Instead of focusing on the specifics (i don't care what Trump tweeted yesterday, or what some poor guy's malfunctioning gun did - hope he's ok and able to afford healthcare).
Lets look at the more general case - internment is an example of depriving people their rights (The right to a fair trial, and the right to 'freedom' - specifically freedom of movement...). This much we agree on - we'll get to the 'whos doing it' in a bit.
But it is only one example of depriving people rights. In the general theory of racialisation, liberal nations actively racial groups so it is easier to deny those entire groups their rights.
You will note that in the example of Japanese internment, it was targetted at ALL japanese americans, regardless of who they were, or why they were in america (or anything which might be used as evidence in a fair trial).
The theory asking why liberal nations use racialisation (thinking of it as a piece of political technology, a tool) and the answer is that in liberal nations, by definition, we extend certain rights and freedoms to all people, but some people are seen as a threat, and granting them these rights is problematic, thus if we are going to deny them their rights they must be made to feel like 'not people' or like 'the other' in order for the rest of society to accept taking their rights away - ie if non-Japanese americans felt 'this could happen to me next, they are just like me' then the internment would have sparked massive destabilising protests. So you first have to make sure the people felt that japanese americans aren't 'just like me' - ie Othering.
Ok, so far not too contraversial, right? Japanese-Americans were seen as a threat, and we understand why, and they did have their rights infringed.
But what about the who? Well above it is clearly democrats. But in general, it is people in power - and the implicit comment above suggests that democrats aren't like republicans - but i will claim this generalises to people in power in liberal nations regardless of party affiliation (i'm not going to back up that claim, you can research this theory yourself if you want to learn more).
So taking this as understood (you don't have to agree with it, just understand). What other examples of racialisation (or 'Othering') do we have? Well there is clear evidence from Donald Trump's political campaign of Othering Mexicans and Muslims (and he's current a person in power, so i'm citing these examples). So are they having their rights denied??
Well that depends on what rights people have. One is the right to seek asylum, i believe Trumps travel ban (at least as originally proposed) does infringe this right. (The are also seen as a threat)
Does 'the wall' infringe on rights of Mexican (and other south/central americans) from exercising their rights? No, it does not; despite a history of immigration, which the US has largely profitted greatly from, there is no right to move there. Are mexicans being 'Othered' and are they seen as a threat? That is a definite yes, and a maybe.
For a little bit of balance - Obama also deprived people of rights - he murdered many (including some american citizens) with drone strikes - clearly wrong from a rights perspective - he most targetted 'suspected terrorists', thry were Othered as Muslim extremists by the media, they were largely in the Middle East, Somalia(?), Afghanistan and Pakistan. They were seen as a threat. (Depriving them of the right to a fair trial and the right to life).
All fitting nicely with the theory. Except there is some small differences, internment and blanket bans on asylum seeking are 'group punishments' - you treat everyone the same, regardless of evidence against an individual. Drone strikes *may* be based on evidence, and may target individuals (and the families/friends who happen to also die are collateral damage). They may be based on evidence against individuals, and while Muslim extremists have been Othered, it is possible to claim that Obama didn't target them indiscriminately (Though i am hesitant to make this claim, when 'evidence' of terrorism may include holding a mobile phone which was once used to ogranise a terrorist attack). Thry are still being deprived of rights...
So while i acknowledge a difference between treating entire groups as if they are the same (muslim ban/japanese-american internment) and targeting specific individuals (which doesn't require Othering an entire group - though i sure makes things easier). Denying right is wrong regardless, so i'm happy to criticise both Obama and Trump.
In the most general case, i condemn those who use racialisation to Other people (the responce from racialised groups to come together and form a racial identity to protect themselves and make it something for them to be proud of, is not something to condemn, it is a survival responce, and so when you see Black Lifes Matter getting Black people out on the streets to protest the unfair treatment of people of colour this is an example of the reaction to racialisation and discrimination... I don't condemn people for this, largely because A) they aren't in a position of power, so they can't abuse that power, B) they are not denying rights to others, they are fighting to have the same rights as others, and C) the were 'attacked' and Othered first, so this is a defensive and survival strategy).
So with that as a background, 1) i don't care if it was democrats or republicans denying people their rights, it is still wrong - and they are the political parties in powet, 2) Othering or Racialisation is wrong and leads to a breakdown of social cohesion which harms everyone - regardless of specific rights infringement i will still condemn this, and 3) blanket (negative) treatment of groups without regard for the individual (by people in power) is harmful, lazy, and ignorant; i condemn it strongly.
Diplomacy Survival Game!
)
)
)