First I couldn’t read the full article because I don’t subscribe to the NYT, but…
I don’t think the response is providing cover. It encourages the question-asker to use this rental income for lobbying against ICE.
It’s providing cover in exactly the same way that billionaires use philanthropy to launder their image: by asserting that giving a tiny portion of one’s ill-gotten gains to ‘good causes’ somehow ameliorates the ethical implications of acquiring it in the first place.
First I couldn’t read the full article because I don’t subscribe to the NYT, but…
It’s providing cover in exactly the same way that billionaires use philanthropy to launder their image: by asserting that giving a tiny portion of one’s ill-gotten gains to ‘good causes’ somehow ameliorates the ethical implications of acquiring it in the first place.
It does not.
If you redirect it all, it’s not a tiny portion.
I was speaking more broadly about billionaires giving a tiny portion of their wealth away, not this specific example.