No, what I elaborate is a policy level decision to reduce extreme negative impact to one group of people while providing benefit to another. You know, the regular push and pull of government where when it's running well officials try to balance aspects of what they are doing so that the overall impact is both a net positive while also reduce extreme spikes of negativity (and positivity, unless those people were really having it bad!) for any particular group.

I'm honestly surprised how a comment that essentially says "hey, it's actually a bit more complicated than the caricature often put forth for a solution and paying attention to that and reducing negative outcomes is worthwhile" is seen as so contentious.