This is a category error. Immigration enforcement -- even when abusive or unlawful, which is not a concession I make -- is not genocide. Invoking 1939 Germany collapses distinctions that matter.

Holocaust analogies based on unsupported anecdote and asserted intent aren’t analysis; they’re unfalsifiable rhetorical escalations designed to end debate. If every disliked policy is treated as a "seed" of genocide, as is now common, the term loses meaning and becomes an empty rhetorical weapon. Argue specific actions with evidence and standards, or don’t -- but stop inflating unfalsifiable moral claims to the point where serious critique is impossible.

> Even if the current state of immigration policy was forged in a bipartisan agreement(it wasn't), it would be inhumane and I would condemn it.

We haven’t passed a comprehensive immigration law since 1986, and the enforcement framework in use today arises from bipartisan legislation passed in 1986, major subsequent revisions in 1996, and layers of later executive discretion exercised by administrations of both parties. We had four years of functionally non-existent enforcement, and while I cannot ascribe motive, the natural outcome was to make later enforcement incredibly difficult -- a consequence that is now plainly visible.

If you think those laws are unjust, argue that -- but don’t pretend this is some novel or uniquely partisan creation.