So my objective person: you are saying you believe the word of ICE

Skepticism of one account does not amount to endorsement of another.

Neither should be taken at face value, but who do you think is more likely to be telling the truth?

I don’t think there’s sufficient justification to assume fully on either side, but the fact is that because it’s the popular position, people are happy to take the side against ICE regardless of the circumstances, which is why this post exists in the first place.

All I did was point out said lack of justification on that side, and try to find more information about a situation the linked article obviously wasn’t giving the whole picture for.

No emotional response from me (though plenty of people here project their emotional response onto me, since they can’t fathom someone not eagerly believing whatever benefits their narrative without scrutiny, and so the slightest bit of scrutiny/skepticism of an event they’ve attached their narrative to instantly becomes the assumption ‘you’re a foot soldier for the Bad/Other Guys!’).

That’s how objectivity works, despite your sarcastic implication otherwise.