First, this isn’t an endorsement of the Donald. I haven’t made up my mind and I’m somewhere between Rand Paul and anyone but Marco Rubio.
One thing that has been entertaining has been watching Trump upset all the right people including the neo-cons over at the National Review. One thing that has interested is the support from Pat Buchanan. I haven’t seen an outright endorsement, but he certainly seems to also be enjoying his campaign. One thing Pat Buchanan has been writing and warning about for a long time is mass immigration to America and the negative effects of it on our nation and our culture. State of Emergency is an excellent and eye opening book on the issue.
A few polls I’ve seen show a huge disconnect between evangelical leaders and the average evangelical (whatever that is). I think one of the main issues is immigration and I think the article “Why are many Christians Supporting Trump?” explains it well:
Polls consistently indicate that the fundamental political concern for conservative Christians is the moral climate of the nation. So this argument is highly relevant for the values-based voter. And when objections to the kind of border security proposed by Trump invoke politically correct responses, as when Lindsay Graham called him a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot,” it only fuels the plausibility of such reasoning.
This is because I think there is what we might call a cultural sense among Christians that open borders means overturning values. In her highly influential study, Purity and Danger, the renowned social anthropologist Mary Douglas developed the critical connection between borders and bodies in human culture. She observed that cultural concerns about the body, such as taboo codes, ethical identity, and conceptions of purity, are frequently lived out as metaphors for larger social relationships and boundaries. This last term, boundaries, is a key motif for Douglas, who theorized that each individual body within the group ‘body’ shares in the boundedness of the group, with the restrictions of the social macrocosm embodied and reflected in each individual corporal microcosm. For example, restrictions as to whom one may betroth reflect restrictions as to who may enter the society; proscriptions protecting bodily orifices symbolize preoccupations about social exits and entrances. The do’s and don’t’s regulating national boundaries are lived out personally via the moral codes inscribed on individual bodies.
If Douglas is correct, then there is a plausible cultural sense that open borders means open values. The perpetuation of unfettered immigration fulfills the political precondition for more liberal democratic social policies.
While this isn’t the only reason, I think this is a major reason for the amount of support seen among evangelicals for Trump.