"Jamie Kennedy is over it."

This opening line acts as an attention-grabber by creating a sense of a celebrity having a strong, decisive opinion on a contentious issue, immediately piquing reader interest.

"The "Scream" actor criticized Hollywood stars who had spoken out against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from the safety of red carpets and film festivals."

The article uses Jamie Kennedy's status as a 'Scream' actor to lend weight to his criticisms, leveraging a known public figure's opinion to validate the critique, even if that authority isn't directly related to immigration policy.

"He added people shouldn’t say "you're under authoritarian rule when you're literally being authoritarian," joking that some of the stars had "MMA Secret Service agents" protecting them."

Kennedy's celebrity status is used to deliver a counter-narrative, with his sarcastic comments aiming to delegitimize the claims of other celebrities. The article frames his opinion as a valid counterpoint due to his public persona.

"The "Scream" actor criticized Hollywood stars who had spoken out against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from the safety of red carpets and film festivals."

This establishes a clear 'us vs. them' dynamic: 'Hollywood stars' (portrayed as out-of-touch and hypocritical) versus those who understand the realities of ICE and immigration. It positions these stars as an 'other' to be criticized.

"But when you have actors from the red carpet of an award show at the Beverly Hilton … and they're on there saying, you know, all of this stuff about ‘We're under a fascist regime. We're an authoritarianism [regime].' Bro, yo bro, you're literally guarded by like the most top [bodyguards]. Like, it's insanity."

This quote creates an 'us vs. them' narrative by highlighting the perceived hypocrisy and privilege of the protesting actors, contrasting their 'safe' environment with the seriousness of their claims, and implicitly aligning the reader with Kennedy's 'common sense' perspective.

"He said he saw stars from Brentwood, a wealthy neighborhood in Los Angeles, speaking out against ICE from the Sundance Film Festival in January."They're like, ‘Oh, this and this and this and this,' I'm like, 'You're in Sundance!' You know? ‘If you care, you wouldn't be in Sundance. Get on the frontlines!'""

This weaponizes the identity of 'wealthy Hollywood elite' against their political statements. It suggests their claims are disingenuous because their actions (attending Sundance) don't align with the perceived sacrifice required of 'true' activists, creating an in-group (those who 'get it') and an out-group (the hypocritical stars).

"Co-host Ryan Drexler said it was the same type of people who wanted to defund the police "until someone does a snatch and grab, and they break the window and rip them out of the window.""

This extends the 'us vs. them' dynamic by lumping the criticised actors with a broader group of 'defund the police' advocates, implying they are similarly naive or hypocritical, thus reinforcing group identity against these perceived adversaries.

"But he said his bottom line feelings about ICE are "simple." "Do you believe that there were millions of people that came into this country illegally?" he asked rhetorically to Osbourne. "OK. Do you believe that within that there's a lot of criminals? Do you believe that what ICE is doing, there's a lot of deporting of a lot of bad criminals? Do you believe that that's not getting the press? OK, so, do you believe that if you just let people do their job, we would still probably not have two deaths?" Osbourne answered "yes" to all of Kennedy's questions."

This rhetorical questioning structure creates an affirmation of a specific viewpoint (ICE is doing a necessary job, criminals are widespread among undocumented immigrants) which implicitly forms a tribal consensus. The 'yes' from Osbourne confirms this 'correct' tribal alignment, implicitly framing those who disagree as unreasonable or uninformed.

"But when you have actors from the red carpet of an award show at the Beverly Hilton … and they're on there saying, you know, all of this stuff about ‘We're under a fascist regime. We're an authoritarianism [regime].' Bro, yo bro, you're literally guarded by like the most top [bodyguards]. Like, it's insanity."

Kennedy's language ('insanity') is designed to provoke outrage and exasperation at the perceived hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness of the celebrities, intending to make the reader feel angry on behalf of a more grounded reality.

"Co-host Ryan Drexler said it was the same type of people who wanted to defund the police "until someone does a snatch and grab, and they break the window and rip them out of the window.""

This quote uses a sensational and violent hypothetical ('snatch and grab,' 'break the window') to evoke a visceral sense of fear and outrage towards those who advocate for defunding the police, connecting them implicitly to lawlessness and personal danger.

"He figured the problem with some people protesting ICE is that they aren’t worldly enough to know that many other places in the world are far worse. "I'm just saying, it's like people haven't got a taste of the whole world to understand how good we have it in this country,""

Kennedy suggests that those who protest ICE lack a global perspective and therefore their complaints are unfounded. This implies a moral and intellectual superiority for those who 'understand how good we have it,' triggering a sense of dismissiveness towards the protestors' concerns.

"Do you believe that within that there's a lot of criminals? Do you believe that what ICE is doing, there's a lot of deporting of a lot of bad criminals? ... if you just let people do their job, we would still probably not have two deaths?"

This series of rhetorical questions implicitly engineers fear by strongly associating undocumented status with 'criminals' and suggesting that opposing ICE's actions could lead to more deaths. It positions ICE's role as a necessary safeguard against danger.