Since we are still roughly on the same topic, I have a question:
Does it actually matter what Trump's intent was?
In a "Death of the Author" type of way, I think it can be argued that what is important about the President's speech is not so much what he meant to say from that speech, but the interpretations and effects of the communication. Speaking in somewhat broad terms regarding the effect of his speech regarding race and immigration, I think there are three main effects on three different groups of people:
1) Political Enemies: This is the most obvious and direct effect here. It is the effect of a powerful individual generally insulting and disparaging his political enemies. I don't think this needs much explanation.
2) Immigrants/Racial Minorities: For many individuals, whether or not it was Trump's intent, words such as these feel like a racist or xenophobic attack, reflecting historical racism and attacks of "go back to your country" as a means of othering an individual and denying them an American identity. For such language to be echoed by the leader of the country can be very hurtful to certain individuals and groups.
3) Far-right extremists: We often see individuals within these groups praising Trump's words when he makes comments such as this, or when he talks about Europe "losing its culture" or any of his other various questionable comments. The reason these comments are called dog whistles is because, again, whether intentional or not, this is using the veiled language of right wing extremism and white nationalism and lending validity to talking points such as "white genocide" (which has been rebranded several times now).
As such, do we definitively need to ascertain intent in order to condemn such comments? I don't believe we do.
