4 ms·

I don't want to derail anything, but does anyone sense the irony of that little addendum at the end of the article. The one that refers to Trump being such a cl

I don't want to derail anything, but does anyone sense the irony of that little addendum at the end of the article. The one that refers to Trump being such a clear danger to rule of law that Slate felt the need to increase reporting on rights violations, and it being at the end of an article that mainly deals with BS that went through Obama administration without audit or inquiry.

lightedman 8y ago
Uh, Obama wasn't President in 2002. Maybe you should actually read and comprehend the article first?
late2part 8y ago
You're being downvoted because people don't like it when you remind them that the Emperor has no clothes.
- 5DFractalTetris 8y ago
  Reminders that the Emperor has no clothes are an exonerating justification regularly accepted in courtrooms for summary executions conducted by police officers in the United States.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  I'm downvoting because the addendum is clearly separate from the article content rather than derivative of it, and because it's arguably objectively correct: many abuses in immigration and other areas of law enforcement did indeed take place under the previous administration, but trends in enforcement and litigation have reversed. I'd also point out that the strict immigration enforcement under Obama was meant as a concession to immigration restrictionists who demanded a 'secure border' before they would consider any reform or revision of immigration, and was thus conducted in spite of rather than in pursuance of the Democratic party's policies in an effort at bipartisanship, which has turned out to be singularly lacking in reciprocation. Despite the relative heavy-handedness of enforcement under the Obama administration and a subsequent (but not necessarily consequent, due to economic factors) transition to negative net migration, immigration restrictionists simply doubled down on their demands and started asking for a physical wall.
imleft 8y ago
I think they are saying they will not care about this issue after 2024 or so.

lightedman 8y ago

Uh, Obama wasn't President in 2002. Maybe you should actually read and comprehend the article first?

late2part 8y ago

You're being downvoted because people don't like it when you remind them that the Emperor has no clothes.

5DFractalTetris 8y ago
Reminders that the Emperor has no clothes are an exonerating justification regularly accepted in courtrooms for summary executions conducted by police officers in the United States.
anigbrowl 8y ago
I'm downvoting because the addendum is clearly separate from the article content rather than derivative of it, and because it's arguably objectively correct: many abuses in immigration and other areas of law enforcement did indeed take place under the previous administration, but trends in enforcement and litigation have reversed. I'd also point out that the strict immigration enforcement under Obama was meant as a concession to immigration restrictionists who demanded a 'secure border' before they would consider any reform or revision of immigration, and was thus conducted in spite of rather than in pursuance of the Democratic party's policies in an effort at bipartisanship, which has turned out to be singularly lacking in reciprocation. Despite the relative heavy-handedness of enforcement under the Obama administration and a subsequent (but not necessarily consequent, due to economic factors) transition to negative net migration, immigration restrictionists simply doubled down on their demands and started asking for a physical wall.

imleft 8y ago

I think they are saying they will not care about this issue after 2024 or so.