Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kirt's avatar

Powerful moral essay, and it succeeds in humanizing fear and harm. From a policy and governance perspective, though, it conflates several distinct questions that deserve separation if the goal is durable change rather than moral alignment.

Empirically, immigration documented and undocumented does not correlate with higher violent crime rates nationally or in Minnesota, and most enforcement actions do involve non-violent civil violations. At the same time, federal immigration enforcement exists because border control, due process, and labor regulation are real state responsibilities, not merely expressions of prejudice. Critiquing abuses is necessary. Treating the existence of enforcement itself as illegitimate collapses reform into abolition without grappling with alternatives.

Similarly, framing ICE as a “militia” and MAGA as categorically outside democratic politics may express moral conviction, but it obscures institutional accountability. Bad policy outcomes usually emerge from incentives, oversight failures, and political polarization not from monolithic evil. Systems are changed by redesign, not by moral excommunication.

If the aim is to reduce harm, protect immigrant communities, and preserve democratic legitimacy, the harder work is specifying what replaces current enforcement structures, how authority is constrained, and how broad public consent is rebuilt. Without that, even justified anger risks reinforcing the very dynamics fear, absolutism, and institutional breakdown it seeks to oppose

No posts

Ready for more?