The hinge sentence in Kim's article is this:
Some immigrant advocates are alarmed by the idea of a Justice Department led by someone they see as far outside the mainstream.Indeed, some immigrant advocates do see Sessions as outside the mainstream. But so, apparently, does Kim. The whole article is written from the perspective of immigrant advocates.
My perspective is that we are blessed with the quality of our immigrants but that we are approaching the 15% threshold where all societies begin to display destructive dysfunctionality. We have to throttle down the spigot of incoming immigrants and certainly remove those who have come here illegally who are also creating dysfunction for our citizens such as through criminal behavior. Immigration is not in itself bad. The problem is when there is too much, too quickly and when it is too concentrated geographically.
This is a fairly common perspective and indeed was the standing policy before the current administration.
This reality is what creates the reporting dissonance in the article. Kim writes the article from the perspective of immigrant advocates where Sessions is a threat. She does not seem to be reading her own materials though. The threat is not from Sessions but from the enforcement of standing policy. The law already exists because it is already written. Before the Obama administration it was enforced. And during the Obama administration it has been enforced. Indeed, Obama has deported more people than any other president.
Sessions is not out of the mainstream. Immigration enforcement was part of the campaign debates so it is not as if a tighter enforcement was not endorsed by the electorate. The law already exists because it was been passed years ago by the people's Representatives. It is already being enforced to an ever greater degree than it was in the past by Obama.
The people want it, the law exists, the law is already being enforced. Yet Kim has written an alarmist article presenting Sessions as out of the mainstream and a monster. What Kim is doing is presenting an ideological argument against Sessions, not an historical or fact-based argument.
Why? I suspect that Kim is simply hostage to an ideological partisan perspective and does not realize she has written such a biased article. I suspect that this type of blind ideological partisanship is what is driving people away from the mainstream media. You don't have to dissect an article in the fashion I just did in order to know what is going on.
And the remarkable thing is that is all going on without a full awareness or explicitness.