Economic anxiety is not why Trump was elected.

[Badger]

Does this explain the behaviour of the Obama-Trump voters?

Yes, I believe it does.

How? I'm genuinely curious.

Anyway, I'm not sure why it matters. People with problematic views make up the majority of the electorate since the beginning politics. No use being sad about it - you can't choose your own electorate?

Personally, I'm not sure it does. Yes, the overwhelming majority of trump voters voted out of racial resentment. However, arguing to swing voters who flipped from Obama to Trump or overwhelmingly doing so out of economic anxiety. So in short Trump voters in a whole voted out of racial resentment, but his Electoral College winning Coalition relied on Obama voters who supported him who were overwhelmingly driven by economic anxiety.

It is foolish to consider large number of Obama Trump voters, most of whom supported Obama twice, to be driven primarily at least by racial resentment.

[Badger]

I will add that it makes no sense to shame Trump voters for the racism. There are many Trump voters, who previously supported Obama, who clearly did not support Trump 90 + percent of the time because of racial resentment. These are the minority, but they are the voters needed for Trump's winning coalition.

The other 85 to 90% of trump voters literally have no shame on the issue of racial resentment, and will never vote otherwise.

[Badger]

Unless we make these distinctions then there's little hope of meaningful debate on this matter. But I wonder sometimes whether that's the point.

Alas...

And it just keeps going......

[Badger]

Stop.

It's true though.

Literally every interaction I've had with Trump supporters is the same. It's anecdotal, sure, but I've dealt with many, my family is made up of many, and they all seem to be a carbon copy of one another.

They hate immigrants, full stop. They try to play coy by saying they love legal immigrants, but that facade falls apart when they try to interact with someone who can't speak English. I've seen it happen over and over.

People who immigrate to the United States should speak English. Why is this considered offensive?

Because you are forcefully tearing a culture away from people, which is no different than genocide. America is an enormous country, and we have plenty of room for people to self segregate into a group based on shared values including language. This is - or should be - the beauty of America. We need to prevent contamination of the pieces that make the whole and that includes many languages.

I (as a child of immigrants myself) do think it is valuable for immigrants to learn the language of the country, though. Not because it appeases bigoted nativists but because it does genuinely make their lives easier, especially if they don’t live in a place with a large and active expat community from their homeland.

Immigration should not be a burden on taxpayers in the say that, say, the safety net is.  It's one thing to have social welfare benefits for American citizens; it's quite another to have these benefits for non-citizens, and especially for folks who are not legally in America.  And while many of the memes on Facebook and such that talk about "Illegal Aliens getting welfare" are false, they DO impact our safety net when they go to a public hospital ER or a public psychiatric unit.  Their children DO go to school here, and that adds to the education budget.  

The issue with English is simple.  Americans should not be forced to learn Spanish simply because a large percentage of its new immigrants are Spanish-speakers that don't wish to learn English.  This is a different issue than in Ellis Island years because the Ellis Island immigrants came from diverse places across the sea, while current Hispanic immigrants from Mexico come from next door.  The idea of forsaking their homeland and becoming American doesn't apply in the way it does for someone from Europe or Asia.  

Many folks are resentful of having a greater need to learn a foreign language.  They are resentful about having to provide bi-lingual services at their businesses, and they resent (in some areas) how NOT being bi-lingual puts them at a disadvantage for some jobs.  This wasn't the case prior to 1965, when immigration was based on quotas designed to ensure that the ethnic makeup of America didn't radically change.

These changes have been great for industry; they now have a base of low-wage non-unionized workers for their businesses (in the case of much of the Hispanic immigrants).  They have been good for the immigrants, who do enjoy a higher standard of living in America than they did in their country of origin.  But has it been good for American citizens that we have had large influxes of immigrants from other places who are, culturally, quite different, and whose legitimate needs have placed a burden on American taxpayers?

The American citizens who ask these sorts of questions never really get a straight answer.  They get lectures about how in diversity there is strength, without really showing how that principle applies to their situation (let alone demonstrating how it is actually true).  And, yes, they get the xenophobic reactions to evaluate, but they also get to be called xenophobes just for asking the question of "How is this good for the folks who have been citizens of this country for their whole lives?"  When they see "diversity" in other parts of the world, they see it not as part of the richness of those nations, but as a problem that needs to be overcome or managed.  Greeks and Turks on Cyprus.  Flemish and Walloons in Belgium.  The problems of unassimilated Muslims in much of old Europe.  Hindus and Muslims in India.  The world has not become the Melting Pot America tries to be.

If folks want to know the cause of much of the "anger" surrounding this issue, it is simple; folks are angry because they have to bear the costs of these non-citizens to some degree, they don't get an honest answer as to why this is either right or good for them from their government, they get lectures on diversity that range from political correctness to indoctrination, and they experience their intelligence being insulted on a number of levels.  And the ILLEGAL immigrants make that worse.  When their kids mess up, they go to jail.  When their tag light is out, they get a costly ticket from Officer Friendly, often after being pulled over with a request to search their car.  When folks crash the border, however, they seem to get to stay endlessly, without consequence.  The illegal addition to their home will come down faster than an illegal alien will be deported, even if the illegal addition to one's home is safe and functional.  

Perhaps someone here will be able to explain why immigration in the manner that we have now is good for me and for my family (as well as for my country) without mentioning how good it is for the immigrants.  

Change the word "Muslim" to "Catholic and Jewish" consider all those "unassimilable" Italian, polish, and east european immigrants "forcing us to learn Italian, Yiddish, etc., understand all someone needed to step off the boat legally today was pass a TB test, then ask yourself the same question 125 years ago.

If you can get over your ignorance about Muslims garnered from wildly inaccurate wingnut internet sites the answer should come easily.

Oh, and kudos on your honesty listing illegal immigration as a mere sidenote, as most people who tell on about illegal immigration are opposed to legal immigration for the same "reasons".