Analysing how close the US is to a migrant and trans genocide

Following President Trump’s 2024 re-election, civil rights observers warn that U.S. policies and rhetoric toward transgender individuals and migrants have escalated through Gregory Stanton’s 10 Stages of Genocide. Below is an analysis of each group, stage by stage, with evidence from recent policies, legislation, and national-level events (with historical comparisons for context).

1. Trans People

Classification & Symbolization

Classification involves defining an “us vs. them.” Under Trump and allied lawmakers, transgender Americans have been explicitly singled out as an out-group distinct from cisgender “normal” people. For example, Trump’s 2024 campaign pledged to “defeat the toxic poison of gender ideology” and legally reaffirm “that God created two genders, male and female,” pointedly denying the legitimacy of any identity outside that binary (Trump’s executive actions curbing transgender rights focus on ‘gender ideology’ | WUSF ). This framing casts transgender identity as something fundamentally other, a target to be eliminated rather than a part of the American “us.”

Symbolization assigns names or symbols to the classified group. In lieu of physical symbols, the administration and supporters use derogatory labels and slurs to mark transgender people. They routinely refer to transgender women as “men,” call gender-affirming care “genital mutilation,” and label transgender individuals and their allies as “groomers” or “pedophiles” (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights). By reducing individuals to these caricatured labels, officials symbolically paint the entire group as dangerous deviants. This echoes historical precedents – e.g. Nazi Germany’s propaganda called gay and trans people “degenerates” and forced homosexual prisoners to wear pink triangle badges, clearly marking them for abuse. Today’s rhetorical tags like “transgender ideology” serve a similar marking function, portraying trans people not as a diverse community of humans but as an insidious monolithic “ideology” to be purged (Trump’s executive actions curbing transgender rights focus on ‘gender ideology’ | WUSF ).

Discrimination & Dehumanization

Once a group is identified and stigmatized, the next stages are Discrimination (denying rights) and Dehumanization (denying humanity). Both are starkly apparent in current U.S. treatment of trans people:

• Legal Discrimination: Within days of inauguration in January 2025, the Trump administration issued sweeping executive orders stripping away transgender rights. These orders revoked federal recognition of transgender identities, banned any acknowledgement of transgender people in education, and even forbade federal employees from using gender-appropriate pronouns (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights). Other directives discharged all transgender service members from the military and eliminated Medicare/Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming health care (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights). States have mirrored these moves with dozens of new laws – 2023 saw a record 500+ anti-trans bills introduced nationwide – banning transgender youth from sports or health care, restricting bathroom access, and more. These policies explicitly deny transgender people equal access to public life and essential services, meeting Stanton’s definition of discrimination where a dominant group uses law and political power to deny rights and even citizenship to a weaker group (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights) (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights). Historical echo: the early Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany stripped Jews of citizenship and rights, a legal discrimination that foreshadowed worse to come. Likewise, trans Americans are being written out of legal protections today.
• Dehumanizing Rhetoric: Alongside formal discrimination, officials and aligned media engage in open dehumanization of trans people. Trump and many Republican lawmakers routinely describe transgender individuals as less than human – branding them as sexual predators, societal threats, or mere ideology. The administration’s own language depicts trans identity as a sickness or perversion: memos rail against “gender madness,” and one order claimed that being transgender “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle” (Trump’s executive actions curbing transgender rights focus on ‘gender ideology’ | WUSF ). Surrogates have gone even further; at the 2023 CPAC conference, a prominent right-wing commentator argued “for the good of society, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely” (CPAC speaker sparks alarm with call for transgenderism to be ‘eradicated’ | The Independent) – a chilling call to eliminate the community’s presence. Such language mirrors known precursors to genocide: comparing people to pests or monsters has historically paved the way for violence. (Indeed, Nazi propaganda likened Jews to vermin and Rwandan Hutu extremists called Tutsis “cockroaches” before the 1994 genocide (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout).) In the U.S., trans people are similarly slandered as “infecting” or “poisoning” society – e.g. officials obsess over “removing the transgender ideology” as if it were a toxin (Trump’s executive actions curbing transgender rights focus on ‘gender ideology’ | WUSF ). This systematic dehumanization makes it easier for the public to accept when trans people’s rights – or lives – are endangered, since they’ve been painted as a menacing, subhuman “other” (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights).

Organization & Polarization

In Stanton’s model, Organization refers to formal or informal mechanisms to organize the persecution, and Polarization involves driving the population into opposing camps. We see both in the current climate for trans Americans:

• Organized Campaigns: The attack on transgender rights is not random; it is highly organized at multiple levels of government. The Trump administration signaled anti-trans policy as a top priority by enacting a “flurry of first-day” executive actions aimed at virtually every aspect of trans people’s existence (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights). These orders – from education gag rules to prison directives – form a coordinated blueprint to oppress a targeted minority. In parallel, conservative state legislatures and advocacy groups (such as Alliance Defending Freedom and the Heritage Foundation) have coordinated model bills to roll back transgender rights across the country. Over the past four years, lawmakers introduced hundreds of anti-trans bills annually – 615 bills in 2023 alone, a record high – and dozens have become law (2023 Anti-Trans Bills: Trans Legislation Tracker) (With 617 Bills Nationwide, 2024 Is a Record-Breaking Year for Anti …). This nationwide legislative onslaught is centrally organized and funded, indicating a deliberate campaign. Human rights observers note that such legal and bureaucratic coordination is a classic hallmark of genocidal regimes preparing repression (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights). (Gregory Stanton points out that genocide is always organized – often by the state using laws, police, or militias to systematically target the victim group (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights).) The U.S. government’s own machinery – from federal agencies down to local school boards pressured to out trans students – is being marshaled to isolate and punish transgender individuals.
• Polarization: Transgender rights have become one of the most polarizing issues in American society, with extremist rhetoric pushing moderates out and normalizing hatred. Republican officials, including Trump, use trans people as political scapegoats, claiming their mere existence or inclusion is a threat to children, women, or “traditional values.” This propaganda sharply divides the population. For instance, Trump’s 2024 stump speeches regularly demonized trans people to galvanize his base, proclaiming “no men in women’s sports” and accusing opponents of “indoctrinating” children (Trump’s executive actions curbing transgender rights focus on ‘gender ideology’ | WUSF ) (Trump’s executive actions curbing transgender rights focus on ‘gender ideology’ | WUSF ). Right-wing media amplifies these messages, while LGBTQ advocates rally in opposition – a clear us vs. them wedge. Such polarization is Stage 6 of Stanton’s model, where hate groups and extremists dominate the narrative and drive communities apart (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout) (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout). We are seeing that now: library drag events or school board meetings about gender have drawn protests and even violence from militant groups like the Proud Boys, illustrating how extremist ideology has moved from the fringes to the mainstream. Political moderates who might seek compromise are largely sidelined; the debate is framed in absolutist terms (e.g. “eradicate transgenderism” vs. “trans rights are human rights”). This environment has real consequences. Hate crimes against trans people have surged in recent years – over half of all recorded anti-trans murders in the past decade occurred in the last four years alone (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights) – a rise advocates link to polarizing hate speech. The dangerous divide recalls past tragedies: in the 1930s, Nazi propaganda polarized Germans against Jewish neighbors, and in 1990s Rwanda, Hutu media polarized society by relentlessly demonizing Tutsis (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout) (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout). The U.S. is witnessing a similar rift, with transgender Americans increasingly portrayed as enemies by those in power, and violence against them becoming “permissioned” by the poisonous discourse (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights).

Preparation & Persecution

Stages 7 and 8 – Preparation and Persecution – are now alarmingly evident in the transgender context, as authorities move from words and laws to direct harmful actions against the target group.

• Preparation: In Stanton’s framework, preparation often involves identifying and separating the targeted group, and planning specific actions against them. We see early signs of this for trans people. Government policies are effectively marking and isolating trans individuals for future harm. For example, one of Trump’s new executive orders requires that all transgender women in federal women’s prisons be transferred to men’s prisons (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights). This administrative step “prepares” the ground for persecution by concentrating transgender inmates into environments where they are extremely vulnerable. (Indeed, this policy all but ensures violence – effectively designating trans women as prey for predatory male inmates, as legal experts have pointed out (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights).) Another preparation-like measure is the threat to remove transgender children from supportive parents – a policy Trump officials have floated, mirroring an order in Texas that treats gender-affirming care as child abuse (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights). By compiling lists of such families or mandating schools to report trans kids, authorities would be identifying the group (trans youth) and setting the stage to separate them from society. Historical comparison: authoritarian regimes often start by registering or segregating the target population (for instance, the Nazis required Jews to register and later wear identifying stars). In the U.S., while there is no literal star or registry for trans people, the push to legally define gender strictly as sex at birth and to out trans individuals in various settings serves a similar function – it publicly “identifies” who is trans and strips away any privacy or protection, making it easier to target them. Meanwhile, right-wing influencers talk openly of building databases of health providers who treat trans patients or tracking trans people’s activities, which further hints at organized preparation for broader persecution.
• Persecution: Active persecution of transgender Americans is underway, as evidenced by state violence, criminalization, and severe rights violations against the group. Under the new federal directives, transgender women are being removed from spaces of refuge and put in harm’s way – e.g. the prison transfer policy described above, which essentially subjects trans inmates to what one advocate called “state-sanctioned daily rape” in men’s prisons (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights). This is a form of cruel and unusual punishment specifically inflicted on them for being trans. Additionally, by banning medically necessary gender-affirming care nationwide, the government is inflicting serious bodily and mental harm on trans people – one of the acts defined as genocidal in Article II of the Genocide Convention (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights) (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights). Many transgender individuals who rely on hormone therapy face life-threatening health consequences if suddenly cut off, and experts warn that suicide rates will climb as a direct result (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights). We are already seeing evidence of persecution in everyday life: trans people report being driven out of jobs and public spaces. A transgender defense contractor told NPR she was told she can no longer use the women’s restroom at work and now fears losing her security clearance – she’s literally moving into a basement and avoiding signing leases, feeling the government “could fire me at any moment” simply for being trans (Trump’s executive actions curbing transgender rights focus on ‘gender ideology’ | WUSF ) (Trump’s executive actions curbing transgender rights focus on ‘gender ideology’ | WUSF ). In some states, transgender individuals and supportive parents face criminal charges (for example, several states have enacted felony penalties for doctors who provide gender-affirming care, effectively persecuting both caregivers and patients). Many families with trans kids have fled their home states in fear of investigations or loss of custody, a modern echo of refugees fleeing persecution. Taken together, these actions meet Stanton’s definition of Stage 8: a systematic campaign to attack and punish the targeted group – through imprisonment, physical violence, and terror. Such persecution is reminiscent of early 1930s Germany when Jewish people and other minorities (including LGBTQ individuals) were beaten by Brownshirts, had their businesses shut, and were forced to flee. The U.S. has not (yet) reached the death-camp stage for trans people, but the persecution is severe and intensifying with each new policy.

Extermination & Denial

Extermination (Stage 9) – the mass killing of the target group – has not been officially enacted in the United States against trans people. There are no state-sponsored killings or death camps for transgender individuals. However, observers note troubling signs that the situation could deteriorate toward this ultimate stage if unchecked. The combination of violent rhetoric, encouragement of vigilantism, and state-enabled harm (like fostering prison sexual violence or medical neglect) creates an environment where trans people’s lives are in grave danger. Already, fatal violence against trans Americans is at record levels, and many in the community speak of an “existential crisis” – fearing that the government’s endgame is to eradicate transgender people from society either by forcing them to live in hiding or by indirectly causing their deaths. It is worth noting that genocide need not be conducted by firing squads or gas chambers; driving a group to suicide or exposing them to deadly violence also achieves extermination “in whole or in part.” By that metric, the U.S. may be inching into Stage 9 for trans people: officials have knowingly enacted conditions that will lead to deaths (for instance, acknowledging that ending health care access will cause suicides (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights)). We have also seen an uptick in extremist threats to literally kill trans and LGBTQ individuals – bomb plots against Pride events, armed protesters at drag shows, etc., fueled by the hateful climate. While these are not (yet) coordinated mass killings, they underline the heightened risk. A historical parallel can be drawn with the early Nazi approach to gay and trans people: the Nazi regime’s ideology sought to eliminate homosexuality (viewed as incompatible with their Aryan ideal) – thousands of LGBTQ individuals were sent to concentration camps and many perished there. The rhetoric from some U.S. political figures about “eradicating” transgenderism suggests an ominously similar desire to “eliminate the group from society.” The main difference is scale and formality: the U.S. government has not overtly called for killing trans people, but it also shows indifference to their survival, casting their potential deaths as an acceptable cost of “protecting children” or “saving society.”

If outright extermination is the most dreadful scenario, denial (Stage 10) often follows or accompanies it – perpetrators deny that they intended harm, or even deny the victims’ humanity and suffering. We already see a form of denial in the U.S. discourse: leaders pushing anti-trans policies insist “this is not hate, it’s about safety.” They deny the very identity of trans people, saying “they’re not really women/men”, effectively denying the group’s existence and dignity. When confronted with terms like “transgender genocide,” these officials scoff, claiming they are “saving children” or “protecting women,” not targeting a minority. For instance, the Trump administration justifies its actions by claiming it’s “about keeping women and girls safe” from a so-called transgender threat in bathrooms or sports (Trump’s executive actions curbing transgender rights focus on ‘gender ideology’ | WUSF ). This narrative denies that transgender people are the ones facing disproportionate violence and instead paints them as the aggressors. Such reversal and refusal to acknowledge harm are common in denial. Should violence escalate, it is likely officials would continue to deny wrongdoing – much as past perpetrators have. (One can recall how, after the Holocaust, some Nazi sympathizers denied the atrocities, or how even today some leaders deny that cultural genocide against Native Americans took place in the U.S.) In the transgender context, denial is already present as a propaganda tool – denying trans people’s identities (e.g. banning the word “transgender”) and denying that the anti-trans campaign is causing any suffering (e.g. dismissing concerns about suicide or abuse).

Summary (Transgender Stages): In 2025, the U.S. appears to have progressed through Stages 1–8 regarding transgender people. There is clear classification and symbolization (trans people marked as an “other” with disparaging labels), aggressive discrimination (sweeping anti-trans laws) and dehumanization (portraying trans folk as predators or subhuman). The efforts are organized by government authorities and polarize society. Concrete steps of preparation (identifying and isolating trans individuals via policy) are leading directly into active persecution (removing rights, inflicting physical and mental harm). Extermination is not yet state policy, but the trajectory — and explicit calls to “eradicate” the community — raises the alarm. Denial of wrongdoing and of the group’s legitimacy is woven throughout the process. Genocide scholars caution that, by Stanton’s criteria, these developments constitute the early phases of a potential genocide against transgender people in America (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights). Unless halted, history teaches that the final stages (9 and 10) can arrive with horrifying speed.

(Historical comparison: Just as the Nazis once burned transgender research institutes and persecuted LGBTQ people as a prelude to wider genocides, we may be witnessing a similarly dangerous pattern targeting trans individuals in the U.S. (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights) (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights). Only vigilant resistance and intervention can prevent the worst outcomes.)

2. Migrants

Classification & Symbolization

In the context of migrants (particularly Latino immigrants, asylum seekers, and other “foreign” entrants), the U.S. under Trump has emphatically employed Stage 1: Classification. From his first presidential campaign in 2015, Trump classified Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and criminals, instantly dividing the populace into native “Americans” vs. migrant “invaders.” Throughout his presidency and into his 2024 campaign, he has drawn a sharp line between “us” (law-abiding American citizens) and “them” (immigrants, especially undocumented or asylum-seeking). This classification often overlaps with race/ethnicity – e.g. Latino migrants are labeled as a menacing out-group. Policies reinforce this division: the administration’s directives refer to “aliens” vs. citizens, and in 2025 Trump even ordered agencies to revert to using the term “illegal alien” (discarding the more humanizing “noncitizen” language of the previous administration) (After Day One: A High-Level Analysis of Trump’s First Executive Actions | American Immigration Council) (After Day One: A High-Level Analysis of Trump’s First Executive Actions | American Immigration Council). Such terminology cements migrants’ status as a distinct, undesirable class.

Symbolization for migrants is evident in the language and measures used to mark them. While migrants in the U.S. are not forced to wear physical badges, they are symbolically tagged as “illegals,” “aliens,” or “invaders.” The word “infest” has been used by Trump to describe immigrants coming into the country (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout), comparing them to vermin – a classic dehumanizing symbol. In 2025, Trump officially declared a national emergency at the southern border and labeled the influx of migrants an “invasion” (After Day One: A High-Level Analysis of Trump’s First Executive Actions | American Immigration Council). This designation isn’t just rhetoric; it’s symbolization in a legal context – invoking the image of foreign armies. Under this “invasion” banner, migrants (largely families fleeing violence) are symbolically transformed into enemy combatants. Governors like Greg Abbott of Texas have echoed this, literally invoking “Invasion Clauses” to justify extraordinary state action against migrants. By calling migrant caravans “storms” or “floods” and portraying asylum-seekers as a faceless horde, officials reduce individual humans to a threatening symbol. These labels (“invaders,” “animals,” “aliens”) function much like the identifiers in past atrocities – for example, the Nazis’ use of racial epithets and the Star of David symbol for Jews, or more directly, how Myanmar’s regime labeled the Rohingya as “Bengali intruders” to deny them citizenship. In the U.S., calling immigrants “illegal” by default implies they have no rightful place in society – a symbolic branding that lays groundwork for mistreatment.

Discrimination & Dehumanization

Next, Discrimination against migrants has been implemented through a series of policies that strip away their rights and humanity, often justified by openly dehumanizing rhetoric from leaders:

• Systematic Discrimination: The U.S. government has enacted numerous laws and executive orders discriminating against migrants based on national origin or legal status. During Trump’s first term, we saw the Muslim Travel Ban, which barred entry to people from several Muslim-majority countries (an act of religious/ethnic discrimination in immigration policy) (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout). There was also an attempt to end DACA (protections for young immigrants), cancel Temporary Protected Status for long-resident groups (like Haitians and Salvadorans), and drastically cut refugee admissions – all targeting immigrant communities. After 2024, these efforts have intensified. On Day One of his second term, Trump signed ten executive orders overhauling immigration enforcement (After Day One: A High-Level Analysis of Trump’s First Executive Actions | American Immigration Council). These orders seek to make asylum nearly unattainable, criminalize undocumented presence, and even punish legal immigrants. For example, the administration is moving to suspend the legal right to seek asylum by redefining virtually all border crossings as a security threat (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union) (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union). Plans have been announced to bar undocumented children from public schools and to challenge birthright citizenship so that U.S.-born children of immigrants would no longer be citizens (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union) (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union). Such measures explicitly deny fundamental rights (education, nationality) to the group. This level of official discrimination – essentially exempting a class of people from basic legal protections – recalls some of America’s darkest chapters. Indeed, scholars have pointed out that past U.S. policies treated certain groups as not fully human or outside the law, as seen in the genocidal campaigns against Native Americans and the enslavement of African Americans (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout). Today’s immigrant-focused policies carry that legacy: migrants are often not afforded full due process or humane treatment under the law, echoing how Native peoples were once denied legal personhood and dispossessed of rights. Current examples include migrants being denied the chance to claim asylum (a right under international law) and instead being summarily expelled or detained indefinitely, as well as proposals to allow mass expulsion without individual hearings. These are clear forms of discrimination – creating a two-tier system where one group (migrants) has vastly fewer rights.
• Hate-Fueled Dehumanization: Concurrent with legal discrimination, the dehumanization of migrants has been a hallmark of political rhetoric. Trump and his allies consistently describe immigrants in sub-human or threatening terms. A notorious example came in 2018 when Trump tweeted that immigrants would “infest our country” (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout) – terminology likening human beings to vermin or parasites. In 2023, he escalated this language even further, claiming that migrants are “poisoning the blood of our country” (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union). This phrase is strikingly genocidal in its resonance: “poisoning the blood” invokes a classic Nazi metaphor used to justify the extermination of Jews (Hitler spoke of Jewish people “polluting Aryan blood”). Trump also asserted that “they’re not humans, they’re animals” – recounting how he told officials he would “use the word animal [for immigrants] because that’s what they are” (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union). Such language blatantly strips away the humanity of migrants. It has been employed at the highest levels (even the Speaker of the House was chastised by Trump for urging him not to dehumanize people as “animals”) (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union). Furthermore, migrants are collectively blamed for crime and disease: Trump paints those arriving as “rough people” from the world’s jails and “insane asylums” (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union), portraying families fleeing violence as if they were deranged criminals. This dehumanization has trickled down through society – media figures refer to border crossers as “an invasion of lepers” or “terrorists,” and local officials in some areas have compared migrant groups to packs of wild animals. The effect is to normalize extreme cruelty. Historically, we know that when a group is sufficiently dehumanized, violence against them faces little public resistance (for instance, Nazi and Rwandan propagandists primed their populations to view the targeted group as literal pests or enemies, making the subsequent genocide appear as “pest control” or justified war (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout)). In America, by calling migrants “invaders” and “poison,” leaders are creating a similar psychological permission structure for atrocities. The demonization is so pervasive that even basic empathy is eroded – witness how the image of migrant children in cages was justified by some as an appropriate deterrent, with dehumanizing quips about “actors” or “crisis fakes” used to dismiss their suffering.

Organization & Polarization

The persecution of migrants in the U.S. is not happening by accident; it is deliberately organized by government policy and fueled by extreme polarization of public opinion on immigration:

• Organized State Actions: Under Trump’s renewed leadership, the federal government has rapidly mobilized its vast resources to target migrants. In January 2025, a “shock-and-awe blitz” of executive orders was launched to reshape immigration enforcement (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union). These orders go far beyond past norms. They effectively “task the U.S. military with repelling asylum-seekers” at the border and even open the door to invoking the Insurrection Act or the Alien Enemies Act – archaic laws meant for wartime – to use against immigrant populations (After Day One: A High-Level Analysis of Trump’s First Executive Actions | American Immigration Council) (After Day One: A High-Level Analysis of Trump’s First Executive Actions | American Immigration Council). The administration is expanding detention infrastructure (building more camps and prisons to hold thousands of people) and assembling what amounts to a mass deportation machine. Plans call for creating a new “deportation force” comprised of military personnel, federal agents, and deputized local police, since ICE alone doesn’t have manpower to deport millions (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union). Trump has explicitly promised to “carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history”, targeting millions of undocumented residents (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union). This requires significant organization: databases of names, coordinated raids, transportation logistics (even talk of railcars or flights to deport en masse), and legal maneuvers to bypass normal due process. Indeed, the first-day executive orders provide a blueprint for mass round-ups, treating every undocumented person as an immediate target rather than focusing on criminals (After Day One: A High-Level Analysis of Trump’s First Executive Actions | American Immigration Council). Such methodical planning is Stage 5 (Organization) – we are essentially watching the government “coordinate a campaign of persecution”. One chilling detail: some in Trump’s circle have considered using Guantánamo Bay to detain certain immigrants deemed security risks (Immigrants’ Rights Advocates Demand Trump Administration …), and the new orders reportedly float the idea of sending migrants to offshore detention if domestic facilities overflow. This mirrors how colonial powers and some 20th-century regimes created island penal colonies or gulags for unwanted populations. On U.S. soil, family separation in 2018 was an organized policy (officials had prepared facilities and a process to split families), and now in 2025, similar and even more sweeping mechanisms are being put in place.
• Polarization of the Issue: Immigration in America is a deeply polarized issue, and the Trump era has only entrenched this as Stage 6 of genocide – Polarization – intensifies. The administration’s rhetoric and actions polarize society by design: they rally Trump’s base with fear-mongering about immigrants, while immigrant communities and many other Americans are horrified and mobilize in opposition. For example, Trump’s consistent use of terms like “invasion” has not only rallied nativist supporters but also echoed white supremacist conspiracy theories (like the “Great Replacement” theory), inflaming extremist passions. Meanwhile, Democrats and human rights groups are characterized as the “enemy within” for defending immigrants. We saw a stark example of polarization after the 2019 El Paso massacre, where a white nationalist murdered 23 people at a Walmart, targeting Hispanics. The killer’s manifesto parroted the “Hispanic invasion” rhetoric – “This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas,” he wrote (Hispanics terrorized after El Paso shooting and racist manifesto | The Texas Tribune) – directly echoing words used in political discourse. This act horrified the nation, yet even then, the language of invasion persisted in right-wing narratives. Polarization is further driven by media: one ecosystem (conservative talk radio, certain cable networks) continuously highlights crimes by undocumented immigrants or portrays the border as chaos, while the other side highlights images of children in cages and deported veterans. The middle ground for rational policy debate has eroded. Moderate voices are drowned out; those who try to find compassionate solutions are often labeled as traitors or soft on crime by one side, or as complicit in cruelty by the other (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout). Such extreme polarization can be a precursor to mass violence – it creates an atmosphere in which any compromise is seen as betrayal, and increasingly drastic measures become thinkable. Historically, polarization was evident in places like Yugoslavia before ethnic cleansing (media on each side demonized the other ethnicity) and in the lead-up to the Rwandan genocide (moderate politicians were assassinated, leaving only hardliners) (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout) (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout). In the U.S., while not that extreme yet, we do see political moderates on immigration being sidelined. For instance, bipartisan immigration reform efforts have repeatedly failed amidst the toxic climate, and even humanitarian gestures (like offering refuge to war-fleeing Ukrainians or Afghans) become politicized fights. All of this polarization serves the agenda of those in power who seek to implement harsher policies – it conditions a segment of the public to not just accept but demand draconian actions against migrants, while painting opponents as enemies of the state. The result is a society dangerously divided over the humanity of a group of people.

Preparation & Persecution

The U.S. government’s actions toward migrants have advanced into what can clearly be identified as Preparation for mass atrocity and actual Persecution of the targeted group:

• Preparation for Mass Expulsions/Detentions: In late 2024 and early 2025, the Trump administration began laying the groundwork for what could be a form of ethnic cleansing – the removal or neutralization of a large population of immigrants. Legally, by declaring migrants an “invasion,” the administration is trying to invoke extraordinary war powers (After Day One: A High-Level Analysis of Trump’s First Executive Actions | American Immigration Council). One executive order even asserts a right to suspend the entry of any persons deemed part of the “invasion” (After Day One: A High-Level Analysis of Trump’s First Executive Actions | American Immigration Council). This vague language essentially prepares the justification to shut the border entirely, even to refugees, and to summarily expel people without hearing. The administration has also been stockpiling resources: expanding detention centers (including retrofitting disused federal facilities as immigrant camps) and pressuring Congress for funds to build more barriers and holding facilities (After Day One: A High-Level Analysis of Trump’s First Executive Actions | American Immigration Council). There are reports that officials are considering reviving and vastly expanding “family detention”, meaning entire families (including children) would be held in large camps for indefinite periods. During Trump’s first term, tent cities were erected to cage children separated from parents (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout); now the scale envisioned is larger. Former officials have described possible “contingency plans” such as deploying heat-ray devices at the border to deter crossings or issuing shoot-to-kill orders if crowds attempt to rush the border (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union). These are literal preparations for violence. Another example of preparation is the discussion of using the U.S. military in domestic immigration enforcement. In 2025, Trump’s team signaled it might invoke the Insurrection Act to use active-duty troops in immigration raids or to quell any civil unrest related to their policies (After Day One: A High-Level Analysis of Trump’s First Executive Actions | American Immigration Council) (After Day One: A High-Level Analysis of Trump’s First Executive Actions | American Immigration Council). Training exercises and legal memos are reportedly underway to pave the path for this unprecedented use of force. This all constitutes Stage 7 (Preparation) – concrete plans and measures to deal with the “problem” of the targeted group, often by concentration or direct action. Here, the “problem” (from the administration’s perspective) is millions of undocumented immigrants, and the solution being prepared is mass detention and removal. Historically, before outright genocides, regimes often made such preparations: the Nazis, for instance, built ghettos to concentrate Jews and drew up deportation lists (even initially considering expelling Jews to Madagascar – a “final solution” short of killing). In the U.S., the equivalent could be seen in trial balloons about moving migrants to Guantánamo or other sites – a way of concentrating them out of sight. Likewise, the “Remain in Mexico” policy reinstated in harsher form serves as preparation by keeping tens of thousands of asylum-seekers in limbo outside U.S. territory, where harm can befall them more easily. It’s important to note that forcibly transferring children or populations is itself an element of genocide under international law. The family separation policy of 2018, which the administration has floated restoring, involved forcibly transferring thousands of children away from their migrant parents, with some parents deported while children remained – a practice that caused “lasting and irreversible harm” (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union). In essence, these were preparations for a world in which these families might never be reunified – a step toward destroying the group’s cohesion and future.
• Persecution in Action: The U.S. has already perpetrated serious persecution of migrants (Stage 8) through policies that intentionally inflict harm. Family separation is a prime example: in 2018, about 5,000 children (some as young as infants) were taken from their parents at the border as a matter of policy (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union). Parents were prosecuted or deported while children were kept in cages or foster care; the government had no adequate tracking, leading to hundreds of families still not reunited years later. This policy was globally condemned as an act of cruelty – essentially torture of families – and indeed meets the definition of “forcibly transferring children of a group to another group,” which is one of the five acts defined as genocide in the Genocide Convention (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights). Beyond that, migrants in U.S. custody have been subject to inhumane conditions that amount to persecution: overcrowded detention centers where people, including children, lack adequate food, water, or medical care. There have been multiple deaths of detainees due to neglect – for instance, several children died of infections or dehydration in Border Patrol holding cells in 2018-2019 (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout). Asylum seekers sent back to dangerous Mexican border towns under “Remain in Mexico” were often kidnapped or killed by cartels (over 1,500 reported cases of murder, rape or assault, effectively with U.S. complicity). Internally, ICE raids terrorized immigrant communities – e.g. the 2019 Mississippi poultry plant raids where nearly 700 workers were arrested in one day, leaving their children stranded after school. In 2025, this persecution is ramping up: morale within enforcement agencies has shifted to a warlike footing, with agents reportedly told they have carte blanche. The administration’s new directives claim that “these aren’t civilians” when referring to migrants (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union), implying that normal protections don’t apply – a very dangerous stance that encourages abusive treatment. Already, the Justice Department is prosecuting more asylum-seekers criminally for illegal entry (reviving “zero tolerance”), meaning even bona fide refugees are being jailed. There are also indications of targeted persecution of specific national groups: for example, plans to strip Temporary Protected Status from 700,000 people (including Nicaraguan, Haitian, and Venezuelan migrants who fled crises) and deport them en masse (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union). This effectively persecutes those groups by sending them back to countries where their lives are at risk, fulfilling the intent to destroy or disperse those communities. Another persecutory tactic has been the use of state and vigilante action: Texas has deployed state troopers and even floating razor wire barriers that injured migrants in the Rio Grande; armed militia groups patrol the border with tacit approval. In one recent case in 2022, a Texas prison warden and his brother were charged with shooting at a group of migrants, killing one – an incident reflective of the toxic climate of impunity around migrant lives. While not ordered by the federal government, such incidents are a product of the dehumanization and polarization encouraged from the top. The cumulative effect is that migrants – whether at the border or settled in the U.S. for years – are living in constant fear and are actively being harmed by government policies. This is persecution: a deliberate campaign to “make life unbearable” for the targeted group. As a historical parallel, consider the treatment of Jews in the late 1930s: they were subject to violence (Kristallnacht), arbitrary arrest, and compelled to emigrate – all forms of persecution that predated the final genocide. The U.S. is seeing something hauntingly akin with migrants: hate crimes like the El Paso shooting show individuals taking genocidal ideology into their own hands, while state persecution sets the stage. Even Holocaust survivors and scholars have drawn parallels, warning that “housing children in cages… as a policy of deterrence” is a deliberate dehumanization that echoes the early stages of 20th-century atrocities (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout) (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout).

Extermination & Denial

The final stages – Extermination (9) and Denial (10) – are a sobering subject in the American context. As of 2025, the U.S. government has not overtly engaged in mass extermination of migrants, but there are flashes of this dark possibility, and a pattern of denial surrounding the harsh measures in place.

Extermination Prospects: In Stanton’s model, “extermination” is when killings become widespread and systematic, as the perpetrators no longer see their victims as human. While the U.S. has not set up death camps or execution squads for migrants, some disturbing indicators are present. Firstly, lethal violence has been encouraged in subtle ways. Reports emerged that in private meetings, Trump suggested shooting migrants who cross the border – for example, asking if the military could shoot them in the legs to slow them down (New York Times: Trump Wanted a Snake-Filled Trench at Mexican Border). He also mused about extreme deterrents like an electrified border wall topped with flesh-piercing spikes and a trench filled with snakes or alligators (New York Times: Trump Wanted a Snake-Filled Trench at Mexican Border). These suggestions, even if not implemented, reveal a mindset willing to contemplate lethal measures. In 2025, with fewer restraints in a second term, one cannot rule out the use of deadly force at the border under the broad “invasion” justification. If soldiers or armed agents begin firing on groups of migrants (even under crowd-control rules), we would cross into Stage 9 territory. Additionally, the conditions being created are lethally dangerous: turning away asylum-seekers and forcing them into deadly deserts or cartel territories has already led to record migrant deaths (a record 853 migrants died at the southern border in the 12 months ending 2022, trying to cross in hazardous areas – effectively casualties of U.S. deterrence policy). Indefinite detention in squalid camps can also become exterminatory over time, through disease outbreaks or abuse. Consider that during the family separation period, there were alarming reports of miscarriages, a suicide by a detained parent, and numerous mental health crises – the human toll was immense. The question is one of intent: does the U.S. intend to kill migrants, or merely to remove them? Direct intent to kill is not apparent in official policy (they purport to prefer “removal”). However, the scale of planned removals – millions of people uprooted – and the callous disregard for migrant lives could lead to mass death whether intended or not. For example, if mass deportations are attempted, thousands could die during dangerous deportation journeys or upon return to violent homelands. This blurs into genocide’s realm, as the Genocide Convention also covers “deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about a group’s destruction in whole or in part.” One could argue that creating conditions where migrants die in large numbers (in the desert, in detention, or at the hands of third parties) qualifies, even if the government isn’t pulling the trigger directly. Already, violence inspired by official hate speech has taken lives – as noted, the El Paso shooter explicitly sought to “kill Hispanics” as an act of racial elimination (Hispanics terrorized after El Paso shooting and racist manifesto | The Texas Tribune). He was not a state actor, but his logic was aligned with the exterminationist strain of anti-immigrant ideology. We’ve also seen smaller-scale atrocities, like a mass shooting of migrants by a gunman in California in 2019, and numerous cases of individual migrants killed by border agents or vigilantes. If these incidents multiplied or were coordinated, it would begin to resemble genocidal violence. We are not at full-scale extermination, but the “early warning signs” of potential mass atrocities are flashing (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout) (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout). Genocide scholars caution that while America likely won’t witness gas chambers, we could witness large-scale atrocity crimes against immigrants under the guise of “enforcement” (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout).

Denial: The U.S. government’s stance has been one of preemptive denial regarding any accusation of cruelty or genocidal intent. Officials maintain that these tough measures are about “law and order” or “border security,” and they reject criticism by denying malicious intent. For instance, when confronted with images of children in cages, Trump administration spokespeople famously said “we didn’t put kids in cages, Obama built those facilities,” deflecting blame and denying the harmful nature of their actions. Trump himself, even as he uses dehumanizing language, insists he loves immigrants who come “the right way,” denying that he bears animus toward the group per se – a classic perpetrator denial of hatred. Any suggestion that the treatment of migrants is akin to concentration camps or genocide has been angrily dismissed by those in power. We’ve seen this denial play out internationally as well: when U.N. experts or human rights organizations accused the U.S. of violating migrants’ human rights, officials responded that America is simply enforcing its laws and that any suffering is the migrants’ own fault (for example, blaming parents for bringing kids on the journey). This narrative – “they brought it on themselves by coming here” – is a form of victim-blaming denial, refusing to acknowledge the deliberate cruelty of policies. There is also a semantic denial: refusing to call detention centers “cages” or “camps,” but rather “facilities,” and claiming things are much better than portrayed. In Stanton’s Stage 10, perpetrators often destroy evidence and insist nothing bad happened or that casualties were exaggerated. In the U.S. case, we have seen attempts at cover-up, such as poor record-keeping of separated children (which some argue was willful, to obscure accountability) and lack of transparency in detention conditions (blocking media from facilities, etc.). If mass deportations proceed, any resulting tragedies will likely be explained away. For instance, should a deported population face a massacre or starvation abroad, U.S. officials might deny responsibility, saying it’s an internal matter for those countries. Already, when pressed about high numbers of migrant deaths, border officials often deny fault, attributing deaths to smugglers or individual choices. This denial extends to the intent: U.S. leaders do not admit that their goal is to eliminate a particular ethnic or national group – they frame it as upholding the law or protecting Americans. However, the xenophobic and racist intent is barely veiled. Trump’s own quotes about immigrants “poisoning the blood” of the nation (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union) and wanting to “get rid of the illegals” betray an agenda that is not just about law but about purging unwanted communities. Still, if accused of seeking to “destroy” those communities, he and his officials would deny it, claiming they only mean to deport people for legal reasons, not harm them. This form of cognitive dissonance and public denial is common; virtually no modern perpetrator openly embraces the term “genocide” for their actions. We can expect, therefore, that even as stages 7–9 escalate, U.S. officials will continue to deny any wrongful intent, instead painting themselves as patriots or saviors of the country.

Summary (Migrants Stages): In sum, with respect to migrants (especially undocumented and asylum-seeking populations), the United States by 2025 has traversed Stages 1 through 8 of Stanton’s genocide stages to a concerning degree. Migrants are classified as a dangerous “other” and symbolically demonized as “invaders” and “animals.” Extensive discrimination is enshrined in policy – from travel bans to draconian immigration edicts – while relentless dehumanization from top leaders portrays migrants as subhuman filth or enemies. The anti-migrant campaign is highly organized, utilizing the full apparatus of the state (law enforcement, courts, even military) to target this group. Public opinion is polarized with a sizable faction of Americans conditioned to view migrants with hostility or indifference to their suffering. Concrete preparations have been made for mass round-ups and removals – legal justifications declared, facilities prepared, and extraordinary powers readied – and active persecution is already in motion (family separations, abusive detentions, extrajudicial abuses). Extermination in its explicit form has not occurred, but the rhetoric and the extreme measures raise the specter of mass violence or death by policy, especially as some extremist actors have taken matters into their own hands with deadly results (Hispanics terrorized after El Paso shooting and racist manifesto | The Texas Tribune). Through all this, officials maintain a stance of denial, cloaking their actions in euphemisms of security and denying the fundamentally racist and eliminationist nature of the agenda.

The trajectory since Trump’s 2024 re-election indeed shows acceleration through these stages. Many of the more extreme steps (like invoking invasion language, attempting nationwide mass deportation, and stripping basic rights from migrant children) were only speculative in his first term but have quickly moved toward implementation in the present term (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union) (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union). This acceleration is reminiscent of how, historically, a second phase of persecution can intensify – for example, Nazi Germany’s policies toward Jews went from Nuremberg Laws (1935) to Kristallnacht (1938) to the Final Solution (1941-1945) in a series of escalations. The U.S. may be on a similar perilous path: what began with travel bans and family separations (serious in their own right) has escalated to talk of military enforcement and legal war on immigrants.

Historical parallels: The treatment of migrants today echoes shameful episodes from history. The genocide of Native Americans is an undeniable part of U.S. history – native peoples were classified as “savages,” driven from their lands on deadly forced marches (e.g. the Trail of Tears), and subject to massacres and child separations in boarding schools. While the contexts differ, the underlying patterns (dehumanization, forced removal, mass death, denial) have uncomfortable similarities to the current rhetoric and plans around immigrants (some advocates have pointed out that mass deportation of Latino immigrants could amount to a form of ethnic cleansing). Another parallel is the Mexican Repatriation of the 1930s, when over 1 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans were deported during the Great Depression – an act now recognized as driven by racial animus. Those deportations were often indiscriminate and tore apart families, much like the envisioned operations now. Internationally, scholars have compared U.S. border detention camps to concentration camps, and world leaders (and Holocaust survivors) have warned that the early stages of genocide are apparent in how America is treating immigrants (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout) (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout). Genocide is not an overnight event; it’s a process. In 2025, the U.S. finds itself alarmingly far along that process with respect to both trans people and migrants. The evidence – from official documents to rally speeches – indicates a willful progression through the ten stages. The crucial question is whether Americans and the international community will heed these warning signs and intervene before the final, tragic stages are reached.

---

Sources:

• Stanton’s Ten Stages of Genocide framework – analysis and definition (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout) (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout)
• Transgender rights rollback under Trump (2025) – executive orders and rhetoric (Trump’s executive actions curbing transgender rights focus on ‘gender ideology’ | WUSF ) (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights) (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights) (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights)
• Dehumanizing language towards trans people (e.g. “groomers,” “ideology”) (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights) (Trump’s executive actions curbing transgender rights focus on ‘gender ideology’ | WUSF )
• Policies targeting trans individuals (military ban, healthcare bans, education gag rules) (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights) (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights) (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights)
• Organized nature of anti-trans campaign (rapid policy changes, coordination with lawmakers) (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights) (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights)
• Violence against trans people and incitement (hate crime statistics, calls to “eradicate transgenderism”) (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights) (CPAC speaker sparks alarm with call for transgenderism to be ‘eradicated’ | The Independent)
• Trump admin statements justifying anti-trans measures (claiming to protect women/children) (Trump’s executive actions curbing transgender rights focus on ‘gender ideology’ | WUSF )
• Genocide Warning for trans people (Transvitae, 2025) (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights) (Defining Genocide: The Systematic Attack on Transgender Rights)
• Trump’s post-2024 immigration orders (mass deportation plans, “invasion” declaration) (After Day One: A High-Level Analysis of Trump’s First Executive Actions | American Immigration Council) (After Day One: A High-Level Analysis of Trump’s First Executive Actions | American Immigration Council) (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union)
• Stephen Miller’s “shock and awe” quote on migration crackdown (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union)
• Trump quotes demonizing immigrants (“poisoning the blood,” “animals”) (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union) (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union)
• Holocaust comparisons to migrant detention (children in cages) (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout) (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout)
• El Paso shooter manifesto referencing “Hispanic invasion” (Hispanics terrorized after El Paso shooting and racist manifesto | The Texas Tribune)
• Family separation policy details and effects (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union) (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union)
• Plans to use war powers (Insurrection Act, Alien Enemies Act) against immigrants (After Day One: A High-Level Analysis of Trump’s First Executive Actions | American Immigration Council) (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union)
• ACLU report on Trump second term immigration agenda (mass deportation force, ending birthright citizenship, etc.) (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union) (Trump on Immigration | American Civil Liberties Union)
• Historical context: Previous U.S. genocidal acts (Native Americans) and racist immigration policies (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout) (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout)
• Truthout/Binghamton scholars on early warning signs in U.S. (polarization, dehumanization already evident) (Preventing Crimes Against Humanity in the US | Truthout)