Racesplaining: When People Doing Racist Shit Try to Explain Why It Isn’t Racist
The Supreme Court Leads the Way Explaining Why Targeting “Shithole Countries” isn’t Racist
“Great news for the dogs and cats of Springfield.” — Katie Miller (Stephen Miller’s Wife_
The Supreme Court just released its decision, allowing the United States to end temporary deportation protections for Haitians and Syrians in the United States, which clears the way for the president to transform hundreds of thousands of people into undocumented immigrants overnight.
In a 6–3 ruling, SCOTUS rejected claims that Homeland Security officials wrongfully revoked Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian and Syrian immigrants based on racial animus. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, explaining that the government has discretion to stop the program for people from countries it decides no longer need it.
25–1083 Mullin v. Doe (06/25/2026)
Ending the protections for Haitian immigrants means most will no longer be able to work legally. They face detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and deportation to a nation still in the grips of gang violence, political upheaval, and widespread hunger. According to a U.S. State Department advisory telling Americans not to travel there, Haiti has been in a state of emergency since 2004. It would be easy to blame the state of perpetual strife on Haitianas themselves, were it not for the combined efforts of European nations (especially France) and the United States to punish Haiti and strip it of money and resources since Haiti won its independence in 1804.
How Haiti Became a Shithole Country | by William Spivey | Black History Month 365 | Medium
In his opinion, Alito attempted to explain away the racist statements by President Donald Trump and named or unnamed Trump officials:
Ten Exact Quotes Trump or His Officials Made About Haitians, Africans, or TPS Countries — the ones Alito says “aren’t overtly racial”
These are the statements the plaintiffs cited — and the ones Alito dismissed as “not overtly racial.”
1. “Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out.”
— Donald Trump, Oval Office, June 2017 (reported by New York Times)
This was said during a meeting about ending TPS for Haiti.
2. “They all have AIDS.”
— Donald Trump, referring to Haitian immigrants, June 2017 (NYT)
This was cited directly in the TPS litigation record.
3. “Haitians eat cat. They eat dog.”
— Trump DHS official (reported by Politico, WaPo, and sworn testimony)
This was cited in the TPS case as evidence of animus toward Haitians.
4. “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?”
— Donald Trump, January 2018 (multiple outlets)
Said during a meeting about TPS for Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations.
5. “We should have more people from places like Norway.”
— Donald Trump, same meeting as above
This was cited as evidence of a racial preference for white immigrants.
6. “Nigerians will never go back to their huts once they see the United States.”
— Donald Trump, 2017 (reported by The New York Times)
This was cited in the TPS case as evidence of animus toward African TPS holders.
7. “We don’t want more people from Africa.”
— Donald Trump, 2018 (reported by Washington Post)
Said during a discussion of TPS and refugee admissions.
8. “Haiti is a shithole. They all have AIDS.”
— Donald Trump, 2017 (NYT)
This is the combined version cited in the TPS litigation record.
9. “We should be bringing in people from countries like Norway, not Haiti.”
— Donald Trump, 2018 (multiple outlets)
This was cited as evidence of racial preference in immigration policy.
10. “TPS is being abused by people from countries that send us their worst.”
— Senior Trump DHS official (reported by AP and Reuters)
Alito manages in his opinion to racesplain the comments by Trump and others, declaring these statements weren’t overtly racist. Here are nine claims Alito made when absolving the Trump administration of racist intentions:
1. Claim: “None of the statements were overtly racial.”
Actual words:
“None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary was overtly racial…”
This is the Court’s foundational reframing move. I invite you to read the statements above and find them not racially overt. What are they, minimally racist?
2. Claim: “All statements could rest on race‑neutral justifications.”
Actual words:
“…and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race‑neutral justifications.”
This is the Court’s alternative‑explanation move. Alito says if those statements could have been written in a non-racist manner, we have to pretend that’s what they meant instead of what they said.
3. Claim: “One may oppose TPS or describe countries harshly without racial bias.”
Actual words:
“One may oppose TPS… for economic or other reasons that have nothing to do with race.” “A person without racial bias can provide a harshly unfavorable description of living conditions…”
This reframes derogatory comments as policy critiques.
4. Claim: “Haiti is poor, but that’s not racial.”
Actual words:
“Haiti is no exception. It is a very poor country… But poverty and deprivation are no reflection on character…”
This separates negative statements about Haiti from racial animus. But Trump, et. al. did talk about the character of the people from TPS nations.
5. Claim: Plaintiffs themselves offered a race‑neutral explanation.
Actual words:
“Ironically, respondents themselves offer a race‑neutral explanation… that the current administration… simply opposes the TPS program…”
The Court uses the plaintiffs’ own argument against them. Alito is saying that if some of the objections to ending TPS weren’t based on race, none of them were.
6. Claim: Because TPS was terminated for many countries, it can’t be racist.
Actual words:
“Included are nations in East Asia… Central Asia… the Middle East… Africa… Central America… South America… and the Caribbean (Haiti).” “Most would regard this as a racially diverse group of countries…”
This is the “equal‑opportunity termination” argument. Except none of those countries were predominantly white nations.
7. Claim: Plaintiffs define ‘non‑white’ too broadly.
Actual words:
“Respondents’ definition of a predominantly non‑white nation is broad, apparently encompassing major European countries.”
This attempts to undermine the racial‑impact argument.
8. Claim: No European TPS case has arisen, so racism can’t be inferred.
Actual words:
“No such test case has come up… Only one European nation — Ukraine — had a TPS designation… and that designation has not yet come up for review.”
This is a counterfactual defense: “We never had the chance to prove we’re not racist.” Alito explains that because we’ve never [persecuted a European nation, and just people of color. You can’t prove we wouldn’t have treated white people the same.
9. Claim: Heated language is not evidence of racial motive.
Actual words:
“Political discourse… is increasingly couched in terms that would have scandalized the public…” “Whatever one may think of the cited statements, they are insufficient to show…”
This reframes racist‑coded statements as “just politics.” Alito reduced the racist language to “heated language” and thinks of it as politics as usual. He may have a point that racism is politics as usual, but not that it isn’t racist.
This is not a one-off instance of race-explaining by the Supreme Court or American legislators. Here’s a sampling of explaining away some of America’s worst examples of racism.
1. Slavery (1619–1865)
Justification:
“Slavery is a positive good.” — Sen. John C. Calhoun, 1837
Enslavers claimed Black people were “suited” for bondage and that slavery “civilized” them — a foundational racist lie used to defend forced labor, torture, and family separation.
2. Indian Removal Act (1830)
Justification: Andrew Jackson argued removal was “benevolent,” claiming Native nations would be “protected” west of the Mississippi.
This framed ethnic cleansing as paternalism.
3. Dred Scott decision (1857)
Justification: Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote that Black people were “beings of an inferior order” who had “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
The Court claimed it was merely interpreting the Constitution.
4. Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)
Justification: Lawmakers argued Chinese immigrants were “unassimilable” and a threat to “white labor.”
Racist labor panic was framed as an economic necessity.
5. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Justification: The Court claimed segregation was constitutional because it was “separate but equal.”
This pretended apartheid was neutral.
6. Wilmington Coup & Massacre (1898)
Justification: White supremacists claimed they were restoring “good government” and preventing “Negro domination.”
They used “law and order” rhetoric to justify overthrowing a multiracial democracy.
7. Redlining (1930s–1960s)
Justification: Federal housing officials said Black neighborhoods were “hazardous” investments.
This framed racist exclusion as “risk assessment.”
8. Japanese American incarceration (1942)
Justification: FDR’s administration claimed mass incarceration was a “military necessity.”
No evidence supported this; it was racial scapegoating.
9. War on Drugs (1970s–1990s)
Justification: Politicians claimed harsh sentencing was needed to fight crime.
Nixon aide John Ehrlichman later admitted the real goal was to target Black communities and anti‑war activists.
10. Ending TPS for Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations (2017–2018)
Justification: Officials claimed conditions had “improved” and TPS had become “amnesty.”
This ignored Trump’s own racist statements (“shithole countries,” “Haitians all have AIDS,” “Nigerians live in huts”), which the administration insisted were “not racial.”
Conclusion:
America has never simply committed racist acts; it has always explained them, wrapped them in legalisms, euphemisms, and reassurances meant to soothe the people who benefit from them. From slavery defended as a “positive good,” to segregation justified as “separate but equal,” to redlining framed as “risk assessment,” the pattern is constant: the harm is real, but the explanation is crafted for those who are not harmed.
Justice Alito’s opinion fits squarely into that lineage. His insistence that openly racist statements are “not overtly racial,” that derogatory claims about Haitians can be read in “race‑neutral” ways, is not meant for the communities being targeted; they already know what racism looks like. It is meant for everyone else, the people who want permission not to feel implicated, not to feel uncomfortable, not to feel responsible. In that sense, the decision is not an aberration but a continuation of a long American tradition: racesplaining — the art of telling the unaffected why they don’t need to feel bad about what is being done to people of color.
Racist, sexist, homophobic, and assholic
I've given them a new nickname, "SAOTUS," Supreme Assholes of the US.