Let’s concede the first two points, at least for the sake of argument. Trump isn’t a visceral hater of all Latinos, and he isn’t trying to hurt Latino Americans. The harder question is whether he’s a more sophisticated kind of demagogue—one who uses ethnicity, race, or religion for advantage in particular contexts when he thinks it might serve his interests.
That’s where Trump’s third point comes in. To impute ethnic hostility to a judge, you need two things. The judge’s ethnicity is only half of the equation. The other half is something about the defendant that would arouse hostility from a person of that ethnicity. Trump suggests that the answer is in his campaign platform. He’s challenging Mexican interests. Therefore, a Mexican American judge is likely to resent him.
But now we have a problem. Trump just said, in his first two points, that there’s no reason for Mexican Americans to dislike him. He has argued that his pro-American policies would serve Hispanic Americans, just like other Americans. And he denies that anything he has said or done is categorically hostile to Latinos. So there’s no reason for Curiel, a Mexican American, to be biased against Trump—a candidate whose policies, at most, might be inimical to Mexicans.
Unless, of course, Trump doesn’t really believe in this distinction between Mexicans and Mexican Americans. In that case, his concern about Curiel makes perfect sense. Trump recognizes that a Mexican American judge has grounds to dislike him, because Trump’s routine attacks on Mexicans are an implicit assault on all people of Mexican descent.
Trump can’t have it both ways. Either his rhetoric about Mexican factories, immigrants, and rapists is ethnically neutral, or it isn’t. If it’s neutral, there’s no basis to accuse Curiel of ethnic bias against Trump. If it isn’t neutral—if Trump believes his own rhetoric is ethnically loaded—he’s essentially admitting that he’s an opportunistic bigot.
The same goes for Trump’s fourth point, about Curiel’s membership in the La Raza lawyers’ group. It’s a bar association for Latinos. If you impute prejudice based on somebody’s membership in a Latino bar association—or in the NAACP or B’nai B’rith—you’re basically saying that being a minority, and belonging to a minority community or civil rights organization, is grounds for disqualification. That’s functionally equivalent to categorical prejudice.
So which is it, Donald? Does Judge Curiel have reason to see you as an enemy, or doesn’t he? Do you believe that membership in an ethnic organization is disqualifying, or don’t you? If the answer is no, then let the case proceed, and stop trying to justify your insinuations. If the answer is yes, then say so, and let’s call you what you really are.
