Leftists/liberals give primacy to bad people over ordinary Americans, Why?

 

            Cause-effect exposition

Why do many leftists appear to prioritize illegal aliens, criminals, gang members, terrorists, fraudsters, and people with gender dysphoria over American citizens? Is there any common thread or principle behind this pattern?

This pattern is not an accident. It flows from a set of premises—altruism-egalitarianism, collectivism, subjectivism (the primacy of consciousness), and statism—that logically invert justice and subordinate the rights of peaceful, productive citizens to the asserted “needs” or “identities” of preferred groups. When you adopt those premises, the practical result is predictable: privileges for selected constituencies and the erosion of equal, individual rights under objective law. [1]

Cause and effect, step by step

1. Moral premise: altruism and egalitarianism over justice and desert

• If “need,” “oppression,” or “weakness” is treated as a moral claim superior to achievement and lawfulness, then anyone labeled “marginalized” acquires moral priority, regardless of whether his actions initiate force or violate rights. That is how criminals get reframed as “victims of the system,” illegal entrants as “undocumented neighbors,” and group identity becomes a trump over citizenship and law. This reverses justice: it rewards non-judgment, punishes merit, and subordinates the rights of the innocent to the failures or crimes of others. [2]
• In economic terms (see Reisman), altruist-egalitarian policy institutionalizes consumption at others’ expense—transferring wealth and legal immunity away from producers to politically favored takers—thereby attacking the moral base of capitalism: individual rights, property, and responsibility. [3]

2. Epistemological premise: subjectivism and the primacy of consciousness

• If feelings, self-identifications, or group narratives are treated as superior to facts, then reality, law, and categories such as “citizen,” “border,” “crime,” and “biological sex” are dissolved by decree. Language is then weaponized via package-deals and anti-concepts—“equity,” “inclusion,” “harm,” “safety,” “undocumented”—to mask the abolition of objective standards. This is the primacy of consciousness: wishing facts away instead of identifying them, a direct inversion of reason’s method. [4]
• The consequence is legal arbitrariness: different rules by group and context, not one objective law for all. [5]

3. Political premise: collectivism over individual rights

• When groups (by class, race, immigration status, gender identity, etc.) replace the individual as the moral-political unit, “rights” are redefined as group entitlements to the persons and property of others. Citizens’ equal protection is displaced by differential treatment to engineer outcomes for chosen collectives. This is incompatible with the American concept of rights as freedoms from coercion that apply to every individual equally. [6]
• In Marxist and fellow-traveling frameworks (see Reisman), criminals can be framed as “lumpen” instruments against the “bourgeois order,” illegal entrants as a revolutionary reserve, and identity blocs as tools to delegitimize property, policing, and borders—all levers to weaken capitalist institutions. [2]

4. Instrumental motive: statism and power-accumulation

• The above premises require expanding government: discretionary prosecutors, “restorative” courts, sanctuary bureaucracies, speech codes, DEI apparatuses, and entitlement programs. Each enlarges administrative power, manufactures dependency, and converts favored groups into political clients. Results: non-enforcement of laws against force-initiators, tolerance of organized crime, and systematic penalization of the law-abiding through taxes and the abdication of police functions. [1][5]
• Reisman shows that such policies attack capital formation, public safety, and the rule of law—the preconditions of rising real wages and civilized life—thus throttling the very means of human flourishing. [3]

Common reasons/principles unifying the cases you list

• Altruism-egalitarianism: “Need” and “oppression” are treated as moral claims on producers and citizens. [2]
• Subjectivism: feelings and narratives override facts and law (the primacy of consciousness). [4]
• Collectivism: group entitlements replace individual rights; citizens’ equal protection is displaced by identity quotas and political favoritism. [6]
• Statism: the expansion of arbitrary state power as the mechanism to impose the above and to create dependent voting blocs. [1][5]

Policy consequence vs. Objectivist alternative

• Consequence of the above premises: declining public safety, flight of capital and talent, growing black markets, civic disintegration, and the demoralization of the productive—an inversion of justice in which the innocent are unprotected and the guilty are excused. [1][3]
• Objectivist alternative: restore the primacy of existence and of reason in law and policy. That means:
  • Reassert individual rights as absolutes; end group privileges; one objective law for all. [6]
  • Prosecute the initiation of force consistently; abolish “sanctuary” nullification of objective law. [5]
  • Separate immigration from the welfare state: welcome peaceful, rights-respecting individuals while ending subsidies and special legal immunities—equal liberty, no special claims. (See Reisman’s defense of capitalism’s open labor markets under a rights-based, non-welfare regime.) [3]
  • Protect property rights and policing under objective, rights-based constraints—justice by desert, not quotas or narratives. [2]

Bottom line
Ideas move history. If you teach a culture that “need” outranks achievement, that feelings outrank facts, that groups outrank individuals, and that the state may override rights to enforce these dogmas, you will get exactly the inversion you observed. The only remedy is to repudiate those premises and return to objective law, individual rights, and capitalism—the morality of rational self-interest. [4][6]

Sources

1 the Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand

2 the Voice of Reason by Ayn Rand, with additional essays by Leonard Peikoff

3 the Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand

4 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand

5 Logical Leap by David Harriman

6 Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff

In addition:

Here is a tighter, more granular causal map—premises, mechanisms, incentives, and testable predictions—explaining why today’s left-of-center policy program systematically elevates selected groups (illegal entrants, offenders, identity blocs) over the peaceful, productive citizen, and how it flows from its guiding ideas.

Foundational premises that invert justice

• Moral premise: altruism-egalitarianism over desert and rights. If “need,” “marginalization,” or “oppression” is treated as a superior moral claim to achievement and lawfulness, then those labeled “victims” acquire priority by status, irrespective of whether they violate rights. This reverses justice by making innocence a liability and failure or criminality a claim on others. [2]
• Epistemological premise: subjectivism (primacy of consciousness). If feelings, narratives, or self-identifications outrank facts, then legal categories—citizen/non-citizen, criminal/innocent, male/female—become fluid by decree. Language is retooled with anti-concepts (“equity,” “harm,” “undocumented”) to dissolve objective standards and replace them with discretionary, feelings-first rules. [4]
• Political premise: collectivism over individual rights. If groups replace the individual as the basic unit, “rights” become entitlements to the lives and property of others, allocated by identity and political favor—obliterating equal protection under objective law. [6]
• Instrumental motive: statism. Enforcing those dogmas requires a permanently expanding administrative apparatus—non-enforcement regimes, discretionary prosecutors, “restorative” alternatives, sanctuary bureaucracies, speech codes, DEI offices—which manufacture dependency and clienteles for power. [1][5]

Mechanisms that operationalize the inversion

1. Redefinition of legal concepts through language engineering

• “Crime” recast as public-health, poverty, or trauma; “illegal” as “undocumented”; “equality before the law” as “equity of outcomes.” Once words are severed from referents, discretion replaces rule-of-law and group claims trump individual rights. [4]
• Result: selective enforcement, different rules by identity or status, and the erosion of objective law. [5]

2. Prosecutorial and regulatory nullification

• Non-prosecution lists for entire classes of offenses; bail policies that ignore risk and incapacitation; “restorative justice” that substitutes group narratives for desert; administrative “guidance” that functionally rewrites statutes. These create practical immunity for favored categories while increasing the burdens on the law-abiding. [1][5]

3. Sanctuary and non-cooperation regimes

• Jurisdictions that block coordination with federal immigration enforcement; municipal IDs and benefits that shield unlawful presence; de facto amnesty through non-enforcement and procedural obstacles. Citizens’ claims to protection are subordinated to the politics of “inclusion” as defined by local administrators. [5][6]

4. Identity-based allocation of privileges

• DEI frameworks and “disparate impact” rules that redefine fairness as engineered outcomes by group. The state thereby grants or withholds opportunities, leniencies, and protections by demographic category, not individual merit or conduct. [6]

5. Welfare-redistribution as moral principle

• Transfer programs justified by egalitarian “need,” not by rights. This shifts resources from producers to political constituencies and makes production morally suspect while consumption at others’ expense is normalized. The moral and economic base of capitalism—private property, responsibility, profit—comes under continuous attack. [2][3]

6. Speech and thought control as enforcement

• Codes and sanctions against “harmful” or “unsafe” speech to protect preferred identities. Because the premises cannot withstand rational scrutiny, dissent is recast as aggression, making censorship a “safety” measure. [4][1]

Incentive structure and economic effects (Reisman’s analysis)

• Policies that reward consumption without production and excuse force-initiators at others’ expense discourage capital formation, entrepreneurship, and long-range planning. Capital flees, black markets grow, and real wages stagnate or fall—because capital accumulation is the driver of productivity and rising living standards. [3]
• When the state dispenses privileges and immunities, political pull replaces market merit. This diverts talent into lobbying, rent-seeking, and administrative compliance rather than innovation and production. [3][1]
• Tolerating crime is an implicit tax on the law-abiding. The most mobile citizens and firms relocate, shrinking the tax base and degrading public order, which in turn is used to justify further expansions of state control. [5][3]

Why the specific groups receive priority under these premises

• Illegal entrants: framed as “marginalized” bearers of moral claims against citizens; used to expand welfare-state constituencies and to justify sanctuary bureaucracies—both levers of statist growth. [5][6]
• Fraudsters and criminals: rebranded as “victims of systems,” their actions excused by root-cause narratives; their lenient treatment signals that identity and “need” outrank the rights of peaceful citizens. [2][4]
• Gang members and terrorists: treated through social-work paradigms and “engagement” strategies that prioritize outreach optics over incapacitation—another expression of the primacy of consciousness over the facts of force. [1][5]
• Gender-identity categories: self-identification is elevated over biological fact in law and policy, making subjective states dispositive for access to facilities, programs, and legal standing; this is the clearest case of consciousness asserted over existence. [4][6]

What this framework predicts (tests you can apply)

• Where these premises dominate, you should observe: falling clearance and prosecution rates; rising serious crime concentrated in non-prosecuted categories; growth of administrative staff relative to front-line protection; expanding transfer budgets and compliance costs; net out-migration of producers; politicized, discretionary governance replacing rule-of-law. [1][5][3]
• Where objective law and equal protection are restored, you should observe: higher investment, higher productivity, rising real wages, and safer streets—because capital formation and consistent enforcement are complementary, not rivals. [3][6]

Common principles unifying all cases

• Altruism-egalitarianism: moral elevation of “need” over achievement and rights. [2]
• Subjectivism: narratives and self-identification over facts and law. [4]
• Collectivism: group entitlements over individual rights and equal protection. [6]
• Statism: administrative expansion to impose the above and to harvest client constituencies. [1][5]
• Anti-capitalism: hostility to private property, profit, and capital accumulation—the actual preconditions of rising living standards and civil order. [3]

Clarifications to avoid package-deals

• Equal protection does not mean equal outcomes. The government’s moral purpose is to protect individual rights against force and fraud—of citizens and peaceful non-citizens alike—under objective law; it is not to engineer group results or grant immunities to initiators of force. [6]
• Immigration policy consistent with rights separates entry from subsidy: welcome peaceful, self-supporting individuals under objective screening; abolish special immunities and welfare that turn entry into a claim on others. [3][5]
• Justice is desert, not “need.” Those who initiate force must face certain, proportionate consequences; those who are peaceful must be left free to live, trade, and speak. [2][6]

Objectivist policy alternative (principles into practice)

• Re-anchor law in the primacy of existence: clear definitions, no anti-concepts, one standard for all individuals. [4]
• Re-establish the non-initiation of force as the absolute baseline: consistent policing and prosecution; end sanctuary nullification; incapacitate repeat offenders. [5]
• Restore individual rights: eliminate group privileges and identity quotas; equal protection and due process universally applied. [6]
• De-politicize the economy: protect property rights; reduce transfers and regulatory discretion; free markets for labor and capital to raise productivity and real wages. [3][1]

Bottom line
Once you adopt altruism-egalitarianism, subjectivism, collectivism, and statism, the inversion you observe ceases to be a “mistake” and becomes a requirement: privileges for preferred groups, punishment-by-neglect of the peaceful citizen, and the steady replacement of objective law by administrative whim. The remedy is philosophical and practical: reassert reason, objective law, individual rights, and capitalism—the only system that aligns morality, freedom, and human flourishing. [2][4][6][3]

Sources

1 Logical Leap by David Harriman

2 Understanding Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff. Edited by Michael S. Berliner

3 The Objectivist by Ayn Rand

4 the Voice of Reason by Ayn Rand, with additional essays by Leonard Peikoff

5 the Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand

6 The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand