I've recently seen the argument, from more than one source, that, if you're against Immigration and Customs Enforcement, you're in favor of unregulated immigration.
OK, OK, these folks — one of whom authored an op-ed on the topic — actually used the term "open borders" or "no-borders immigration." And, while I wanted to avoid such phrases, I realized I couldn't, because it's specifically tied to how these types of arguments are framed, which is with shockingly little awareness.
It's not necessarily a person’s fault for using such a term. In fact, the jargon has been hurled at them again and again so they will repeat it. And it shapes the argument over immigration in the U.S. as a matter of absolutes. If you're against X, you're for Y.
Similar thinking was used to great effect in the debate over abortion. If you're for a woman's right to choose, you're in favor of murdering babies. For the love of God, don't ask an OB/GYN about complications, health threats and myriad issues where an abortion is necessary health care and not employed as a form of birth control by supposedly evil women. Nothing other than a black-and-white stance is acceptable.
This kind of thing has dumbed down discourse and is part of the reason the country is so politically polarized. If you can eliminate the nuance, you can rally more people to your cause by unburdening them with the labor of thinking things through.
We didn't call you stupid
Let's go back to the ICE example. First, there's the fallacy of framing the argument as "against ICE." There are certainly people who would like to see the agency eliminated, but they do not represent a majority of Americans. There's a difference between being against ICE and being against an overfunded assault on cities where agents lacking ID badges and wearing masks covering their faces indiscriminately detain people — including U.S. citizens — with no due process. One can be in favor of border security and greater scrutiny over the immigration process and be against masked agents killing American citizens in the streets of Minneapolis. The idea that those viewpoints can't exist in tandem is ludicrous.
Think about it like this: A lot of times when I'd get in trouble as a kid, I'd hear the word "stupid" from my parents and take offense. They would point out that they weren't calling me stupid but labeling my actions or decisions for the chewing out I was receiving as stupid. Some people might brush over that as semantics, but it's actually a pretty significant difference. My parents were usually right, by the way.
Many Americans are not against the idea of ICE existing. They're against how the agency is being pumped with cash and conducting its operations with little to no oversight or adherence to the rule of law.
Can it fit in an X post?
You could say the same thing about the U.S. entering a war with Iran. Not many Americans, if any, were fans of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or his brutal, theocratic regime. Not many Iranians were either, but they weren't given much choice.
Iran has sponsored terrorism against the U.S. and its allies. The Middle East nation took U.S. diplomats and citizens hostage in 1979 under Ali Khamenei's predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, as the U.S.-supported government in Iran fell. More than 50 Americans were held hostage for a year and 79 days.
Americans can despise the regime in Iran without believing the U.S. should've started a war with the country a few days ago, assassinating most of its political and military leaders in joint airstrikes with Israel while also killing civilians. In fact, most Americans don't support the recent actions of the Trump administration in Iran or the idea of prolonged use of military force in the region, if polling is to be believed.
There's a lot of nuance to this view. Many Americans are concerned more about the price of groceries and gas. Some saw what occurred when the U.S. entered into extended, ultimately unsuccessful regime-changing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and fear that might happen again. Plenty of Americans are concerned about all this and more at the same time. So, are they in favor of American troops being harmed? Are they pro-Iran? Of course not. Such absolutist ideas seem insane when presented like that.
Unfortunately, "I don't like Iranian leadership or the idea of the country attaining nuclear weapons but I also fear for the loss of American lives, a quagmire of a war and unaddressed issues here in the United States getting worse" doesn't fit on a bumper sticker or make for a snappy social media post. What's especially sad is that — for millions of Americans — social media platforms and news moving at lightning speed have effectively killed the idea of thinking something over or discussing it more deeply.
On top of that, in many instances there's a need to do thorough analysis to determine if something is even true. Few people seem to have the time anymore. They just post the link or repeat the quote.
The ultimate results from this ongoing cultural shift are hard to pin down, too. Maybe some people have and will consciously slow down and consider the issues, trying to learn more about them. Just as many, if not more, seem likely to continue allowing themselves to be herded into absolutist trenches, where there is only what a group supports and the opposite, even if developing situations require taking on a completely contradictory belief to a previous unmovable stance.
The scary thing is that a great many people see what's going on and disengage completely. It's hard to blame them. And yet, apathy or a sense of resignation continue to be the worst case scenarios. The most damage is still done when no one cares.
