Yes, we're on the same page there. (Some of) Trump's policies were racist: constructed and executed with overt racial animus, to a degree we haven't seen since the 1970s. That doesn't mean border security and cutting refugee slots is intrinsically racist; not everything Trump did was racist. I'm sure George Wallace did a bunch of stuff just to keep the lights on and the trains running, too!
Like what do you think was driven by racial animus? People use the “Muslim ban” as an example, but it’s telling that other Muslim countries didn’t want refugees from those places either.
None of those are indicative of prejudicial racism. Making it harder to sue landlords seems like something you’d expect a real estate developer to support.
As to Haitians and family separation, I don’t think that fits into “racism.” Refugees are from a different culture, they come from dire economic status, etc. Many countries have harsh reactions to refugees that have nothing to do with “racism” but with not wanting to provide for poor foreigners. For example Bangladesh has responded very harshly to Rohingya refugees, even though many (most?) acknowledge they’re closely related to Bengalis. (The Rohingya language is mutually intelligible with dialect spoken in Chittagong, where my dad went to college.)
How can that be a meaningful or illuminating example, though? The US has a completely different history in which race and racism have played a central role, for both ill and good. Bangladesh as a country is younger than Loving v Virginia.
All of them are indicative of prejudicial racism? There was a speaking tour on the FHA stuff that laid bare the objective? At the point where we're debating whether there's racial animus involved in affordable housing policy, I think we're giving up on the idea of having a discussion at all; like, you're assuming a set of positions that would resist charges of racism in the 1970s.
