The dehumanization of immigrants by Republican politicians has become a pervasive element in political discourse, leading some to overlook its prevalence. This trend has become so embedded that it is common for politicians, law enforcement, and media figures to use derogatory language when discussing immigrants, language that is often harsher than that used for pets. Figures like Donald Trump and his running mate J.D. Vance frequently make inflammatory statements about immigrants, seemingly designed to incite fear and potential violence, all while attempting to maintain plausible deniability if violence occurs. The media, meanwhile, continues to amplify their rhetoric.
Trump, Vance, and certain media outlets appear to leverage fear to secure political power, particularly targeting white voters who may feel unsettled in a changing society. This strategy, which plays on fear, aligns with the Republican political agenda. However, it is unclear what Republican-appointed judges gain from such dehumanization, as they do not rely on election outcomes to retain power. Nonetheless, these judges often rule against immigrant rights, suggesting that the infliction of cruelty may be a driving factor.
In a recent decision by District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee on the DC Circuit, a lawsuit was allowed to proceed. The lawsuit claims that the Biden administration’s border policies, specifically the decision to stop construction of the Trump-era border wall, have resulted in significant environmental harm, purportedly violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The lawsuit, initiated by two Arizona ranchers, argues that an increase in immigrant crossings has caused environmental degradation on their lands. Under NEPA, the government must conduct environmental impact assessments before undertaking major projects, and McFadden ruled that the Biden administration failed to adequately consider these concerns.
Upon reviewing the case, it initially seemed that McFadden’s decision was politically motivated. However, his ruling extends beyond political gamesmanship into more troubling territory, particularly when discussing claims by plaintiff Steven Smith. McFadden acknowledged Smith’s legal standing based on immigrants allegedly leaving litter on his property, which his cattle then consumed. More concerning was the assertion that immigrants tampered with water systems, resulting in a water shortage for Smith’s ranch, stressing his cattle and supposedly affecting their reproduction.
McFadden highlighted that water is scarce on Smith’s ranch and alleged that migrants interfered with water trough systems, leading to significant water loss, requiring Smith to work extensively to mitigate the impact on his cattle. This scenario sets the water needs of humans against those of cattle, with McFadden’s opinion prioritizing the latter.
Despite the claims made in this case, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, currently dominated by Democrats, is unlikely to support such views. Nonetheless, should the Supreme Court consider this case, the arguments presented by McFadden may be echoed by justices aligned with anti-immigration sentiments.
The plight of immigrants crossing the border, often seeking water and basic necessities, is not primarily an environmental issue but a moral one. The response to their needs serves as a measure of societal compassion, a test that many Trump-aligned figures and judges have failed.