Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Inhumanity of Trump and Its Impact on America

Opinion

A confrontation between ICE agents and Minneapolis residents.

A child of Holocaust survivors draws parallels between Nazi Germany and modern U.S. immigration enforcement, examining ICE tactics, civil rights, and moral leadership.

Getty Images, Stephen Maturen

I am a child of holocaust survivors, my parents having fled Germany at the last minute in 1939 before the war started, and so I am well-versed in what life was like for Jews in Germany in the 30s under the Nazi regime. My father and other relatives were hunted by the Gestapo (secret police) and many relatives died in concentration camps.

When I have watched videos and seen photos of the way in which ICE agents treat the people that they accost—whether they are undocumented (illegal) immigrants, immigrants who are here lawfully, or even U.S. citizens—I was reminded of the images of Nazi S.A. men (a quasi-military force that was part of the Nazi party) beating and demeaning Jews in public in the years after Hitler came to power.


To these men (and to Hitler), Jews weren't human; they were scum. And so they treated them with an absolute lack of respect. They were not acting to enforce a law; their purpose was to rid the country of Jews. The motto was "Judenfrei," to cleanse the country of the contaminating effect of Jews.

If you listen to Trump's attacks on undocumented immigrants and watch ICE agents in action, there is no question that there is an absolute lack of respect; they—and anyone who supports them—are regarded as scum; and that the goal is to free America of these immigrants, or at least as much as possible. To return America to being an overwhelmingly white nation rather than having whites become a minority sometime around 2050.

Why do I call Trump "inhumane?" When we think of that term, we tend to think of horrific acts like the holocaust, or the Rwanda genocide. But "inhumanity" is defined as being cruel, and being "cruel" is defined as causing physical or mental harm or pain. If you think about your experiences reading the news, in your workplace, or even within your family, you will see that, using this definition, inhumanity is rife within our culture. See my post, "Creating a Safer World for Our Children."

With this definition in mind, one cannot listen to Trump's rantings or view many of his actions without realizing that these actions are examples of inhumanity. This is an especially terrible characteristic in Trump because as President he determines the direction of the country and is looked to by half of the population as a force that will move the country forward.

Because of the reverence they show him, his inhumanity, his lack of morals and ethics have altered their perspective. For example, according to a recent Times/Siena Poll, only 19% of Republicans feel that the tactics of ICE have gone too far; 56% think the tactics are just right; 24% think that ICE's tactics have not gone far enough.

This is evidence of Trump's impact on the humanity, morals, and ethics of his supporters. If immigrants arrested by ICE were hardened criminals—as Trump claims—this attitude would be arguably reasonable. But they are not. The vast majority of undocumented immigrants are not criminals but law-abiding, hard-working people; this according to the government's own data and people's personal experiences. ICE also uses the same tactics when arresting U.S. citizens or immigrants who are here legally and who are supporting undocumented immigrants.

Most people arrested by ICE have done nothing wrong, other than coming into the country illegally. They deserve to be treated like human beings. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal." Until someone does something that warrants being treated differently, they should be treated with respect. And when they do something, the punishment must fit the crime.

Here the crime is coming into the country illegally. Punishment for that is deportation. But the process of deportation must be humane and fair. You don't deport someone who was brought here as a child and lived his whole adult life here, working and raising a family.

The recent examples of abusive, violent ICE actions in Minnesota and elsewhere, the vilification of victims by Trump and other federal officials in the face of videos clearly showing the facts are otherwise, and the actions of Trump and Homeland Security to prohibit any fair investigation of these actions by excluding state and local officials, bring to mind, as I stated at the outset, the actions of Nazi thugs (the S.A.) in 1930s Germany towards Jews.

In the United Staes of America, with its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution, this should not be happening. If Congress does nothing to stop these actions because it is subservient to Trump, then it lies with the Supreme Court to state unequivocally that ICE's actions violate the 4th Amendment, prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. While there is a general assumption that the 4th Amendment applies to undocumented immigrants, the Supreme Court has not specifically stated that.

The only other recourse is for people to rise up in mass demonstrations, raise the issue in their communities, and vote in the upcoming midterm elections to return control of Congress to the Democrats, thus restoring the balance of power intended by the Founding Fathers. See my article, "The Murder in Minneapolis and How It Impacts the Rights of All Americans."


Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com


Read More

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less