money that, for the Democrats, could be invested in more important projects, such as infrastructure works. However, what we present in this brief article is that, despite all of this, Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric has three major historical problems.

.

2. Discussion

The first problem is ignoring the fact that current U.S. citizens were once immigrants as well. Throughout the 17th century, more than 30 million Europeans – such as the English, Scots, Irish, and Dutch – expelled and killed over 2 million natives and took control of lands that formed the 13 colonies and, later, the rest of the current territory to the west. Karnal argues that, due to overpopulation in cities, England "would make colonization a way of unloading everything that was no longer wanted in the Old World onto the New World" (Karnal et al., 2007, p. 45) [2].

The second problem is that the estimated cost of building the wall, and the anti-immigrant policies, over 8 billion dollars (Yang, 2017, p. 9) [3], could be invested in Latin American countries to improve their economies and thus reduce the number of Latinos living in poverty, who see moving to the United States as the only alternative for a better life. Alternatively, the money could be invested in the U.S. economy itself to provide the conditions for welcoming immigrants. After all, as demonstrated in Eduardo Galeano's classic The Open Veins of Latin America (2022) [4], one of the reasons for the economic problems faced by Latin American countries, which lead many immigrants to seek a change to the United States, is the responsibility of the United States itself.

An example of this is that, during the 1970s and 1980s, many Latin American countries resorted to international loans to finance their development projects, leading to a dependency on external capital. These loans resulted in a severe external debt crisis, particularly after the oil crisis, when interest rates rose dramatically.

From the 1990s onwards, many Latin American countries adopted neoliberal policies, mainly under pressure from institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. These policies included large-scale privatizations, deregulation, reduction of import tariffs, and fiscal austerity. Although these adjustments were presented as necessary for economic stabilization, in many cases, they resulted in cuts to essential public services and an increase in inequalities.

Equally important, the political instability promoted by the United States in Latin American countries, with frequent changes of government, military coups, and a lack of continuity in economic policies, also hindered sustainable development in the region. Abrupt policy changes created uncertainties that negatively affected investments and long-term growth.

Finally, the third problem is that the wall aims to prevent Mexicans from entering Texas and California, territories that the United States took from Mexico. Texas in 1845, and California in 1848, after two years of war declared by the U.S. government. During the same period, the states of New Mexico and Arizona, which are part of the border, were also annexed: "At the end of the conflict, in 1848, the Mexicans signed the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, recognizing the Rio Grande as the border and ceding New Mexico and California to the United States" (Karnal et al., 2007, p. 128) [1].

..

3. Considerations

In his first term, unable to gain support from Congress, Trump attempted a desperate maneuver: based on a 1976 constitutional amendment, he declared a national emergency in the United States to secure funds from the Department of Defense. It was as if the country were at war. Trump claimed it was a battle against drugs and crime. This could provide him with 8 billion dollars. However, research shows that immigrants are not responsible for the increase in crime or drug trafficking. Similarly, at the very moment he claimed that immigrants were eating pets in the city of Springfield, he was contradicted by the debate moderators.

Trump uses the old tactic of pointing to an enemy to divert attention from internal problems, choosing Latino immigrants as the scapegoats for the current issues in the United States. Despite the limitations and specificities of each historical moment, it is inevitable to recall that Hitler also claimed that Jews, who were immigrants as well, were responsible for Germany’s problems. In the book How Democracies Die [5], the authors conducted a comparative analysis of Trump’s rhetoric and actions with those of other dictators who used the same tactics, warning of the danger that Trump's re-election poses to U.S. democracy. Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric aligns with neonationalism. And throughout history, we see that moments of emphasis on nationalist policies have not ended well.

..

4. References

• Marshall, Tim. A Era dos Muros: por que vivemos em um mundo dividido. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2021.

• Karnal, Leandro; Vinicius de Morais, Marcus; Fernandes, Luiz Estevam; Purdy, Sean. História dos Estados Unidos: das origens ao século XXI. São Paulo: Contexto, 2007.

• Yang, Mimi. The Trump Wall: a Cultural Wall and a Cultural War. Lateral, vol. 6, no. 2, 2017. JSTOR.

• Galeano, Eduardo. As veias abertas da América Latina. Porto Alegre: L&PM Editores, 2022.

• Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2018.