In modern times, not caring that the rights of minorities and immigrants will be trampled is rightfully interpreted as being a racist xenophobe. We are trying to collectively move away from these old-fashioned bad ideas, and supporting Trump is backward in this sense.
If you say that one cannot morally support Trump because Trump is a racist and xenophobe at heart, would you also say that one cannot support Hilary, because she is a drug warrior and "tough on crime" crusader at heart?
(I think the answer is no, because it's reasonable to support a politician without endorsing all of that politician's world views).
I realize that I occupy a position outside of the political mainstream in America, but I suspect that is changing. I expect to see many more people rejecting neoliberal economics as a game rigged against workers by the bourgeoisie.
It is possible to support policies that affect these groups without being racist or xenophobic. It's unfortunate that there are groups that will suffer as the result of things like immigration laws, but there are several very strong arguments to support immigration laws. Would we want unlimited, open immigration from Mexico? The vast majority of people would say no, but that's also affecting Mexican and South American people tremendously. Why is there no uproar about xenophobia directed at those people?
Mainly because the status quo on both the Republican and Democratic side supports the economic policies that have been so bad for them.
Trump has never mentioned race negatively. Mexican is not a race (it's a country). Muslim is not a race (it's a religion).
Trump's comments on immigration, trade, or terrorism doesn't come from a dislike of people from other countries, but a desire to put American citizens first. This might be what you want from an American President.
So your "racist xenophobe" is someone else's "nationalist leader".
But name-calling tamps down reasonable discourse in all cases. (And Trump is as guilty of this as anyone, but certainly not the sole offender.) Going up to a Trump supporter and saying, "Hi you racist xenophobe, want to have a level-headed discussion on nationalism and human rights?" doesn't work so well.
The profoundly negative coverage of Trump is doing as much to explain his success as anything else. It causes people to shut down. And it's not healthy for anyone.
"These people believe stupid things, and they won't respond to logic unless you sugar coat it"
My point was that there's no one source of truth. Perception is reality. To a vast majority of his supporters, Trump is not a racist xenophobe. Period, full stop. And this isn't stupid: an intelligent, reasonable person could make that argument. And plenty of Trump supporters are intelligent, reasonable people.
Did something get lost in translation?
I'll say that a different way: if you think that a large number of people with whom you disagree are stupid (or racist, or whatever excuse you choose to minimize their logical decisionmaking), YOU ARE IGNORANT AND NAIVE.
You may disagree with them. That's fine. You might be interested in finding common ground and compromise instead of running around accusing everyone of being a stupid, racist xenophobe. In that case, you're looking to have a dialogue which can only happen from positions of mutual respect.
That respect is lacking, particularly on the vocal left.
You may convince someone to "see things your way", but you have to open yourself up to see things their way.
Trump cannot be a nationalist leader as he does not respect the principles upon which this nation was founded (see my other comments for more specificity).
Trump has repeatedly said that immigrants are more than welcome, but they need to come legally. How is that racist?
When Sotomayor said that a wise latina woman could come to better conclusions than old white men, was that racist too?
What about when Curiel himself admitted that his heritage has influenced his practice of the law in the past[1] (when he was a drug prosecutor in the late 90s)
> According to participants on both sides, the Mexicans looked across the table at Mr. Chavez, Mr. Vega and Mr. Curiel, all born of Mexican parents, and the spark of recognition lit a fire.
> "It couldn't but help," Mr. Curiel said. "We were working without the disconnect of interpreters and barriers of culture. When it comes down to it, this involves the country of our parents." Mr. Vega, now in private practice, said the simple fact that the meetings were conducted in Spanish "broke the ice."
> "It was confianza," he said, the Spanish word for trust.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/26/international/americas/26D...
Aside from talking about currently illegal immigration, he's also talked about a ban on foreign Muslims (the details of which have morphed over time), he's talked about curtailing existing legal immigration programs (focssing on the H-1B, but he's also said he'd implement an "absolute requirement to hire Americans first for every visa and immigration program" -- which doesn't even make sense for many visa categories and immigration programs [including the main US set of immigration visa categories, which are the family-based categories], but its what he said), he's suggested increased application and other fees for existing legal immigration programs.
You are, of course, free to think that's a good thing.
You're claiming it's the latter. What do you base that on?
No, I'm not. I'm claiming that "security" and "immigration" aren't disjoint categories of policy discussions such that just because a position on immigration has some reference to security concerns, its part of the "security debate" but not part of the "immigration debate"; Trump has made many comments against immigration (and not just currently-illegal immigration). Some of those comments have been justified by economic concerns, some have been justified by security concerns. But that doesn't make the former about the economy but not immigration, and it doesn't make the latter about security but not immigration. Instead, it makes the former about economics and about immigration, and the latter about security and about immigration.