My claim to fame is the simple idea that the whole point of the left is to find a group "outside the system" and advocate for it.
The brilliance of Marx and Engels was to realize that their rich-kid revolutionary cult needed a reason to use the violence of revolution. And they found their reason in the workers. In the 1840s, when their young heads full of mush were cooking hash, the workers wanted what the middle class had got in the British Reform Bill of 1832. They wanted the vote. So they marched and Charted, mostly peacefully.
Imagine you are a rich kid who has been to university but who doesn't deign to actually work for a living (Marx) or or doesn't really want to deign to work in Daddy's textile firm (Engels). What better than to lead the poor excluded workers to bloody revolution?
But then the evil bourgeoisie upped and gave the workers the vote. So the workers lost their interest in riots in the streets. They settled down to getting free stuff from their elected representatives.
Perfectly simple. A new generation of German rich kids, your Horkheimers, your Adornos, and your Marcuses, came up with a replacement revolutionary creed. The workers be damned: the real wretched of the earth were women and minorities, not to forget the helpless victims of colonialism. Now woke rich kids would lead them to bloody revolutionary victory.
Only, the bloody bourgeoisie was perfectly happy to give women the vote, and minorities civil rights, and walk away from their colonial empires.
Anyway, imperialism got you into a real mess, like when the British Lord Salisbury argued against Home Rule for Ireland on the notion that it would encourage the natives in India to demand the same. The idea!
Anyway, now we have gay marriage and safe spaces on campus, so the only people left outside the system are illegal immigrants and Muslims.
So of course the left is advocating for illegal immigrants and Muslims, because they are the only people left on the planet that are not already completely incorporated into the system, and for whom violence is still a viable option.
The question we must ask is whether bloody revolution on behalf of illegal immigrants and Muslims is going to be a winner for the left, for whether it will turn out to be a bridge too far.
The simple answer is that We Don't Know.
It probably depends on the battle to come.
Will the people here in the US and in Europe rally to politicians that address them as the citizens and voters of nation states? Or will they rally to politicians that address them as members of racial or gender tribes, or as citizens of the world.
In the case of Muslims, I think the issue is whether Muslims can deal with the western notion of the separation of powers, that government and religion should be separate but equal. Over the 2000 years of Christianity a condominium has been established between temporal powers and spiritual powers. It is telling that both the left and Islam believe in totalitarianism. The one believes in a totalitarianism of secular politics; the other believes in a totalitarianism of the religious community: a theocracy.
Personally, I think that both the illegal immigrant and Muslim problem can be solved with strategic deportation policies. It took less than 500 deportations to deal with the US "anarchists" in the 1920s, and I should think that same would apply today. It is tremendous fun to rile up the ΅undocumented" and would-be Muslim terrorists. But the truth is that more than fun-and-games, people want to live in the prosperous West and wive and thrive here.
Anyway, we are living through the resolution of this great question: Where do we draw the line between the in-crowd and the outsiders? Are illegals and Muslims to be kept beyond the Pale. Or shall we let them stay?
Meanwhile, what about the transgendered? Shall we let them serve in the military or not? Now there is an issue for the ages.