>He's also making it difficult/impossible for people without work visas to obtain auto loans [...]

>They're banging the national security drum to make it unlivable here for some.

But they're not supposed to be here in the first place? As for the people who are supposed to be here, but are collateral damage (ie. "which is destroying the used car market in latino communities") should we have sympathy for people in such situations? If a local casino is laundering money for drug cartels, but that casino funds the community because it employs workers, should we be against the FBI coming in and busting the casino? What if it's more benign than drug cartels, like run of the mill securities fraud?

Interestingly in my latino city the used car dealers catering to low income people have worked around the lack of credit for their clientelle. They will for example use proof of employment as your "credit" for financing plans rather than traditional bank metrics. This will usually be written directly on the building in spanish.

Is it creating the manual of the dystopia planner to list the excuses for totalitarism? "National security", "Personal security", "The safety of your kids", "the children"...

Or is it prodromic to a "stop talking to guts and let us put the factors in a computational framework, where all targets and constraints and consequences are laid out with their demographics"? A Cost/Risk/Benefit for policies?

Why don't they have work visas?

One day hopefully another president will use the national security drum to close down all Trump golf resorts and properties on the grounds that they are used to facilitate illegal activity.