Former President Donald Trump’s new anti-immigration line Sounds like a very old one: that immigrants are biologically worse off than native-born Americans.
in last episode In a podcast by conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt, Trump argued that the propensity to kill is determined by one’s genetics — and that immigrants today have “bad genes.”
The comments seem to represent Trump’s genuine faith. At least going back His 1987 book The art of contractingWhere he said the ability to make deals is determined “in the genes,” Trump did He credits his own success to good genes And Bad people are blamed for the failure of poor people.
But this is perhaps the first time — and at least the highest-profile moment — in which he has explicitly linked his belief in genetics to his obsession with immigrant crime. While Trump has long (and falsely) maintained that immigrants are responsible for the vast majority of American crime, he has never explained exactly what it is about the current wave of immigrants that makes them more likely to commit violent acts.
Now we know the answer: that, according to Trump, “[being] A killer – I believe it – it’s in their genes.”
Trump’s comments fit neatly into a larger conservative intellectual universe, unwittingly combining two disparate ideas on the right into a disturbing synthesis.
Right-wing intellectuals have long been fascinated by genetic determinism—the belief that many things in human life, including the propensity to commit crimes, are determined at birth. Separately, some Trump-era conservatives have declared war on the Reaganite vision of America as a nation defined by its founding ideals rather than the ethno-cultural identity of its people.
Trump’s musings on genes bind these ideas into a coherent whole. Immigration is an existential threat to America, according to Trump, because it brings in people who are genetically incapable of assimilating into the American body politic. America is a nation defined by its people – specifically, those with “good genes.”
It doesn’t take a historian to see the disturbing parallels at work here.
The right’s deep belief in genetic determinants of crime
American conservatism, as I have argued earlier, sees an insistence on the idea of a fixed human nature as one of its defining characteristics. For some conservatives, this expresses the idea that inequalities are natural: that those who rise to the top because of their innate gifts, while the poor remain so because of their own failings.
this Its central theme The bell curveInfamous 1994 book on the role of intelligence in America’s social structure. Although best remembered for his infamous claim that racial inequality probably reflects the superior intelligence of whites compared to blacks, the main focus of the book is using research to normalize America’s class structure.
The bell curve Considers intelligence to be a heritable, essentially genetic trait. Modern societies, the book writes, are very good at identifying and promoting their most genetically gifted children, creating an “intelligent elite” at the top of the social structure and an unintelligent underclass at the bottom. The problems of the underclass are caused primarily by the stupidity of its inhabitants – including, the book claims, the high crime rate of poor communities.
“Many people think of criminals as coming from the wrong side of the tracks. They are right, where people with low cognitive abilities live disproportionately,” authors Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein wrote.
like many The bell curveIts argument, linking crime to genetics, remains a popular move among right-wing intellectuals even as a modern evidence base. Tells a more complex story. Following Trump’s Hugh Hewitt interview, prominent right-wing commentator Richard Hanania asserted that “He is right that crime is largely genetic“
Interestingly, Hanania disagrees with Trump’s appeal of this idea to immigrants. correctly points out that immigrants No more crime prone Compared to native-born Americans, Hanania concluded that immigrants as a group do not have “bad genes” that predispose some people to crime. “Trump lies about crime, even when he tells the truth about genetics,” You will end Hananias.
But in this, he is in the minority on the right: most share Trump’s view of immigrants as a particularly criminal and essentially alien group. Indeed, it has led the modern right to take a different view of America as a country than their past — one that correlates uncomfortably well with Trump’s comments about genes and crime.
America as a (Biological) Nation
In one of his Early political speechRonald Reagan asserted that “America is less a place than an idea.” The American idea, according to Reagan, “is something deep in each of our hearts that is godlike and precious that no individual or group of people has the right to impose its will on people.”
Reagan is expressing the traditional conservative movement’s view of American national identity: that it is defined by our shared commitment to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Such nationalism, which scholars call “religious” or “civic” nationalism, engenders a deep belief that anyone can be American if they are properly socialized into American ideals. As president, Reagan offered amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants and openly welcomed people crossing the southern border.
“Instead of building them up or fencing them off, why don’t we work on some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with work permits,” he said. A 1980 presidential debate.
Today, of course, put a fence Republican bigotry. Gone is Reagan’s religious nationalism and its welcoming, idealistic spirit. Instead, the modern right is increasingly enamored with a darker vision of American nationalism: that of country identity is defined less by its founding ideals than by blood and soil. Americanness is not determined by commitment to the principles of liberty and equality, but rather by one’s historical and familial connection to the country. This is a more classically European way of looking at national identity, and it resonates at the highest levels of the current Republican Party.
“America is not just an idea. It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future. It is, in short, a nation,” Vice Presidential nominee J.D. Vance said during his speech at the Republican National Convention.
While allowing that “it’s part of that tradition, of course, that we welcome newcomers,” Vance argued that this tradition also requires strict criteria for the number and types of newcomers who should be allowed. Immigrants can only be allowed in “on our terms,” otherwise America will lose the sense of nationhood that he believes underlies the nation’s greatness.
“People will not fight for abstractions, but they will fight for their homes. And if our movement is going to succeed, and if this country is going to prosper, our leaders need to remember that America is a nation and its citizens deserve leaders who put their interests first,” Vance said.
Trump made a similar, if more pointed, argument A September campaign speech in Pennsylvania.
“Each state takes centuries to develop its unique character,” the former president said. “But reckless immigration policies can change that very quickly and destroy everything in its path.”
In his recent comments on immigrants and crime, Trump shows how this new nationalism coincides with a long-standing conservative preoccupation with genetics.
America is not just a country for a certain kind of people; It is that the people we let in are biologically incapable of becoming peaceful Americans. Creedal nationalism’s belief in assimilation is not merely misplaced, but a false denial of genetic reality. The only responsible conservatism on this account, which sees the United States as an almost physical entity: one whose survival depends on keeping its gene pool as desirable as possible.
We have seen this version of nationalism before. It does tend to end well.
This story is from the On the Right newsletter. New versions drop every Wednesday. Sign up here.
