Mass Deportations: The Disguised Agenda of Scientific Racism

The prospect of mass deportations has resurfaced in political discourse, especially in the wake of the approaching 2024 elections. Supporters of such measures advocate that they will safeguard the nation from immigrants who allegedly possess “bad genes.” However, this claim misappropriates scientific language, cloaking unsubstantiated assertions with a veneer of legitimacy.

Lawmakers often appeal to genetic explanations to perpetuate harmful stereotypes that portray immigrants as more violent than their native-born counterparts. This narrative is contradicted by data revealing that immigrants, regardless of their legal status, exhibit significantly lower crime rates than U.S. citizens. Additionally, there is no compelling genetic evidence suggesting a biological inclination towards violence among any population.

As a geneticist and child of immigrants, my research focuses on the intersecting realms of biology and bias. In my book, “Where Biology Ends and Bias Begins: Lessons on Belonging from Our DNA,” I discuss the implications of deploying science to maintain social hierarchies—an argument not new to history. Such ideas invoke genetic essentialism and scientific racism, influencing contemporary public policy.

The Fallacy of Genetic Essentialism

Genetic essentialism posits that genes are solely responsible for determining an individual’s traits or behaviors. Advocates of this ideology assert that attributes like intelligence and athleticism are purely encoded in DNA, disregarding the profound impacts of environmental factors, such as education and socio-economic status.

Using this framework to compare populations overlooks the significant role structural biases play in shaping individual outcomes. For example, studies searching for a gene linked to violent behavior often rely on arrest rates, which reflect systemic biases in the criminal justice system—treating people of color more harshly than others.

Similarly, attempts to untangle genetic influences from societal factors in disciplines like mental health and education frequently confront biases rooted in identity-related stress and financial disparities. These elements distort analyses intended to highlight biological impacts, instead revealing the broader social context in which these differences occur.

Genetics and Educational Attainment

Take, for instance, the 2018 study on the genetics of educational attainment. Researchers clarified that genetic scores accounted for only 11% to 13% of variation—leaving the vast majority of differences attributable to non-genetic influences. Nonetheless, media coverage often misrepresented their findings, falsely linking genes to intelligence without basis.

Success in education is influenced by myriad factors, from inherited wealth to access to resources like tutoring. Disparities in disciplinary actions, particularly those targeting marginalized students, contribute to cycles leading into the school-to-prison pipeline.

Misinterpretations of such studies have wrongfully inferred that racial differences in academic performance are inherently biological. When controlling for wealth and systemic inequities, disparities in educational attainment between racial groups significantly narrow, often revealing that Black students may complete more schooling on average than their white peers.

The Resurgence of Scientific Racism

This discussion inevitably leads back to scientific racism—the exploitation of scientific concepts to substantiate racial superiority claims. Historical figures like Samuel Morton typified this, using flawed methodologies to validate a belief in white intelligence superiority by analyzing skull volumes.

Morton’s approach misrepresented the data, focusing narrowly on averages rather than recognizing the vast variability within racial categories. Such interpretations persist in modern narratives circulated by extremist groups online, relegating scientifically unsubstantiated claims to fringe platforms.

Critically, there exists no genetic basis for intelligence disparities among racial groups. These arguments echo sentiments associated with replacement theory—an unfounded conspiratorial narrative alleging that immigration threatens white demographics. Proponents of this theory often portray people of color as genetically inferior, despite the overwhelming evidence of human genetic similarity.

Understanding Human Genetic Variation

Years of scientific research have affirmed the fundamental genetic similarities among diverse human populations. Most genetic variation exists within populations rather than between them. Notably, while external traits like skin color differ, they do not correlate with cognitive abilities or other genetic traits.

Even if genetic essentialism were valid—an assertion unsupported by evidence—skin color would not provide insights into cognitive potential. Misconceptions about the connections among genetic traits obstruct meaningful discussions about human variations.

The Political Implications of Misappropriating Genetics

Despite the absence of supporting evidence, genetic essentialism has infiltrated national immigration policies, rooted historically in the American eugenics movement. Figures like Charles Davenport steered early 20th-century initiatives aimed at enhancing the human gene pool through misguided social engineering.

The Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, which codified racial biases into U.S. law, illustrates how eugenics informs immigration policy to this day. Politicians’ rhetoric often echoes themes of genetic deficiency, justifying harsh policies targeting immigrants deemed harmful to society.

The manipulation of genetics by politicians and extremist groups has led to real-world violence, evident in numerous tragic events fueled by white supremacist ideologies. To counteract these dangerous narratives, a thorough understanding of genetics and history is essential, empowering advocates to dismantle unscientific beliefs and protect vulnerable communities.