During a recent presidential debate, former President Donald Trump claimed that “our elections are bad, and a lot of these illegal immigrants coming in, they’re trying to get them to vote.” This statement reflects not only a contested narrative surrounding the 2024 election but also aligns with a troubling conspiracy theory gaining traction within the Republican Party known as the “great replacement.” This theory asserts that a deliberate effort is underway to replace white voters in the U.S. and other Western nations with nonwhite immigrants to reshape political outcomes.
Throughout the campaign season, Trump and his supporters have repeatedly alleged that Democrats are facilitating migrant entry to garner votes in the upcoming election—despite the absence of evidence for such claims. Noncitizen voting in federal elections is illegal and exceedingly rare, with mechanisms in place to prevent such occurrences. While a few local jurisdictions allow noncitizens to vote in specific municipal elections, the numbers of such voters are minimal.
“They can’t even speak English. They don’t even know what country they’re in,” Trump stated, propagating the narrative that noncitizens are being encouraged to vote in the U.S.
Online influencers associated with Trump have sought to propagate this issue, promoting unsubstantiated stories that noncitizens are indeed being empowered to vote, yet failing to provide substantive proof.
Recent polling indicates that belief in the replacement theory has permeated a substantial segment of American society, with a significant portion of adults resonating with variations of this narrative.
Rhetoric and its Real-World Impacts
Cynthia Miller-Idriss, a prominent academic, argues that the normalization of such dangerous narratives is noteworthy, noting that Trump’s comments during the debate did not even register as shocking among those who are attuned to contemporary political rhetoric.
Miller-Idriss emphasized that the replacement theory plays into a broader pattern of fears stoked by GOP leaders, suggesting that there are forces trying to strip away core American values—whether related to Second Amendment rights, demographic makeup, or even personal liberties.
This rhetoric has dangerous consequences, potentially inciting a sense of urgency among voters to resist a perceived threat, which could result in election outcomes being disputed should Trump lose. The history of violence connected to such conspiracy theories is alarming, with notable incidents of far-right extremism linked to similar narratives.
Following the debate, a bomb threat was reported in Springfield, Ohio, where Trump had previously made claims about Haitian immigrants purportedly harming local pets. Such incidents underscore the potential for inflammatory rhetoric to incite real-world threats.
Experts fear that the normalization of the replacement theory is not just a political tool but a catalyst for increased domestic violence and hate crimes against perceived immigrants, exacerbating societal tensions in already volatile times.
Threats to Democratic Processes
The current political climate, characterized by a focus on replacement theory narratives, has spurred actions with serious implications for voters. State officials have mistakenly targeted naturalized citizens and eligible voters in efforts to weed out alleged noncitizens from voter rolls, creating fear among legitimate voters.
The push for stringent voter registration laws, such as those proposed in Texas and New Hampshire, may ultimately hinder participation among eligible citizens, particularly voters of color who may lack easy access to necessary identification. These measures could also trigger intimidation at the polls, further threatening the integrity of the electoral process.
As we approach the elections, the fixation on such issues suggests a broader strategy to fuel post-election narratives should Trump fail, inciting potential unrest among his supporters.
Experts predict that if Trump loses, he is likely to assert widespread noncitizen voting without any evidence, which could incite anger and violence among his base, reflecting a dire warning for the future of democratic engagement in the United States.
