"We’ve seen this playbook before.Hollywood went all-in on behalf of illegal immigration over the past decade. Documentaries. Feature films. TV show plots. The messaging proved consistent and one-sided."

The opening sets a 'breaking' tone, implying a revealing expose of a hidden, coordinated campaign, drawing the reader in with the promise of uncovering a 'playbook' of manipulation.

"And what happened next?Donald Trump got re-elected by promising to slam the southern border shut. And when he did just that, by sheer coincidence, America celebrated its lowest national murder rate in more than a century. Hollywood’s all-powerful messaging machine had failed. So why not try it again, but this time directly targeting ICE?"

This section frames the current discussion as an escalation ('So why not try it again, but this time directly targeting ICE?') of a past 'failed' effort, piquing curiosity about this new, more direct approach.

"Selena Gomez used her clout to promote the docuseries “Living Undocumented.”"

This cites a celebrity using their influence to promote a specific message, even if framed negatively by the author, it acknowledges and implicitly leverages the 'clout' (authority) of the individual in the described media landscape.

"Leonardo DiCaprio played a stoner rebel cosplaying as an anti-ICE warrior. His fiery gal pal (Teyana Taylor) was the real deal, using any means necessary to free illegal immigrants and attack U.S. officials."

Reports on celebrities' involvement in specific projects and how they are portrayed, implicitly recognizing their drawing power even as the author critiques their roles.

"Kristina Bumphrey/Variety via Getty Images D’Onofrio’s character is an obvious stand-in for President Donald Trump, or at least the cartoonish version Hollywood holds dear."

References a celebrity ('D’Onofrio’s character') and the actor's role, using their persona to connect with a political figure, which can lend a sense of recognizable, albeit critiqued, cultural authority to the character's implications.

"Hollywood went all-in on behalf of illegal immigration over the past decade. Documentaries. Feature films. TV show plots. The messaging proved consistent and one-sided.We need open borders, even if they never said those words aloud."

Establishes an 'us vs. them' dynamic, pitting 'Hollywood' (representing a specific ideology) against those who oppose 'open borders,' implying a unified, secretive agenda from Hollywood.

"Now, Hollywood is tag-teamming more specifically against ICE and any attempt to arrest illegal immigrants."

Continues the 'us vs. them' framing by portraying Hollywood as actively 'against' an institution (ICE) and its functions, creating a clear adversarial relationship.

"Donald Trump got re-elected by promising to slam the southern border shut. And when he did just that, by sheer coincidence, America celebrated its lowest national murder rate in more than a century. Hollywood’s all-powerful messaging machine had failed."

Links support for 'slamming the southern border shut' with positive national outcomes ('lowest national murder rate') and implies that Hollywood's 'messaging' is trying to undermine this success, thus weaponizing policy positions as markers of identity and allegiance.

"That’s been the Left’s battle cry against ICE arrests across the nation."

Explicitly creates an 'us vs. them' division by labeling criticisms of ICE as 'the Left’s battle cry,' associating dissenting views with a political faction and thereby creating tribal markers.

"Just don’t expect any shows reflecting heinous illegal immigrant murders, like the deaths of Laken Riley or Sheridan Gorman. Nor will a star or starlet name-drop either victim as they collect their new shiny trophies."

Implies that Hollywood's silence on certain issues (deaths by illegal immigrants) is a deliberate omission to maintain a narrative, suggesting anyone who deviates from this 'narrative' would be 'outside' the acceptable discourse in that social circle.

"Now, Hollywood is tag-teaming more specifically against ICE and any attempt to arrest illegal immigrants."

Uses strong, emotionally charged language ('tag-teaming against') to frame Hollywood's actions as a hostile, coordinated attack, designed to elicit outrage and indignation from the reader.

"First, a quick review of how aggressively Tinsel Town promoted the open-border madness under Democrats."

The term 'open-border madness' is highly inflammatory and hyperbolic, intended to provoke strong negative emotional reactions and frame the issue as irrational and dangerous.

"And, yes, the messaging was as heavy as possible. Newsbusters dubbed the pilot episode pure “parody,” while the saga got a jump on the current anti-ICE mania."

The phrase 'heavy as possible' and 'anti-ICE mania' are designed to sensationalize and exaggerate the described content, fueling a sense of outrage at what is presented as relentless, manipulative messaging.

"The government’s “deal” is cruel, including a demand that the client pay up to $6 million in restitution with zero path to citizenship. Boo! Hiss!"

The author uses direct interjections ('Boo! Hiss!') to explicitly guide the reader's emotional reaction, generating instant outrage and disapproval of the described scenario.

"I’m gonna go to the prompter, but I just want to say, ‘F*** ICE.’"

Quoting profanity directed at ICE is presented to shock and provoke outrage, serving to highlight the perceived extremity of anti-ICE sentiment among celebrities.

"The facts behind their tragic deaths are chilling and undeniable, but they’re inconvenient to the narrative in play. And Hollywood is all about narratives, especially the fictional ones.* * *"

This passage tries to generate outrage by implying that Hollywood deliberately ignores 'chilling and undeniable' tragic deaths because they are 'inconvenient to the narrative,' painting Hollywood as callous and manipulative.