I understand what you’re trying to do in this, Van, an extension of your important listening work in Beyond the Messy Truth. But I also have problems with it. It’s valuable to say “if I had your experience then I would believe how you believe.” But you have to really be careful not to give legitimacy to lies, because we’re living in a time when the administration lies daily, recklessly, and intentionally. And well-meaning people believe those lies.
There’s a legit debate about how to address people coming over the border (no one even mentions climate change as a driver, which they should). And from the polls, even some consensus that you can’t just have open borders.
But if you listed to the administration and its allies, every ad, interview, public statement talks about the predators, drug dealers and child molesters. And that’s simply not the truth about who’s been targeted, in part because if someone is a predator, drug dealer or child molester, they’re likely in jail, where they should be. And that’s a regular law enforcement function, with procedures to protect the innocent. Instead you get constant and unrelenting lies about “we’re arresting criminals,” where they don’t mention that the bulk of the criminal acts are for crossing the border and no more. It’s a deliberate lie, like JD Vance saying it was ok to talk about “eating dogs and cats” even after local officials said it was false, because it served the greater purpose of addressing “American suffering.”
So it’s valuable to say, there are a lot of good people who believe the lies and you don't want to write them off. But you don’t want to give the lies legitimacy, because one of the most frightening things of this regime is its recklessness toward truth.
On Renee Good, you’ve watched the videos, and I doubt you’re on the fence about whether it was necessary for the Ice officer to shoot her. She turned her wheels away. The agent got in front of the car, in violation of any standard police procedure. The agent walked away fine. And then the administration defamed her by calling her a domestic terrorist. Now if all you get is Fox and the right wing social feeds, then you’re going to believe that he had no choice and that she’s a dangerous subversive. But if you justify it by putting all perspectives equal, it’s like justifying those who disappeared people off the streets under Pinochet in Chile or Videla in Argentina. Yes, they probably believed they were saving the country from dangerous subversives, but their actions were abhorrent, as are the bulk of the ICE actions.
That doesn’t count the administration putting the ICE officers in what Robert Jay Lifton called, during Vietnam, “an atrocity producing situation.” Or ICE shoving the head of the Minneapolis City Council. Or refusing to let Congressional representatives inspect their holding facilities, and arresting them when they try to go in. Or going after local elected officials who oppose them.
I understand you’re trying to get those opposed to the Trump administration to understand how his supporters see the situation (and vice versa). But you have to acknowledge the assaults on the truth in the process, because they’re one of the core pillars of what genuine authoritarianism, and not just differences in perspective.
Happy to talk about all of this (I just emailed via substack, or you can grab my contact info at paulloeb.org), and you know how I’ve long respected your work, and appreciated your kind words on my books, like Soul of a Citizen. But while I understood the impetus of the piece, I really did have some problems with it.
Paul
Paul Loeb
Author, Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While
PS--I do totally agree that resistance to ICE and Trump has to be nonviolent (actually working on a piece critiquing the movie One Battle Or Another for romanticizing violence). But that doesn't mean it has to be docile, and when they go into people's homes without a warrant, or pick up random day workers at Home Depot, I think people who make it harder for them are heroes.
Paul, I appreciate the depth of your critique, and I share your concern about truth. You're right that we can't treat documented falsehoods as just "a different perspective." The administration's lies—calling Renee Good a "domestic terrorist" hours after killing her, claiming the agent was run over when video shows he wasn't—are not legitimate viewpoints. They're manipulation.
But I think there's a crucial distinction between what people in power are doing and what ordinary people believe.
Trump and his allies are deliberately lying to twist the narrative. That's not a "perspective"—it's a strategy. But the people who believe those lies often have real fears underneath: about safety, about changing communities, about being ignored. Those fears existed before Trump and will exist after him. He exploits them; he didn't create them.
What I hear Van saying isn't "treat lies as equal to truth." It's "don't confuse the manipulators with the manipulated."
When we take the bait—abolish ICE vs. back the blue, "terrorist" vs. "martyr"—we're fighting on Trump's terms. We're battling each other instead of uniting around what most people actually agree on: a US citizen shouldn't be killed for non-compliance. No one should have unchecked power. Immigration policy needs real reform.
The both-and approach isn't about legitimizing lies. It's about refusing to let those in power keep us divided so we never hold them accountable.
Totally agree on the distinction between people in power who have contempt for the truth and their ordinary followers , many of whom are good people but whose vision is blurred by all the lies. My concern was that the piece let the first group off the hook too easily.
Van may be too busy to respond to all the comments but I am curious what his response is to your concerns. I have my own lived experiences as a town councilor in Amherst MA and even though we're a progressive town it was interesting seeing the divisiveness between people on the left and left of left. It required truly suspending assumptions and expectations of changing/convincing others when change actually happened for everyone and for the better. But it was challenging and rare, given the trauma, misinformation, competing needs etc.
my "like" button isn't working -- just wanted to thank you for making the point of "listen, but don't give legitimacy to lies." We're living in an upside-down world, where he can say anything, and it is reported, as if "fact." Very disconcerting.
I tried to explain to someone at a polite gathering that Renee Good would almost certainly have lived if she complied with orders from ICE agents. She had to leave the room after I said that as if I just said something horrible. Someone else made a hugely unlawful suggestion of what should be done about the current political situation. It was roundly rejected by others, but no one wanted to leave the room on that count. It was more a cause for joking. I am sick and tired of being typecast as right wing because I refuse to prostrate myself before the left’s canon of martyrs while demonizing the martyrs held up by right. I admire the efforts of Van Jones to be fair minded and persuade rather than scapegoat and coerce. We need more of that. Life in the Bay Area gets exhausting because I feel like the left here clings to its virtue signals as tightly as conservatives in other places cling to their guns. I would like less of both. There’s too much hate.
I appreciate Van's call for listening to each other. And I can see there are real concerns people have about immigration, border security, and the role ICE plays in keeping communities safe. Those concerns are valid and deserve to be heard.
In that spirit of genuine dialogue, I'm curious what you saw in that situation that justified killing a US citizen? The NYT's frame-by-frame video analysis shows the agent was standing to the side of the vehicle—not in its path—when he fired, and that Good was turning away from him. Multiple independent analyses, including from the Washington Post, found no evidence he was under threat.
So even as we hold space for the legitimate fears around immigration enforcement—do you believe a US citizen engaged in observation should face lethal force for not immediately complying? That feels like a question worth sitting with, regardless of which "side" we're on.
The very idea that I am justifying her death by suggesting that she made mistakes in her interaction with the agents is precisely the kind of interpretive overreach that offended the person who left the room. It’s very seductive to make polarizing interpretations like that and it is why our dialog is so poor in this country. I was clear in my statement to the offended person that I believed the officers made numerous mistakes too, and the one who shot her most certainly has no valid claim to self defense. I think he should be prosecuted. But that doesn’t mean flight was the right response, any more than her wife taunting the officers. When I got a ticket recently, I was very careful to not spook the officer as I located the registration which for security reasons was hidden. Even though unlike the highway patrol I have a very negative view of ICE, once I am being detained I am not going to move unless I am explicitly permitted to. The moment she was asked to step out of the car she needed to comply. What if these officers were in pursuit of someone very dangerous and blocking them enabled a serious crime to happen? The only reason she is held up as a saint is because of support for her cause of obstructing ICE. Or what If this woman was blocking an abortion clinic and received the same fate: her fans and critics would be completely differently sets of people even though the actual facts of the encounter would be the same. No one cares about basic principles. They care about causes and narratives.
I'm going to try to explain ... First, the death of Rene Good is a tragedy. It was a mistake for Trump administration officials not to emphasize heartfelt condolences for her wife and family first, instead of leaping ahead to talk about the justification of the ICE agent. I guess that they could foresee that the agent was bound to be vilified and had empathy for him, too. It was a shocking situation so I'm giving everyone a pass for comments made in those early hours.
Rene Good made a mistake, too, by not realizing the seriousness of the situation she was in. Apparently, she naively believed that the righteousness of her cause allowed her to ignore the instructions of law enforcement.
I've watched numerous videos of the event myself. I have learned that Renee Good parked her car deliberately to obstruct traffic and to hinder a Iaw enforcement operation. She was breaking the law.
After at least a few minutes, she was ordered out of her car by two officers, one of whom had his arm inside on her car door. Again, she was breaking the law. It is a serious matter to defy that type of order.
While this was happening, agent Ross approached the car walking slowly. One could see that he was scoping out the situation according to training. He noted her, the license plate, her wife, bystanders in the background, and the position of the right front wheel which, at the time, was turned to the left.
He walked around to the front of the car and stopped near the other officers at her door who, by then, were screaming for her to get out of her car. Since she was defying orders, her car was classified as a lethal weapon. And that is the lawful classification.
Within a few seconds, she began turning her front wheels from the left to the right while her wife was screaming, "Drive, baby, drive.". Naturally, the car faced agent Ross directly as she was turning. As she accelerated, agent Ross was hit seriously enough to require that he go to the hospital.
He is trained to stop anyone who has control of a lethal weapon. Full stop. His first shot hit the windshield. Within a micro-second, two more shots were fired as she was turning to the right. According to the video I saw, this happened so fast that it seemed that the shots were fired at the same time.
His training is constructed to make judgements that include the following possibilities:
The car may have a bomb. The driver has access to a gun. The driver intends to run him over and perhaps others. The driver may lose control and harm others. The officer whose arm was inside the car may be dragged along the street as he, himself, was just a few months before.
It doesn't matter. His training instructs him that he must stop anyone in control of a lethal weapon. And in this case, he must stop the car within less than a second.
So hopefully, you can see that the tragedy could have been avoided if Rene Good had followed lawful orders by getting out of her car when instructed. And hopefully, you can see that agent Ross was following his training in a highly stressful situation.
I'll add that I, for one, am not going to attempt to drive my car in the direction of law enforcement at any time or in any neighborhood anywhere in the world, because it is likely that I would be shot.
But protesters should be in Washington DC, demanding that Congress address immigration reform. Meanwhile, all politicians, commentators, podcasters, propagandists, and activists should just shut up until that happens.
I appreciate you laying out your understanding of what happened, and I want to engage with it after checking the law.
I think there are some legal points worth examining:
The claim that "since she was defying orders, her car was classified as a lethal weapon" isn't how the law works. A vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon only if it's being actively used in a way that poses imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Failing to exit your car—even if unlawful—doesn't automatically reclassify it as a lethal weapon.
Under Fourth Amendment standards (Tennessee v. Garner, Graham v. Connor), lethal force is only justified when there's an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
The question isn't whether she was breaking the law. It's whether Agent Ross faced a deadly threat at the moment he fired.
The NYT's frame-by-frame analysis shows Ross was standing to the side of the vehicle—not in its path—and that the car was turning away from him when he shot. Multiple independent analyses found no evidence he was under imminent threat.
Even if we accept that she was obstructing traffic or defying orders, those are misdemeanors. They don't authorize lethal force.
I'm genuinely asking: If the video shows he wasn't in the vehicle's path, what's the legal justification for the shooting?
I am an immigrant and would never think of doing what Renee did. I find other ways to create conditions for peace, equity, and teach mindfulness skills in business and politics. My hope is that we can continue to address the immigration problems in this country and not give unchecked power to the president or anyone.
Well, I wonder if you have seen the video that agent Ross, himself, had filmed because it shows that he could have felt that he was in danger. Keep in mind, he, himself, was hit. Also, there's a bullet hole in the windshield that shows that he was in front of her at some point. She wasn't parked, she was driving so by the time he was hit and had shot the first time, she had already passed him slightly. This happened almost within a micro-second. The three shots sounded like they had happened simultaneously.
Personally, after years of watching C-Span, I have learned that the media, on both sides, craft events to suit the purposes of a narrative. It has to do with emphasis, the topics that are highlighted, inflections, the choice of certain words, sentence structures, and even facial expressions. It's quite remarkable, actually.
And in this case, one narrative creates the impression that Renee Good was simply minding her own business when a member of the Trump Gestapo murders her. The imagination of the public fills in the rest and people go crazy, determined to "save democracy.". This, of course, is by design.
The other impression is that Trump, himself, is leading the charge to " save democracy " by establishing a renewed environment of law and order. Again, by design.
Van Jones almost got it right in this recent article, but he didn't emphasize enough the role that the media plays in public opinion. There's always the rest of the story that the media seems to "miss." Quite remarkably.
This is what dialog can look like when we don't let our emotions get in the way! We both agree that media has a big role to play in shaping these narratives. Social media algorithms and traditional media get read when the news is polarizing. Those in power and media have always manipulated people to stay in power. I am from India and know first hand the mess the British created with their divide and rule policies - Hindus and muslims are still fighting. So many other examples. I think the point Van is making here is to not let those in power distract from the real issues and try to understand the fears we may not have but others do. I think we are more in agreement than disagreement.
I lived in Britain for four years so, yes, the British are masters at crafting narratives.
My daughter is married to a woman who is so woke that she advocates abolishing Freedom of Speech! And I have a friend from childhood who is a devoted Trump supporter. They were both surprised and amazed when I told them that the other side thinks they're stupid.
And yes, we're in agreement since you share with me the thought that to remain peaceful in these times of monumental change, we must think logically, critically, and with a, large amount of skepticism.
This was a very good read and opens my mind to other people's vision and concerns. I wish something could be done with social media and their algorithms.
Once again Van, you are the adult in the room and have the clearest assesment of this situation. And yes, we are all we've got and have to get it together and quickly. Hopefully both sides will hear what you are saying. Feels like time is running out. Keep telling it like it is Van!
We need all ‘reports’, ‘posts’ to be as well-balanced as this one, Van. Great job! In America no one should be able to report without presenting both sides! Thank you for a great model of how things should be presented to a thinking public.
I hope you're right about Van Jones now. I watched him on TV the night Hillary lost in 2016. As he sat there mirroring the lamentations of the panel on CNN, one of his first comments was to ask about what to tell his children the next day. I laughed and thought that he should reassure them that their ride would pick them up from school at the regular time as usual.
That's the trick. It's about class and money so I had no worries about Van's children. It would be truly wonderful of someone of Van's stature in the media would consistently report the truth and the whole picture. Truly wonderful. That's what this country craves. It would have a healing effect. And I bet that Van would make even more money if he would do it.
I don’t think you’re close on this: this is more both sides stuff. Voters voted for trump because there’s a string of white nationalism that runs through our history. Seeing that maga is fearful of immigration ? BS. They’re rabidly against anything that isn’t pure white. ICE ? They are populated by guys with guns that have no professionalism. You can see it in their violent behavior. What I think is that this is the beginning of a purge that will eventually extend to all that don’t agree with trump.
Well, Louis, your remarks seem to be heavily influenced by your media sources.
For instance, did you know?
Although Biden campaigned on the notion that Trump claimed that the white nationalists at Charlottesville were "fine people," that was ultimately debunked completely. I happened to see Trump's complete remarks at the time and knew that they were edited to give the wrong impression to malign Trump.
Trump's mother and two of his three wives were immigrants.
Trump's daughter is Jewish, having converted because of her husband's faith.
j. D. Vance is working class. He grew up in poverty because his mother was a drug addict.
His wife is a Hindu. Her parents are Indian immigrants.
The Chief of Staff is female. That's the first time a woman has ever been put in that position.
The Director of National Security, Tulsi Gabbard, is a woman of color. Again, a first.
Secretary of State, Rubio, is Hispanic. His parents are immigrants, having fled Cuba.
The Secretary of the Treasury is openly gay.
Rick Grinnell, an advisor, is openly gay.
FBI director, Patel, is of color of Indian dissent.
The HUD Secretary is African American.
Given these facts, it seems a stretch to conclude that Trump endorses white nationalism, doesn't it? If you didn't know this, it would seem sensible to check your sources. After all, we all have to be skeptical of what we have been told. Many times, deceptive tactics are common and are used for the purposes of political propaganda. Recall that it was reported as fact that the Border was secure and that Biden was "sharp as a tact."
And worse, AI is creating deceptive videos for public consumption so we can't even believe what we see with our own eyes, much less what is reported by seemingly credible outlets.
If honesty and objectivity were the universal standards, it is my belief that the political divide would evaporate. We all want the same thing, which is liberty, safety, and the ability to make decent living.
My interest in Trump has been that of analysis because he is a phenomenon.
I first became interested in him in 2015 when I noticed a reporter from one of the networks rendered speechless and later began stuttering about something that Trump had done. This was hilarious and prompted me to watch some of his rallies.
As time wore on, I noticed reporters consistently highlight statements from various rallies. The way his comments were described made it seem like the End of the World! Turns out, he was joking. And I could see that because his audience laughed. The laughter, the context, were omitted from reports each time.
This kind of dishonest reporting has continued to this day. Ten years. It's unfair. It's not right. And it has caused people to hate him. This hatred is dangerous. It divides families and could disrupt the country at large.
So, that's what I'm all about. Fairness.
Oh and, by the way, your "pure white ICE" and Border Patrol are 60% Hispanic. And I can attest to that because I lived on the Mexican border for 22 years.
I know I've already writ long, but forgot to say -- it's not my original idea, but from Rachel Maddow & Steve Schmidt: Though I started out, horrified, at what we're living through, I now feel privileged to be living in a time when I can be of USE helping my country regain the values we were founded on, meant to be. I can be one cog in the patriot machine, so that our national experiment in true democracy, can plow on. Governing ourselves, is messy and fragile, yet it's the freest way to live. To have a dictator tell us what to think, is not Liberty or satisfying. It is lazy.
Yes! Finally someone with a platform saying what I've been thinking. Thank you, Van 🙏
The ability to listen to lived experiences and fears across divides is crucial to finding real solutions. But too often people stay silent, feeling empathy for one group while unable to see the "others." Yet we often have so much in common—wanting the same things: safety, freedom, opportunities to grow. With media and politics amplifying differences, that's all we can see.
I witnessed this repeatedly as an Amherst city councilor—in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder, the Gaza-Israel conflict, now this. As you said, nuance doesn't scale well on social media, and for biological reasons we easily collapse into binaries that polarize.
We need more both-and thinking. It's the skill most missing from public discourse.
But here's what I'm genuinely wrestling with: How do we scale this understanding? When I speak about Palestinian suffering and make clear the Netanyahu government is wrong, AND also acknowledge the fears of Israeli families if Hamas isn't held accountable—I get shut down and shamed the moment I mention Israeli people.
If this happens to individuals trying to hold complexity, how do we create conditions for leaders to model this? How do we get this both-and approach into the rooms where policy is made? You have a platform and influence, Van—what do you think it would take?
And yes, I subscribed to your substack because I want to support this approach to thinking, journalism, and policy based on understanding of lived experiences of people with different backgrounds.
I was taught a long time ago, to solve a problem, take the people out of the problem and solve the problem.
Number 2, you can’t change someone else, only your self.
Calls to have both sides change their behavior I believe, is a wasted effort.
Notice how many cities don’t have the issues they have in Minneapolis? Why not? Both government sides get along. How do the two sides in places like Minneapolis get along?
What do they agree on? Getting rid of the worse of the worse. If the locals were to turn over those types in their legal system then both sides can reach one goal they both have. Get rid of the worse of the worse. Want to stop the ICE raids? Tell them you will work with them to get rid of the worse of worse. We’ll bring them to you. Tell us who you specifically want and we will work with you to find and capture them. No other illegals will be involved unless specifically asked for. There are enough of the worse of the worse to keep both sides busy for a long time. Locals will have some amount of say in what goes on and who will get caught. ICE won’t need big raids again and they will learn how to work together to achieve a common goal. Because that is the problem and you can solve it. You are giving professionals use to obeying change orders a better way to operate. No “passionate” zealots involved.
To me, it is that simple. If you are trying to change the actions and beliefs of others, you’re wasting your time and doing nothing to solve the problem. Grow up, be adults, work on the parts of the problem you can solve, save the rest for another day after you learn how to work together.
The crown jewel of emphaty....not just listening but seeing what the "other" side is experiencing, be it through misleading or underreported versions of events. The problem is exasperated as truth presents by events, actions, and policy. We have an ill-informed and disinterested electorate in this country and always have. The truth is available if one just does a little research. It's just easier to turn on your favorite cable news or,more recently, your favorite internet blog or social media influencer. I call that lazy because it's always preferable or much more comfortable to get your news from those who report what they not only think, but know, you want to hear. Each divided side won't even consider the other side's arguments. At this point when we have a president and administration that so extremely far right it's impossible to believe anything being disseminated as being the truth or whole truth. This is a fact that bears out with minimal research. Let's put the search for empathy and understanding second to saving democracy and stopping our country sliding in to financial destruction 1st. When each side is standing in line at a soup kitchen nobody is taking a side.
As always, you are measured. Within your discourse, you said: "change the channel." There is Too far-right and Too far-left. I listen to facts. LISTENING is the thing, so thank you for reminding us of that. I am fed up with these leaders, primarily their constant lying and rudeness, unbecoming a president of the United States. I am discouraged by "the Led," the lack of critical thinking and following the leader off the cliff. And I also do not want to live in my democracy, where I have to show my papers. I do not want soldiers patrolling our streets -- this has all been a purposeful mock-up, to rile >> and then blame Blue cities. I believe in the rule of law; I believe in freedom of speech -- the one does not preclude the other.
This is not about immigration. Congress has never addressed real immigration reform, which is badly needed. At the root, is racism, white supremacy, which is ludicrous, when you consider that immigrants, whether forced here, or willingly came here, BUILT America into the prosperous country she became (I'm not ignoring the Native Americans being displaced, ... but that's what white people have done in every country they've entered -- a fact). All my life I've been proud to belong to the one true immigrant country in the world. I know our faults, but you never give up to make your country into the words she was founded on.
Being a white woman, I automatically have privilege. But being a military child, I have lived North and South, & in foreign countries, and having parents who purposely exposed us to cultures and history. I am 81yo, and lived in Montgomery in the 50s, during Rosa Parks public bus boycott, and was forced to learn how unchristian, was segregation. It formed me into the activist I've been all my life. I am for Justice, so I am labelled a liberal; on some issues, I'm more conservative. I don't "get" racism, never have. Thank you, Van, for this forum, and a chance to speak our piece.
The central problem with this essay, which doesn’t prevent it from being worth reading, is the false equivalence that is generated by leaving out governmental opinion and looking only at “progressive” and “conservative” narratives. The government is out to establish a fascist dictatorship and this intent is evident in its anticonstitutional conduct and rhetoric, including its pathological lies. While “conservatives” may sincerely have some of the fears the author describes, this is clearly not what is motivating the Trump administration. There is no “Soros money” behind the “progressives” but there is fascist ambition and coercive governmental power making use of the “conservatives” in pursuit of anti-American purposes disguised as “America First.”
I want to suggest to you that this fascist ambition comes from an idolatrous variant of Christianity known as “Christian” Nationalism, an idolatry that worships this nation’s ego—and especially violence used on its behalf—rather than God. This is an idolatry that views criticism of America’s wrongs and failures as what Trump calls “left-wing arsonism.” This is an idolatry that is incapable of seeing the love that we feel for this country and for all of the peoples who live on this land because our love is love for America’s true self and not its ego, our love is for what Langston Hughes called the America that “never was America to me, And yet… will be.”
I would encourage people who want a different narrative altogether—neither “conservative” nor “progressive” (though more sympathetic to the latter)—to check out my campaign, initially for the House of Representatives and now for the U.S. Senate in Illinois: https://www.schwartzbergforcongress.com
This article prompted me to subscribe in that it aspires to be honest. As you insinuated, it is the Business Model of the news that contaminates the Fourth Estate. The Founders knew that an honest and objective Fourth Estate is absolutely necessary to the success of our Republic. Our system is designed to rely on honest information so that voters could select the best candidates. Unfortunately, we don't have complete honesty and objectivity now so people search for Podcasters who tell the truth. Ironically, if a network reported objectively, it would be wildly popular resulting in the ratings it seeks.
And it should be noted that according to a Pew analysis, reporting about Trump has been over 95% negative since 2015. Even Mussolini was credited for getting the trains to run on time but Trump's successes are dismissed and downgraded, if reported at all. In that case, it's no wonder people hate him and that poor ol' Rosie O'Donnell has lost her mind.
Regarding the current fixation on immigration and ICE activities, Americans should be reminded that Obama promised immigration reform in his campaign in 2008. They should be informed that inciting emotions about an issue is a common manipulative tactic during any election season. They should already know that Biden's Open Border policy was foolish and impractical and that the remedy would be messy and sometimes ugly. There's no reason for an emotional response incited by politics and propaganda. In reality, ICE is conducting a necessary law enforcement operation. The officers are not the Gestapo, but simply regular working-class folks doing a job that provides for their families.
The news should take it upon themselves to teach Americans a little about the way our government works so that they would realize that the protests should occur in Washington DC, demanding from Congress that they address immigration reform.
The real problem can be summed up by Lazarus Long, a character created by Robert Heinlein, who said this:
"A generation with no knowledge of history has no future."
I understand what you’re trying to do in this, Van, an extension of your important listening work in Beyond the Messy Truth. But I also have problems with it. It’s valuable to say “if I had your experience then I would believe how you believe.” But you have to really be careful not to give legitimacy to lies, because we’re living in a time when the administration lies daily, recklessly, and intentionally. And well-meaning people believe those lies.
There’s a legit debate about how to address people coming over the border (no one even mentions climate change as a driver, which they should). And from the polls, even some consensus that you can’t just have open borders.
But if you listed to the administration and its allies, every ad, interview, public statement talks about the predators, drug dealers and child molesters. And that’s simply not the truth about who’s been targeted, in part because if someone is a predator, drug dealer or child molester, they’re likely in jail, where they should be. And that’s a regular law enforcement function, with procedures to protect the innocent. Instead you get constant and unrelenting lies about “we’re arresting criminals,” where they don’t mention that the bulk of the criminal acts are for crossing the border and no more. It’s a deliberate lie, like JD Vance saying it was ok to talk about “eating dogs and cats” even after local officials said it was false, because it served the greater purpose of addressing “American suffering.”
So it’s valuable to say, there are a lot of good people who believe the lies and you don't want to write them off. But you don’t want to give the lies legitimacy, because one of the most frightening things of this regime is its recklessness toward truth.
On Renee Good, you’ve watched the videos, and I doubt you’re on the fence about whether it was necessary for the Ice officer to shoot her. She turned her wheels away. The agent got in front of the car, in violation of any standard police procedure. The agent walked away fine. And then the administration defamed her by calling her a domestic terrorist. Now if all you get is Fox and the right wing social feeds, then you’re going to believe that he had no choice and that she’s a dangerous subversive. But if you justify it by putting all perspectives equal, it’s like justifying those who disappeared people off the streets under Pinochet in Chile or Videla in Argentina. Yes, they probably believed they were saving the country from dangerous subversives, but their actions were abhorrent, as are the bulk of the ICE actions.
That doesn’t count the administration putting the ICE officers in what Robert Jay Lifton called, during Vietnam, “an atrocity producing situation.” Or ICE shoving the head of the Minneapolis City Council. Or refusing to let Congressional representatives inspect their holding facilities, and arresting them when they try to go in. Or going after local elected officials who oppose them.
I understand you’re trying to get those opposed to the Trump administration to understand how his supporters see the situation (and vice versa). But you have to acknowledge the assaults on the truth in the process, because they’re one of the core pillars of what genuine authoritarianism, and not just differences in perspective.
Happy to talk about all of this (I just emailed via substack, or you can grab my contact info at paulloeb.org), and you know how I’ve long respected your work, and appreciated your kind words on my books, like Soul of a Citizen. But while I understood the impetus of the piece, I really did have some problems with it.
Paul
Paul Loeb
Author, Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While
PS--I do totally agree that resistance to ICE and Trump has to be nonviolent (actually working on a piece critiquing the movie One Battle Or Another for romanticizing violence). But that doesn't mean it has to be docile, and when they go into people's homes without a warrant, or pick up random day workers at Home Depot, I think people who make it harder for them are heroes.
Paul, I appreciate the depth of your critique, and I share your concern about truth. You're right that we can't treat documented falsehoods as just "a different perspective." The administration's lies—calling Renee Good a "domestic terrorist" hours after killing her, claiming the agent was run over when video shows he wasn't—are not legitimate viewpoints. They're manipulation.
But I think there's a crucial distinction between what people in power are doing and what ordinary people believe.
Trump and his allies are deliberately lying to twist the narrative. That's not a "perspective"—it's a strategy. But the people who believe those lies often have real fears underneath: about safety, about changing communities, about being ignored. Those fears existed before Trump and will exist after him. He exploits them; he didn't create them.
What I hear Van saying isn't "treat lies as equal to truth." It's "don't confuse the manipulators with the manipulated."
When we take the bait—abolish ICE vs. back the blue, "terrorist" vs. "martyr"—we're fighting on Trump's terms. We're battling each other instead of uniting around what most people actually agree on: a US citizen shouldn't be killed for non-compliance. No one should have unchecked power. Immigration policy needs real reform.
The both-and approach isn't about legitimizing lies. It's about refusing to let those in power keep us divided so we never hold them accountable.
Totally agree on the distinction between people in power who have contempt for the truth and their ordinary followers , many of whom are good people but whose vision is blurred by all the lies. My concern was that the piece let the first group off the hook too easily.
Van may be too busy to respond to all the comments but I am curious what his response is to your concerns. I have my own lived experiences as a town councilor in Amherst MA and even though we're a progressive town it was interesting seeing the divisiveness between people on the left and left of left. It required truly suspending assumptions and expectations of changing/convincing others when change actually happened for everyone and for the better. But it was challenging and rare, given the trauma, misinformation, competing needs etc.
my "like" button isn't working -- just wanted to thank you for making the point of "listen, but don't give legitimacy to lies." We're living in an upside-down world, where he can say anything, and it is reported, as if "fact." Very disconcerting.
I tried to explain to someone at a polite gathering that Renee Good would almost certainly have lived if she complied with orders from ICE agents. She had to leave the room after I said that as if I just said something horrible. Someone else made a hugely unlawful suggestion of what should be done about the current political situation. It was roundly rejected by others, but no one wanted to leave the room on that count. It was more a cause for joking. I am sick and tired of being typecast as right wing because I refuse to prostrate myself before the left’s canon of martyrs while demonizing the martyrs held up by right. I admire the efforts of Van Jones to be fair minded and persuade rather than scapegoat and coerce. We need more of that. Life in the Bay Area gets exhausting because I feel like the left here clings to its virtue signals as tightly as conservatives in other places cling to their guns. I would like less of both. There’s too much hate.
I appreciate Van's call for listening to each other. And I can see there are real concerns people have about immigration, border security, and the role ICE plays in keeping communities safe. Those concerns are valid and deserve to be heard.
In that spirit of genuine dialogue, I'm curious what you saw in that situation that justified killing a US citizen? The NYT's frame-by-frame video analysis shows the agent was standing to the side of the vehicle—not in its path—when he fired, and that Good was turning away from him. Multiple independent analyses, including from the Washington Post, found no evidence he was under threat.
So even as we hold space for the legitimate fears around immigration enforcement—do you believe a US citizen engaged in observation should face lethal force for not immediately complying? That feels like a question worth sitting with, regardless of which "side" we're on.
The very idea that I am justifying her death by suggesting that she made mistakes in her interaction with the agents is precisely the kind of interpretive overreach that offended the person who left the room. It’s very seductive to make polarizing interpretations like that and it is why our dialog is so poor in this country. I was clear in my statement to the offended person that I believed the officers made numerous mistakes too, and the one who shot her most certainly has no valid claim to self defense. I think he should be prosecuted. But that doesn’t mean flight was the right response, any more than her wife taunting the officers. When I got a ticket recently, I was very careful to not spook the officer as I located the registration which for security reasons was hidden. Even though unlike the highway patrol I have a very negative view of ICE, once I am being detained I am not going to move unless I am explicitly permitted to. The moment she was asked to step out of the car she needed to comply. What if these officers were in pursuit of someone very dangerous and blocking them enabled a serious crime to happen? The only reason she is held up as a saint is because of support for her cause of obstructing ICE. Or what If this woman was blocking an abortion clinic and received the same fate: her fans and critics would be completely differently sets of people even though the actual facts of the encounter would be the same. No one cares about basic principles. They care about causes and narratives.
I'm going to try to explain ... First, the death of Rene Good is a tragedy. It was a mistake for Trump administration officials not to emphasize heartfelt condolences for her wife and family first, instead of leaping ahead to talk about the justification of the ICE agent. I guess that they could foresee that the agent was bound to be vilified and had empathy for him, too. It was a shocking situation so I'm giving everyone a pass for comments made in those early hours.
Rene Good made a mistake, too, by not realizing the seriousness of the situation she was in. Apparently, she naively believed that the righteousness of her cause allowed her to ignore the instructions of law enforcement.
I've watched numerous videos of the event myself. I have learned that Renee Good parked her car deliberately to obstruct traffic and to hinder a Iaw enforcement operation. She was breaking the law.
After at least a few minutes, she was ordered out of her car by two officers, one of whom had his arm inside on her car door. Again, she was breaking the law. It is a serious matter to defy that type of order.
While this was happening, agent Ross approached the car walking slowly. One could see that he was scoping out the situation according to training. He noted her, the license plate, her wife, bystanders in the background, and the position of the right front wheel which, at the time, was turned to the left.
He walked around to the front of the car and stopped near the other officers at her door who, by then, were screaming for her to get out of her car. Since she was defying orders, her car was classified as a lethal weapon. And that is the lawful classification.
Within a few seconds, she began turning her front wheels from the left to the right while her wife was screaming, "Drive, baby, drive.". Naturally, the car faced agent Ross directly as she was turning. As she accelerated, agent Ross was hit seriously enough to require that he go to the hospital.
He is trained to stop anyone who has control of a lethal weapon. Full stop. His first shot hit the windshield. Within a micro-second, two more shots were fired as she was turning to the right. According to the video I saw, this happened so fast that it seemed that the shots were fired at the same time.
His training is constructed to make judgements that include the following possibilities:
The car may have a bomb. The driver has access to a gun. The driver intends to run him over and perhaps others. The driver may lose control and harm others. The officer whose arm was inside the car may be dragged along the street as he, himself, was just a few months before.
It doesn't matter. His training instructs him that he must stop anyone in control of a lethal weapon. And in this case, he must stop the car within less than a second.
So hopefully, you can see that the tragedy could have been avoided if Rene Good had followed lawful orders by getting out of her car when instructed. And hopefully, you can see that agent Ross was following his training in a highly stressful situation.
I'll add that I, for one, am not going to attempt to drive my car in the direction of law enforcement at any time or in any neighborhood anywhere in the world, because it is likely that I would be shot.
But protesters should be in Washington DC, demanding that Congress address immigration reform. Meanwhile, all politicians, commentators, podcasters, propagandists, and activists should just shut up until that happens.
I appreciate you laying out your understanding of what happened, and I want to engage with it after checking the law.
I think there are some legal points worth examining:
The claim that "since she was defying orders, her car was classified as a lethal weapon" isn't how the law works. A vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon only if it's being actively used in a way that poses imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Failing to exit your car—even if unlawful—doesn't automatically reclassify it as a lethal weapon.
Under Fourth Amendment standards (Tennessee v. Garner, Graham v. Connor), lethal force is only justified when there's an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
The question isn't whether she was breaking the law. It's whether Agent Ross faced a deadly threat at the moment he fired.
The NYT's frame-by-frame analysis shows Ross was standing to the side of the vehicle—not in its path—and that the car was turning away from him when he shot. Multiple independent analyses found no evidence he was under imminent threat.
Even if we accept that she was obstructing traffic or defying orders, those are misdemeanors. They don't authorize lethal force.
I'm genuinely asking: If the video shows he wasn't in the vehicle's path, what's the legal justification for the shooting?
I am an immigrant and would never think of doing what Renee did. I find other ways to create conditions for peace, equity, and teach mindfulness skills in business and politics. My hope is that we can continue to address the immigration problems in this country and not give unchecked power to the president or anyone.
Well, I wonder if you have seen the video that agent Ross, himself, had filmed because it shows that he could have felt that he was in danger. Keep in mind, he, himself, was hit. Also, there's a bullet hole in the windshield that shows that he was in front of her at some point. She wasn't parked, she was driving so by the time he was hit and had shot the first time, she had already passed him slightly. This happened almost within a micro-second. The three shots sounded like they had happened simultaneously.
Personally, after years of watching C-Span, I have learned that the media, on both sides, craft events to suit the purposes of a narrative. It has to do with emphasis, the topics that are highlighted, inflections, the choice of certain words, sentence structures, and even facial expressions. It's quite remarkable, actually.
And in this case, one narrative creates the impression that Renee Good was simply minding her own business when a member of the Trump Gestapo murders her. The imagination of the public fills in the rest and people go crazy, determined to "save democracy.". This, of course, is by design.
The other impression is that Trump, himself, is leading the charge to " save democracy " by establishing a renewed environment of law and order. Again, by design.
Van Jones almost got it right in this recent article, but he didn't emphasize enough the role that the media plays in public opinion. There's always the rest of the story that the media seems to "miss." Quite remarkably.
This is what dialog can look like when we don't let our emotions get in the way! We both agree that media has a big role to play in shaping these narratives. Social media algorithms and traditional media get read when the news is polarizing. Those in power and media have always manipulated people to stay in power. I am from India and know first hand the mess the British created with their divide and rule policies - Hindus and muslims are still fighting. So many other examples. I think the point Van is making here is to not let those in power distract from the real issues and try to understand the fears we may not have but others do. I think we are more in agreement than disagreement.
I lived in Britain for four years so, yes, the British are masters at crafting narratives.
My daughter is married to a woman who is so woke that she advocates abolishing Freedom of Speech! And I have a friend from childhood who is a devoted Trump supporter. They were both surprised and amazed when I told them that the other side thinks they're stupid.
And yes, we're in agreement since you share with me the thought that to remain peaceful in these times of monumental change, we must think logically, critically, and with a, large amount of skepticism.
This, too, shall pass.
Excellent and well balanced!!
Both sides should read and process everything you wrote in this article
LOVED it
This was a very good read and opens my mind to other people's vision and concerns. I wish something could be done with social media and their algorithms.
Once again Van, you are the adult in the room and have the clearest assesment of this situation. And yes, we are all we've got and have to get it together and quickly. Hopefully both sides will hear what you are saying. Feels like time is running out. Keep telling it like it is Van!
We need all ‘reports’, ‘posts’ to be as well-balanced as this one, Van. Great job! In America no one should be able to report without presenting both sides! Thank you for a great model of how things should be presented to a thinking public.
I hope you're right about Van Jones now. I watched him on TV the night Hillary lost in 2016. As he sat there mirroring the lamentations of the panel on CNN, one of his first comments was to ask about what to tell his children the next day. I laughed and thought that he should reassure them that their ride would pick them up from school at the regular time as usual.
That's the trick. It's about class and money so I had no worries about Van's children. It would be truly wonderful of someone of Van's stature in the media would consistently report the truth and the whole picture. Truly wonderful. That's what this country craves. It would have a healing effect. And I bet that Van would make even more money if he would do it.
I don’t think you’re close on this: this is more both sides stuff. Voters voted for trump because there’s a string of white nationalism that runs through our history. Seeing that maga is fearful of immigration ? BS. They’re rabidly against anything that isn’t pure white. ICE ? They are populated by guys with guns that have no professionalism. You can see it in their violent behavior. What I think is that this is the beginning of a purge that will eventually extend to all that don’t agree with trump.
Well, Louis, your remarks seem to be heavily influenced by your media sources.
For instance, did you know?
Although Biden campaigned on the notion that Trump claimed that the white nationalists at Charlottesville were "fine people," that was ultimately debunked completely. I happened to see Trump's complete remarks at the time and knew that they were edited to give the wrong impression to malign Trump.
Trump's mother and two of his three wives were immigrants.
Trump's daughter is Jewish, having converted because of her husband's faith.
j. D. Vance is working class. He grew up in poverty because his mother was a drug addict.
His wife is a Hindu. Her parents are Indian immigrants.
The Chief of Staff is female. That's the first time a woman has ever been put in that position.
The Director of National Security, Tulsi Gabbard, is a woman of color. Again, a first.
Secretary of State, Rubio, is Hispanic. His parents are immigrants, having fled Cuba.
The Secretary of the Treasury is openly gay.
Rick Grinnell, an advisor, is openly gay.
FBI director, Patel, is of color of Indian dissent.
The HUD Secretary is African American.
Given these facts, it seems a stretch to conclude that Trump endorses white nationalism, doesn't it? If you didn't know this, it would seem sensible to check your sources. After all, we all have to be skeptical of what we have been told. Many times, deceptive tactics are common and are used for the purposes of political propaganda. Recall that it was reported as fact that the Border was secure and that Biden was "sharp as a tact."
And worse, AI is creating deceptive videos for public consumption so we can't even believe what we see with our own eyes, much less what is reported by seemingly credible outlets.
If honesty and objectivity were the universal standards, it is my belief that the political divide would evaporate. We all want the same thing, which is liberty, safety, and the ability to make decent living.
If you want that you’re best get rid of your guy. He’s a demonstrated lunatic whose father and him have a deep racist history.
My interest in Trump has been that of analysis because he is a phenomenon.
I first became interested in him in 2015 when I noticed a reporter from one of the networks rendered speechless and later began stuttering about something that Trump had done. This was hilarious and prompted me to watch some of his rallies.
As time wore on, I noticed reporters consistently highlight statements from various rallies. The way his comments were described made it seem like the End of the World! Turns out, he was joking. And I could see that because his audience laughed. The laughter, the context, were omitted from reports each time.
This kind of dishonest reporting has continued to this day. Ten years. It's unfair. It's not right. And it has caused people to hate him. This hatred is dangerous. It divides families and could disrupt the country at large.
So, that's what I'm all about. Fairness.
Oh and, by the way, your "pure white ICE" and Border Patrol are 60% Hispanic. And I can attest to that because I lived on the Mexican border for 22 years.
I know I've already writ long, but forgot to say -- it's not my original idea, but from Rachel Maddow & Steve Schmidt: Though I started out, horrified, at what we're living through, I now feel privileged to be living in a time when I can be of USE helping my country regain the values we were founded on, meant to be. I can be one cog in the patriot machine, so that our national experiment in true democracy, can plow on. Governing ourselves, is messy and fragile, yet it's the freest way to live. To have a dictator tell us what to think, is not Liberty or satisfying. It is lazy.
Yes! Finally someone with a platform saying what I've been thinking. Thank you, Van 🙏
The ability to listen to lived experiences and fears across divides is crucial to finding real solutions. But too often people stay silent, feeling empathy for one group while unable to see the "others." Yet we often have so much in common—wanting the same things: safety, freedom, opportunities to grow. With media and politics amplifying differences, that's all we can see.
I witnessed this repeatedly as an Amherst city councilor—in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder, the Gaza-Israel conflict, now this. As you said, nuance doesn't scale well on social media, and for biological reasons we easily collapse into binaries that polarize.
We need more both-and thinking. It's the skill most missing from public discourse.
But here's what I'm genuinely wrestling with: How do we scale this understanding? When I speak about Palestinian suffering and make clear the Netanyahu government is wrong, AND also acknowledge the fears of Israeli families if Hamas isn't held accountable—I get shut down and shamed the moment I mention Israeli people.
If this happens to individuals trying to hold complexity, how do we create conditions for leaders to model this? How do we get this both-and approach into the rooms where policy is made? You have a platform and influence, Van—what do you think it would take?
And yes, I subscribed to your substack because I want to support this approach to thinking, journalism, and policy based on understanding of lived experiences of people with different backgrounds.
This is so well done, Van. Thank you for taking the time to write and share this. I hope your points spread far and wide!
I was taught a long time ago, to solve a problem, take the people out of the problem and solve the problem.
Number 2, you can’t change someone else, only your self.
Calls to have both sides change their behavior I believe, is a wasted effort.
Notice how many cities don’t have the issues they have in Minneapolis? Why not? Both government sides get along. How do the two sides in places like Minneapolis get along?
What do they agree on? Getting rid of the worse of the worse. If the locals were to turn over those types in their legal system then both sides can reach one goal they both have. Get rid of the worse of the worse. Want to stop the ICE raids? Tell them you will work with them to get rid of the worse of worse. We’ll bring them to you. Tell us who you specifically want and we will work with you to find and capture them. No other illegals will be involved unless specifically asked for. There are enough of the worse of the worse to keep both sides busy for a long time. Locals will have some amount of say in what goes on and who will get caught. ICE won’t need big raids again and they will learn how to work together to achieve a common goal. Because that is the problem and you can solve it. You are giving professionals use to obeying change orders a better way to operate. No “passionate” zealots involved.
To me, it is that simple. If you are trying to change the actions and beliefs of others, you’re wasting your time and doing nothing to solve the problem. Grow up, be adults, work on the parts of the problem you can solve, save the rest for another day after you learn how to work together.
The crown jewel of emphaty....not just listening but seeing what the "other" side is experiencing, be it through misleading or underreported versions of events. The problem is exasperated as truth presents by events, actions, and policy. We have an ill-informed and disinterested electorate in this country and always have. The truth is available if one just does a little research. It's just easier to turn on your favorite cable news or,more recently, your favorite internet blog or social media influencer. I call that lazy because it's always preferable or much more comfortable to get your news from those who report what they not only think, but know, you want to hear. Each divided side won't even consider the other side's arguments. At this point when we have a president and administration that so extremely far right it's impossible to believe anything being disseminated as being the truth or whole truth. This is a fact that bears out with minimal research. Let's put the search for empathy and understanding second to saving democracy and stopping our country sliding in to financial destruction 1st. When each side is standing in line at a soup kitchen nobody is taking a side.
As always, you are measured. Within your discourse, you said: "change the channel." There is Too far-right and Too far-left. I listen to facts. LISTENING is the thing, so thank you for reminding us of that. I am fed up with these leaders, primarily their constant lying and rudeness, unbecoming a president of the United States. I am discouraged by "the Led," the lack of critical thinking and following the leader off the cliff. And I also do not want to live in my democracy, where I have to show my papers. I do not want soldiers patrolling our streets -- this has all been a purposeful mock-up, to rile >> and then blame Blue cities. I believe in the rule of law; I believe in freedom of speech -- the one does not preclude the other.
This is not about immigration. Congress has never addressed real immigration reform, which is badly needed. At the root, is racism, white supremacy, which is ludicrous, when you consider that immigrants, whether forced here, or willingly came here, BUILT America into the prosperous country she became (I'm not ignoring the Native Americans being displaced, ... but that's what white people have done in every country they've entered -- a fact). All my life I've been proud to belong to the one true immigrant country in the world. I know our faults, but you never give up to make your country into the words she was founded on.
Being a white woman, I automatically have privilege. But being a military child, I have lived North and South, & in foreign countries, and having parents who purposely exposed us to cultures and history. I am 81yo, and lived in Montgomery in the 50s, during Rosa Parks public bus boycott, and was forced to learn how unchristian, was segregation. It formed me into the activist I've been all my life. I am for Justice, so I am labelled a liberal; on some issues, I'm more conservative. I don't "get" racism, never have. Thank you, Van, for this forum, and a chance to speak our piece.
The central problem with this essay, which doesn’t prevent it from being worth reading, is the false equivalence that is generated by leaving out governmental opinion and looking only at “progressive” and “conservative” narratives. The government is out to establish a fascist dictatorship and this intent is evident in its anticonstitutional conduct and rhetoric, including its pathological lies. While “conservatives” may sincerely have some of the fears the author describes, this is clearly not what is motivating the Trump administration. There is no “Soros money” behind the “progressives” but there is fascist ambition and coercive governmental power making use of the “conservatives” in pursuit of anti-American purposes disguised as “America First.”
I want to suggest to you that this fascist ambition comes from an idolatrous variant of Christianity known as “Christian” Nationalism, an idolatry that worships this nation’s ego—and especially violence used on its behalf—rather than God. This is an idolatry that views criticism of America’s wrongs and failures as what Trump calls “left-wing arsonism.” This is an idolatry that is incapable of seeing the love that we feel for this country and for all of the peoples who live on this land because our love is love for America’s true self and not its ego, our love is for what Langston Hughes called the America that “never was America to me, And yet… will be.”
I would encourage people who want a different narrative altogether—neither “conservative” nor “progressive” (though more sympathetic to the latter)—to check out my campaign, initially for the House of Representatives and now for the U.S. Senate in Illinois: https://www.schwartzbergforcongress.com
Thank you beyond words for being such a balanced, reasonable, informed voice out there. You
make a worthwhile difference. Just keep on, keeping on -- please. We're grateful.
This article prompted me to subscribe in that it aspires to be honest. As you insinuated, it is the Business Model of the news that contaminates the Fourth Estate. The Founders knew that an honest and objective Fourth Estate is absolutely necessary to the success of our Republic. Our system is designed to rely on honest information so that voters could select the best candidates. Unfortunately, we don't have complete honesty and objectivity now so people search for Podcasters who tell the truth. Ironically, if a network reported objectively, it would be wildly popular resulting in the ratings it seeks.
And it should be noted that according to a Pew analysis, reporting about Trump has been over 95% negative since 2015. Even Mussolini was credited for getting the trains to run on time but Trump's successes are dismissed and downgraded, if reported at all. In that case, it's no wonder people hate him and that poor ol' Rosie O'Donnell has lost her mind.
Regarding the current fixation on immigration and ICE activities, Americans should be reminded that Obama promised immigration reform in his campaign in 2008. They should be informed that inciting emotions about an issue is a common manipulative tactic during any election season. They should already know that Biden's Open Border policy was foolish and impractical and that the remedy would be messy and sometimes ugly. There's no reason for an emotional response incited by politics and propaganda. In reality, ICE is conducting a necessary law enforcement operation. The officers are not the Gestapo, but simply regular working-class folks doing a job that provides for their families.
The news should take it upon themselves to teach Americans a little about the way our government works so that they would realize that the protests should occur in Washington DC, demanding from Congress that they address immigration reform.
The real problem can be summed up by Lazarus Long, a character created by Robert Heinlein, who said this:
"A generation with no knowledge of history has no future."