Last month, the Trump administrationflew238 Venezuelan immigrants to a brutal prison in El Salvador. Federal officials alleged that the detainees were members of the Tren de Aragua gang,callingthem “heinous monsters” ,“criminal aliens”, “the worst of the worst”. The federal government has also revoked visas fora thousandinternational students over their alleged participation in protests against Israel’s genocide in Palestine. Some were abducted, like Mahmoud Khalil, who has spent more than a month incarcerated in one of theworstjails in the US. Officialsallegedthat Mahmoud “sided with terrorists … who have killed innocent men, women, and children”.Media reports quickly revealed that the Trump administration islyingabout “innocent” people tojustifyabducting them. But this raises a more important question: if Trump’s victims weren’t “innocent”, does that make them disposable? I worry that emphasizing theinnocenceof victims creates a rhetorical trap. It’s like carefully digging a pit that the fascists can shove us into.Kilmar Ábrego García’s wife rejects Trump officials’ depictions of him as ‘violent’Read moreInstead, we should interrogate the fact that theTrump administrationchose to target “gang members” and “terrorist supporters” in the first step of its ethnic cleansing project. Criminals and terrorists are the bogeymen animating bipartisan racism against Black, Latino and Arab people, and Trump is weaponizing these myths because many liberals have already written them off as less than human. The political context that enabled US residents to be shipped to El Salvador’s Cecot facility is a bipartisan project more than 50 years in the making, largely unquestioned by people who are rightfully horrified by recent escalations.Allegations ofcriminalityhave long been an effectivepretextfor anti-Black violence in the US – this is the “war on crime”. So long as there are “criminals” to fight, viciouspolice brutalitybecomes politically palatable. This is true in blue and red statesalike. The gang member is the latest symbol used todehumanizeBlack and Latino people, replacing the “superpredator”. In practice, police and prosecutors invoke the specter of monstrous gangs to continuetargetingentire neighborhoods while evading allegations of explicit discrimination.You can be added to a gang database because of yourtattoos, the color of theclothingyou wear or even for using certainemojison social media. These lists are riddled with errors, sometimes namingtoddlersandelders. More commonly, gang databases index thethousandsof people –often children– swept up by police because of where they live or whom they socialize with. The consequences of gang policing aredevastating: it can lead tofederal prosecutionorpotential deportation, not to mention a lifetime of stateharassment.Gang membership isn’t the only tool the Trump administration can use to portray its victims as guilty. When the “war on crime” morphed into the “war on terror”, Arab and Muslim residents suffered from discriminatorysurveillanceand repression – the “terrorist” category matches the “gang member” category in that it justifies racist dragnet policing practices. The “counter-terrorism” net has already widened,targetingStop Cop City activists in Atlanta. This problem is not limited to Republicans – liberalpoliticiansanduniversitystakeholderslaid thegroundworkfor Trump’s deportation efforts. Last year, the Anti-Defamation League’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, called student Palestine activistsproxies for Iran, and New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams, smeared us asterrorist supportersto justify an incrediblyviolentpolice raid.The innocence trap is dangerous because allegations of criminality have always been deployed to justify state violenceThe widening net of who is considered a criminal not only chills dissent among immigrants and activists. It further dehumanizes and renders disposable people who have genuinely committed harm.We must defend the rights of people whodohave criminal records. No one deserves to be whisked away to a brutal prison that deprives them of basic human rights – no matter if it’s in El Salvador,Louisiana,California,PennsylvaniaorNew York. Criminal records and bona fide gang membership don’t turn human beings into monsters. If Trump goes through with his plan of sending citizens to El Salvador, he could initially target people convicted of heinous crimes. This would allow federal officials to ask: “Why do liberals care about pedophiles and murderers?”We should be prepared to defend the basic rights ofallof Trump’s targets with our full strength. If a single person becomes disposable, anyone could become the next target. Last week, Trump said he“loved” the ideaof sending American “criminals” to El Salvador, and law professors aresounding the alarmabout citizen student activists being subjected to terrorism prosecutions. First it will be the “migrant gang member” or “terrorist on a student visa” sent to Cecot. Next it will be the domestic gang member and the terrorist-supporting citizen. Eventually, perhaps any political opponent could be construed as a criminal-terrorist.Trump may not even need to rely on the justice department to criminalize his enemies – dozens of local copsjoinedthe 6 January 2021 putsch at the US Capitol, and local prosecutors have eagerlychargedstudent activists withfelonies. This is another reason to avoid the innocence trap: many policeloveTrump, and law enforcement can very easily make theiradversariesseem likecriminals.The innocence trap is dangerous because allegations of criminality have always been deployed to justify state violence. If we only defend the “innocent”, the fascists will argue that their victim “was no angel”. An anti-fascist rhetoric that carves out exceptions forimperfect victimsis a gift to our opponents.Jonathan Ben-Menachem is a PhD candidate in sociology at Columbia University, where heresearchesthe politics of criminalization
What is a ‘criminal’ immigrant? The word is an American rhetorical trap | Jonathan Ben-Menachem
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Critique of Criminal Labeling in Immigration Policies Under Trump Administration"
The Guardian
5.7
TruthLens AI Summary
Last month, the Trump administration's controversial decision to transport 238 Venezuelan immigrants to a prison in El Salvador sparked significant outrage. Federal officials labeled these detainees as members of the Tren de Aragua gang, referring to them derogatorily as 'criminal aliens' and 'the worst of the worst.' In a related incident, the government revoked visas for approximately a thousand international students, many of whom protested against Israel's actions in Palestine. Among these individuals is Mahmoud Khalil, who has been detained for over a month in a notorious U.S. jail, facing accusations of siding with terrorists. However, media investigations suggest that the administration may be misrepresenting the backgrounds of these individuals, raising critical questions about the implications of labeling certain groups as 'criminals.' The focus on the innocence of victims can inadvertently create a rhetorical trap, suggesting that only those deemed innocent deserve protection, which could further marginalize others targeted by such policies.
The article highlights the broader political context of the Trump administration's actions, arguing that targeting individuals labeled as 'gang members' or 'terrorist supporters' is part of a long-standing bipartisan effort that perpetuates systemic racism against Black, Latino, and Arab communities. The notion of 'criminality' has historically been used to justify police violence and social control, with marginalized groups often bearing the brunt of such policies. The expansion of gang databases, which frequently include innocent individuals based solely on their social associations or appearances, illustrates the dangers of this classification. The text warns that the current framing of criminality can chill dissent among activists and immigrants, as it allows for the dehumanization of those labeled as criminals. As the article concludes, it is crucial to defend the rights of all individuals, regardless of their past, to prevent a slippery slope where anyone could be deemed disposable under the guise of combating crime or terrorism. This fight for justice must include those who may not fit the 'innocent' narrative, as failing to protect them could ultimately endanger everyone’s rights and freedoms.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article presents a critical view of the Trump administration's actions regarding immigrant detainees, particularly focusing on the framing of individuals as "criminals" or "terrorists." By highlighting specific cases and the language used by officials, the piece aims to challenge the narrative surrounding immigration and race in America.
Rhetorical Trap of Innocence
The author raises concerns about framing victims as "innocent," suggesting that this creates a dangerous precedent where the lives of those labeled as "criminals" become disposable. This dichotomy serves to further marginalize specific communities, particularly Black, Latino, and Arab populations, by reinforcing systemic racism. The use of terms like "criminal aliens" and "heinous monsters" seeks to dehumanize the targeted groups, making it easier for society to accept their mistreatment.
Political Context and Historical Precedent
The article contextualizes the Trump administration's actions within a larger bipartisan project that has been developing for over fifty years. By framing these actions as part of an ethnic cleansing effort, the author implies that the targeting of certain groups is not a new phenomenon but rather a continuation of historically entrenched prejudices. This historical lens emphasizes the need to question the motives behind labeling certain individuals as criminals, which has historically justified police violence and systemic oppression.
Manipulative Language and Targeting
The article critiques the language used by officials and the media, suggesting that it serves to manipulate public perception. By portraying immigrants as criminals, it legitimizes harsh policies and practices. The underlying message is that this framing is not just about individual cases but reflects a broader agenda that targets marginalized communities. The manipulation lies in creating an "us versus them" narrative, which can have dangerous implications for social cohesion and justice.
Public and Political Impact
The implications of such narratives can extend far beyond individual stories. They can affect public opinion, policy-making, and even economic conditions by reinforcing negative stereotypes and justifying aggressive immigration enforcement. The article suggests that the framing of immigrants as criminals can lead to increased support for policies that further criminalize these populations, thereby perpetuating cycles of violence and discrimination.
Community Support and Response
The article likely resonates with communities that oppose the criminalization of immigrants and advocate for social justice. It aims to engage a readership that recognizes the systemic issues at play, encouraging them to question the dominant narratives around crime and immigration. This piece appears to target activists, scholars, and individuals concerned with racial justice, aiming to unite them against what is perceived as an unjust system.
Economic and Global Implications
While the article primarily focuses on social justice issues, the framing of immigrants and the subsequent political discourse can have economic repercussions as well. Negative perceptions of immigrant populations can influence markets and investor confidence, particularly in industries dependent on immigrant labor. However, the article does not directly address financial markets or specific stocks, leaving open questions about broader economic impacts.
Geopolitical Context
In terms of global power dynamics, the article highlights the intersection of immigration policy and U.S. foreign relations, particularly concerning Latin America. This context is relevant in discussions about U.S. interventions and the treatment of immigrants from affected regions. While the article does not delve into specific geopolitical strategies, it suggests that the treatment of immigrants reflects broader international policies and human rights considerations.
Possibility of AI Involvement
The writing style and argumentative structure suggest a human author, as the nuances of rhetoric and critical framing are complex. However, it is plausible that AI tools may have been utilized in the drafting or editing process, particularly for fact-checking or language refinement. If AI were involved, it could have influenced the tone and direction, emphasizing certain narratives over others. In conclusion, the article presents a compelling argument regarding the dangers of labeling immigrants as criminals, highlighting the broader implications for society and justice. The framing of such narratives can have lasting effects on public perception and policy, reinforcing systemic inequalities. The reliability of the article hinges on its critical perspective and the evidence presented, though it reflects a particular ideological stance.