Bluesky

The dehumanization of immigrants by Republican politicians has become such a consistent feature of our political discourse that I fear people have stopped noticing it. In fact, it has become so commonplace for politicians, law enforcement, and media personalities to describe immigrants with bestial terminology—most people talk about their pets in more human terms than they talk about immigrants—that even I have become used to it. Every time Donald Trump or his running mate, Captain Eyeliner Vance, opens his foul mouth, I know something horrible about immigrants will spew forth. The two of them are saying everything necessary to induce violence against immigrants while trying to maintain plausible, January 6–style deniability should any violence be carried out. And the media is only too happy to amplify their hate.

While their words disgust me, and put people I care about in danger, I at least understand what they’re getting out of it. Trump, Vance, Fox News, and all too many like them know that their only path to political power is to make and keep white people afraid. Scared white folks, unable to cope with a changing world, clinging to their guns and God whenever they hear something go bump in the night, vote Republican.

I cannot, however, begin to comprehend what Republican judges gain from dehumanizing immigrants. There is no political upside for them. They don’t have to rely on the fear of others to claw their way into office. Yet all too often, Republican judges don’t simply rule against immigrants’ rights—they seem compelled to deny their humanity. I’m forced to conclude that, for these GOP judges, the cruelty really is the point.

It is with all this in mind that I read a recent decision from Trump judge Trevor McFadden. McFadden, who is a district judge on the DC Circuit, allowed a lawsuit to go forward that alleges that the Biden administration’s border policies, including the cancellation of Trump’s failed border wall, caused significant environmental harm, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The suit, which involves claims by two Arizona ranchers, argues that the Biden administration’s reversal of Trump-era policies caused an influx of immigrants onto the ranchers’ lands, which led to environmental damage to their property. The NEPA requires that the government conduct environmental impact studies before beginning major construction initiatives, and McFadden ruled that Biden did not sufficiently take environmental concerns into account when he decided to not continue to build the wall.

When I first read about the case, I assumed McFadden was just practicing the one true religion of Trump-aligned judges: “owning the libs.” But McFadden’s decision goes way past “turnabout is fair play” trolling and straight into racist-and-disgusting territory. This happens in its most obscene and obvious form when McFadden gets into the alleged harms suffered by one of the plaintiffs, Steven Smith. Remember, to have the right to sue (what lawyers call “standing”), Smith has to show that he was wronged in some way. McFadden determined that Smith has standing because the immigrants left trash behind on his property, and Smith’s cattle ate the trash. Apparently, we need to build a 2,000-mile wall to prevent littering.

But it turns out that this was just the warm-up. McFadden had determined there was an even bigger harm suffered by Smith: thirsty cows.

Smith described water as a scarce resource on his land. In his rough estimate, ranchers in his area provide their cattle and other wildlife with water on a “hundred-to-one” ratio compared to natural sources. But Smith testified that migrants commonly tie down the “float system” in water troughs, which then “allows the water to free-flow.” While this may aid thirsty trespassers, it causes Smith to lose “thousands and thousands of gallons of water,” which “can take [him] days and days and days to regain.”… [W]hen migrants tie down the float-valve and deplete the reservoir, Smith has to “work night and day…to move [the] cattle.” That puts stress on his cattle, which limits their ability to reproduce. [Emphasis mine.]

Smith described water as a scarce resource on his land. In his rough estimate, ranchers in his area provide their cattle and other wildlife with water on a “hundred-to-one” ratio compared to natural sources. But Smith testified that migrants commonly tie down the “float system” in water troughs, which then “allows the water to free-flow.” While this may aid thirsty trespassers, it causes Smith to lose “thousands and thousands of gallons of water,” which “can take [him] days and days and days to regain.”… [W]hen migrants tie down the float-valve and deplete the reservoir, Smith has to “work night and day…to move [the] cattle.” That puts stress on his cattle, which limits their ability to reproduce. (Emphasis mine.)

If you do not see immigrants as people, I suppose it is easy to see them as “thirsty trespassers.” But if you understand that these people are walking through a desert, often with their families, including children, McFadden’s suggestion that the real victims are the ranchers and the cows, which are apparently too stressed out to have sex, should disgust you. The anti-immigrant brigades are so racist and broken that they’ve gotten to the point where they can not only pit the water rights of a human being against the water rights of a cow, but they can also conclude that the cow should win.

And on the off chance you think this case is actually about water rights in the desert, please note that McFadden’s own opinion inadvertently makes clear that the real environmental devastation is being caused by the cows—which apparently require a “‘hundred-to-one’ ratio compared to natural sources”—and by extension America’s obsession with beef. If there is not enough water for all the human people, the cows should be the first ones to go, in a reasonable society.

Thankfully, Clarabelle the anthropomorphized cow won’t likely win when this case is brought before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The DC Circuit is still, for now, controlled by Democrats. But after the DC Circuit appeals court issues its ruling, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to take the case—and if it does, we can be sure that McFadden’s argument, and all its anti-immigration rhetoric, will be read back to us by either Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, or Neil Gorsuch.

Desperate immigrants who cross the border and are in need of water are not an environmental issue. They are a moral issue, and the way we respond to their needs is a test of our basic humanity. Trump and his supporters, and his judges, have failed that test.