people hate it when you say things like 'this policy that was mostly meant to hurt [marginalised group] also sometimes hurts [other, less marginalised group]" which is fair bc it can definitely come across as 'who cares if those subhumans get hurt, the problem is when it happens to real people'. but unfortunately a fact about being a marginalised group is that it makes it much cheaper politically to hurt you.
immigration officers arresting citizens is not worse than immigration officers arresting noncitizens, but turns out weirdly enough 'citizens' is a category with a lot more political power than 'noncitizens' and so it's strategically useful to get them opposed to immigration enforcement. so that might affect which things you talk about how much.
I don't like that this is how it works either but most people seem primarily driven by their own interests, so to persuade them to align with you it helps to frame your goals in terms of how they benefit them rather than how they benefit you. Most people don't really care about you, especially if you're in a minority group they consider to be removed from their daily life.
One thing that has really frustrated me is left-wing rhetoric that explains things like, e.g. the war on Iran as the result of Imperial self-interest when it's clearly self-destructive.
If you tell a Pete Hegseth that he's putting the interest of American citizens over those of Iranians he'll say "Good, it's about time, that's as it should be".
Point out to the people who voted for Trump that he's screwing them and they might care.
But also, like... a lot of time it's just the truth. Current American policy simply cannot be understood as a rational but immoral expression of self-interest at the expense of others. I think promoting the delusion that it is such a thing is not a great idea.
