Part 3: Trump’s Demonization of Immigrants: Fueling Southern Strategy 2.0
Trump’s Hardline Policies and Inflammatory Rhetoric Were Key To Deepening Racial Polarization.
Enjoying the content? Help support independent journalism by becoming a paid subscriber!
Immigration has always been a contentious issue in American politics, but under Donald Trump, it became a central pillar of his Southern Strategy 2.0.
Building on the racial and cultural fears that the original Southern Strategy exploited, Trump took a hardline stance on immigration, using it as a rallying cry to energize his political base.
By portraying immigrants, particularly from Latin America and Muslim-majority countries, as threats to national security, economic stability, and American identity, Trump further deepened the racial polarization that had long been a tool of the Republican Party.
This article will examine how Trump’s demonization of immigrants became a cornerstone of his political strategy and how it reflected and amplified the racial divisions inherent in Southern Strategy 2.0.
Trump’s Border Wall and “Invasion” Rhetoric
From the very start of his 2016 campaign, Trump made immigration the focal point of his platform.
His infamous statement that Mexico was “not sending their best” and that Mexican immigrants were “rapists” and criminals signaled a new phase in American political discourse, where xenophobic and racist language became not only acceptable but central to a winning electoral strategy.
At the heart of Trump’s immigration rhetoric was his call for a border wall. The wall became both a literal and symbolic barrier, representing his administration’s efforts to “protect” America from an influx of immigrants that he framed as a dangerous, invading force.
Trump consistently used terms like “invasion” and “infestation” to describe immigration at the southern border, further dehumanizing immigrants and stoking fear among his predominantly white voter base.
The emphasis on building a wall was not just a policy proposal—it was a message to white Americans who felt that their cultural and economic dominance was under threat by changing demographics.
The wall became a physical manifestation of Trump’s Southern Strategy 2.0, serving as a reminder that his administration would take extreme measures to protect the interests of native-born (and largely white) Americans at the expense of immigrants.
This rhetoric echoed Nixon’s use of coded language to appeal to white Southerners without explicitly advocating for segregation, but Trump’s version was far less subtle and more confrontational.
Readers Like You Keep This Free
This platform is powered by readers like you. Your support allows us to keep all content free and accessible to everyone.
The Family Separation Policy: A Racially Charged Tool
One of the most controversial elements of Trump’s immigration strategy was the zero-tolerance policy, which resulted in the separation of thousands of children from their families at the U.S.-Mexico border.
This policy, implemented in 2018, was part of a broader effort to deter undocumented immigration by inflicting maximum hardship on those attempting to cross the border.
The family separation policy sparked widespread outrage, both domestically and internationally, and was condemned by human rights organizations as inhumane.
However, for Trump’s base, the policy was seen as a necessary measure to “secure the border” and protect American sovereignty.
By framing immigrants as criminals and invaders, Trump justified the use of such harsh tactics, appealing to voters who believed that immigration posed an existential threat to the nation.
The racial implications of the family separation policy were clear. While framed as an enforcement of immigration law, it disproportionately targeted Latino families, many of whom were fleeing violence and persecution in Central America.
This policy fit neatly into Trump’s Southern Strategy 2.0, which used racialized fear to galvanize his base, similar to how Nixon had used “law and order” to appeal to Southern whites wary of desegregation and civil rights advances.
Attacks on Refugees and Muslims: Broadening the Strategy
Trump’s demonization of immigrants was not limited to those crossing the southern border. His administration also took aim at refugees and individuals from Muslim-majority countries, further expanding the scope of his racially charged immigration policies.
Early in his presidency, Trump enacted the Muslim travel ban, which barred individuals from several predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.
The ban, which Trump first proposed during his 2016 campaign, was rooted in the false belief that Muslim immigrants posed a unique security threat to the U.S.
The Muslim ban was a clear example of how Trump’s Southern Strategy 2.0 was designed to appeal to a wide range of racial and religious anxieties.
By equating Islam with terrorism, Trump played into longstanding fears and prejudices against Muslims in America, casting them as outsiders who were incompatible with American values.
This rhetoric, much like his rhetoric about immigrants from Latin America, resonated with voters who were anxious about the country’s increasing diversity and the perceived erosion of traditional American (read: white, Christian) identity.
Similarly, Trump’s administration dramatically reduced the number of refugees allowed into the country, claiming that refugees posed both economic and security risks.
This move was part of a broader effort to limit immigration from non-white countries and reflected the racial hierarchy that underpinned much of Trump’s immigration agenda.
By painting refugees—many of whom were fleeing war and persecution—as burdens or threats, Trump reinforced the idea that only certain types of immigrants (primarily white, European immigrants) were desirable.
Framing Immigrants as Criminals and Invaders
One of the most consistent themes of Trump’s immigration strategy was the portrayal of immigrants as criminals, particularly those from Latin America.
Throughout his presidency, Trump frequently highlighted crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, using these cases to paint a broad picture of immigrants as violent criminals who posed a threat to public safety.
This strategy was central to his Southern Strategy 2.0. By linking immigrants to crime, Trump tapped into the same fears that Nixon had exploited with his “law and order” platform in the 1960s.
Just as Nixon’s calls for law and order were a coded appeal to white voters who associated civil rights protests with crime and chaos, Trump’s rhetoric about immigrant crime was designed to stoke fears about the changing demographics of America and reinforce the idea that white, native-born Americans were under siege.
One of the most notable examples of this strategy was Trump’s creation of VOICE (Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement), a program established by the Department of Homeland Security to highlight crimes committed by undocumented immigrants.
While studies have consistently shown that immigrants—both documented and undocumented—are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans, Trump’s creation of VOICE was a deliberate effort to push a false narrative that immigrant crime was a widespread problem.
This narrative fit seamlessly into his broader strategy of using racial and cultural fear to mobilize his base.
Love this article? Share it with your friends—no paywalls, ever!
Conclusion: Immigration as the Cornerstone of Trump’s Southern Strategy 2.0
Donald Trump’s approach to immigration was a defining feature of his Southern Strategy 2.0, one that relied heavily on racialized fear and division to maintain political power.
By framing immigrants as criminals, invaders, and economic threats, Trump appealed to the anxieties of white voters who felt that their way of life was under threat from a diversifying America.
Trump’s policies, from the family separation policy to the Muslim travel ban, reflected a broader effort to maintain white dominance in an increasingly multicultural society.
In many ways, Trump’s immigration strategy was a direct continuation of the Southern Strategy’s appeal to white racial resentment, but it was also a significant escalation.
Where Nixon and his successors relied on dog whistles and coded language to appeal to white voters, Trump often abandoned subtlety altogether, using overtly racist and xenophobic rhetoric to energize his base.
As we will explore in the next article, Trump’s embrace of these tactics also emboldened white nationalist and far-right extremist groups, further deepening the racial polarization that defined his presidency.