I agree with you that--not in the near term, but eventually--it is a possibility, albeit a very remote one.

But you have just described here an essential step in the process of making it happen, not avoiding it.

Japanese Americans didn't have anything written in the Constitution about them, yet during World War II, they were not afforded even the minimal rights afforded to black people during that time.

Why? Because they were the enemy. They could be othered.

In Nazi Germany, which group felt the harshest brunt of the genocides unleashed by the regime? Why, the most thoroughly self-unified and therefore the most easily othered: the Jews.

Safety in unity is possible when you're the majority (in numbers and power). Otherwise it is perilous.

You are advocating for peril. I strongly advise reconsidering, if you think this is an actual danger.

(If you do not believe it is an actual danger, there are some advantages to unity; it does tend to deliver somewhat greater political power as long as you're still accepted as part of the country, which is extremely likely for the foreseeable future.)

(Edit: I originally left the alternative unstated, assuming it was obvious. In case it is not obvious, the alternative to within-group unity is to emphasize similarities with the rest of society and culture to make “othering” as unthinkable as possible because “they are us”.)