And yet, if I'm trying to get my child to go to sleep, rather than dismissing it out of hand, I might make a show of looking under the bed and pointing out that there's nothing there and thus no reason to be concerned. That doesn't mean I'm going to let him not go to bed or leave the lights on.
I realize we're talking about potential voters not kids, but a politician engaging in a conversation prompted by a voter's "concern" doesn't need to mean agreeing with legitimating that the "concern" is something that should motivate policy change, bigotry, or anything else.
You were arguing in defense of the OP saying that there are legitimate concerns here, and sorry if I'm misinterpreting, you seem to be implying support for the present way this topic is handled.
What you're saying right now is much more in line with politicians telling parents "These concerns are ridiculous and not based in reality and here's why..." That would be good, but I'm not really convinced that's what you want given how you're defending "legitimate concerns" guy.
I guess at some level I am arguing that politicians in particular should get a little grace and not be expected to start conversations with potential voters that way. I do think it's OK to say "I see why you might think that, but here's what I think..." That's not advocacy for restrictive policy.
Well they aren't even taking the conversations that direction after the start. The moment they go "you have legitimate concerns" they've conceded to the fascist framing of the discussion and aren't going to be able to re-frame it. I think your argument for adopting reactionary framing is very bad.