Yes, I think this is a fair criticism of the left. I don't think it's terribly surprising the left would recoil from a position that seems to excuse companies profiting by employing illegal immigrants, but punishes being an illegal migrant. It seems a bit downpunchy, and to constitute an acknowledgement that government policy is to deliberately cause people to want to come to the US, and then deliberately punish them when they do. However I think the left should be working to find a policy package that resolves these tensions in a way that it is more thoughtful than the right-wing version.
I think in general ICE defenders want the perception of unpredictability, even if they don't admit it. The fact that it's sometimes ICE itself posting the videos of sloppy and menacing looking raids that serve as both content for those on the right and outrage bait to ICE opponents speaks volumes. Some here will be more open about the usefulness of this perception, arguing that it's only by creating a climate of fear among immigrant communities that you can defeat the pull factor causing people to come to the country. They believe 'I am here but at the pleasure of capricious forces' is what we want going through the heads of all immigrants, legal and illegal, as well as anyone who might be somewhat 'bad guy' presenting (e.g. tattoos, ethnicity, employed in a precarious and peripatetic part of the economy). They want a sense of order that comes through establishing, with shows of force, who is in charge. I understand the motivation behind that attitude, though I disagree with it. What I find insulting is people trying to claim that what we are seeing is genuinely intended just as efficient implementation of rules, and it's the media doing all the scaremongering.
Yeah, this seems more than a little important to recall when accusing the Democrats of starting the civil war talk.
- Prev
- Next
Large pizzas are usually a good deal for the same reason as 16" vs 12" sounds like only a third more pizza.
More options
Context Copy link