A border wall is (independently of whether it is good policy) not inherently racist.
Using racist rhetoric to sell a border wall is, OTOH, racist.
> Mexican is a nationality, not a race.
I'm not sure its particularly productive to argue that a ancestry-based bigotry is technically distinct from racism because it is based on national origin rather than classical races.
> There are Mexicans of all races, including white(which latinos are classed as, but lets say western european ethnicity too)
Hispanics/Latinos aren't necessarily White; in theory, Hispanic origin "ethnicity" is orthogonal to "race". OTOH, the way it is usually broken out into statistics reflects the fact that "Hispanic" is the only "ethnicity" used along US "race" categories specifically because it reflects a new basis of quasi-racial exclusion in the US which became important after the classical racial categories were established, which is why the categories broken out are, almost without exception, "White (non-Hispanic)", "Black", "Asian/Pacific Islander", "Native American/Alaskan Native", and "Hispanic" -- while on forms that you fill out its treated as an orthogonal category to race, its really in the common thinking exactly another racial category.
No it doesn't.
If you want to argue that security cordons and fences are not a "wall", then fine. There is no wall on the southern border of Mexico. Just a security cordon and fences.
Not sure exactly what you mean by anti-trade, and how it relates to racism.
Mexican is a nationality, not a race. There are Mexicans of all races, including white(which latinos are classed as, but lets say western european ethnicity too)
Islam is a religion, not a race. There are Muslims of all races, including white.