Thread by @ReginaldOhLaw

Virulent xenophobic and racist anti-immigrant sentiment is pervasive in today's political climate.

To what extent is President Trump responsible for the rise in & intensity of anti-immigrant bigotry and prejudice?

According to a study, perhaps to a significant extent.

Thread

Specifically, it's Trump's use of dehumanizing language to describe Latino immigrants which actually produces or intensifies strong anti-immigrant sentiment and support for punitive immigration policies.

Dehumanization is the key.

Dehumanization means treating a group of people as subhuman or nonhuman.

Often, a dehumanized group is likened to animals, vermin, or diseases. Once viewed in that way, the infliction of harm and negative treatment becomes all too easy.

Historically, the Nazis dehumanized Jews as an insidious, inferior race of people who needed to be exterminated. That dehumanization was integral to Nazi implementation of the Holocaust.

Japanese were dehumanized as a "yellow peril" threat which led to the internment of Japanese Americans and immigrants for the duration of WWII.

Today, Latino immigrants and migrants experience pervasive dehumanization most conspicuously at the hands of the President.

Trump constantly refers to unauthorized Latino immigrants as criminals, rapists, animals, and disease carriers.

In doing so, he isn't just being "racist," but he's seeking to persuade his base and the American people to support restrictive and punitive immigration policies.

Trump's dehumanizing rhetoric plays a central role in stoking anti-immigrant fever especially among his base.

One study conducted by a political scientist is instructive. Individuals were randomly assigned to two groups.

thebluereview.org/dehumanization…

One group read some text that described unauthorized immigration in a negative but non-dehumanizing manner. The other group read text that described unauthorized immigration using dehumanizing language.

The control group read the following text:

I understand that immigration has become a controversial issue these days. However, the movement of immigrants across our border must be controlled. Our nation is negatively impacted by illegal immigration; this situation is getting worse, not better.

The other group read this text:

I understand that immigration has become a TOXIC issue these days. However, the TRANSMISSION of immigrants across our border must be contained. The body of our nation is PLAGUED by illegal immigration; this DISEASE is getting worse, not better.

After they read the text, the participants were asked their opinion about immigrants & immigration policy.

Those who read dehumanizing text were angrier and more disgusted by immigrants than those who read the control text.

Not surprisingly, those who expressed anger and disgust favored restricting the number of immigrants, increasing border security, and denying any path to legal status.

Dehumanizing text, then, instilled in the reader anger and disgust towards unauthorized Latino immigrants.

Anger leads to support for punitive policies, while disgust leads to support for policies of avoidance and protection.

The study suggests that Trump's constant, repetitive dehumanizing of Latino immigrants is effective in eliciting support for his punitive policies.

Implications? One conclusion is that, when Trump's term as president is over, removal of his national platform or "bully pulpit" will result in a decrease in dehumanizing rhetoric and subsequently, a decrease in the breadth and intensity of anti-immigration fervor.

Second, the study found that, when a person is made aware of the effects of dehumanizing language on their emotions and beliefs, the effects of dehumanization are lessened.

Thus, to counteract the effects of dehumanization requires talking about and raising awareness about dehumanization and its effects.

What the study didn't discuss is why some people aren't as susceptible to influence by dehumanizing rhetoric.

Democrats, for example, are strongly supportive of immigration & do not seem to readily accept dehumanizing statements about immigrants. Is it because Democrats more deeply value diversity and inclusion?

What additional practices can reduce the effects of dehumanizing rhetoric?

Bottom-line, the significance of dehumanization for influencing social relations and influencing support for policies harmful to particular groups must be more seriously considered by policy-makers and by the courts.

To the extent policies or laws are enacted in the context of dehumanization, such laws should be considered legally or constitutionally suspect if they invidiously harm a dehumanized group or class.

More on the legal implications in another thread.

End

For historical examples of dehumanization, please check out the thread below.

https://twitter.com/ReginaldOhLaw/status/1102041374583590914