pull down to refresh
If your default position is “there must be a good reason we just don’t know yet,” then you’re no longer evaluating the evidence.
You’re extending a presumption of trust.
I don’t think this administration has earned that presumption.
What evidence is there? All we know is he was questioned for 11 hours and refused for vetting concerns. All I am saying is I don't know the details of this one situation out of thousands and why he was denied and thousands of others weren't. Neither do you and neither does the author. The author and you are presuming malice. I am not presuming trust. I am saying we don't know. It most certainly could be malice but without knowing the details I am not going to slurp up the media's propaganda.
Sorry but I have been around the block long enough to be skeptical of any narrative the media is trying to push on me.
Fair enough. I am not claiming I know the specific reason.
I am saying this administration has accumulated enough evidence of bad faith, misrepresentation, selective enforcement, contempt findings, and adverse judicial rulings that I no longer extend it the benefit of the doubt.
At least eight federal judges have now questioned whether this administration is entitled to the normal presumption of regularity and good faith that courts traditionally give the government.
When an administration burns through its credibility, “trust us, we have reasons we can’t share” stops being persuasive.
That’s not because I know what happened.
It’s because I know what they’ve done.
I don't think you need to extend anyone the benefit of the doubt. I am just acknowledging that the author has intent beyond telling the story of this individual (because he doesn't even know the full story. He admits the details are not public.) so immediately I question why? What is his ulterior motive?
So I will reserve judgement until finding out all the details.
You’re evaluating the author’s motives. I’m evaluating the administration’s credibility.
Those are two different questions.
I don’t know why this referee was denied. I do know this administration has done enough that I no longer automatically trust unexplained exercises of government power.
And that's fair. As I no longer trust what the media is trying to sell me. All I am saying is I am not passing judgement without knowing the details. You are saying you will pass judgement without knowing the details because you don't trust the government. I don't trust the government either but I also don't trust the media so I will wait to pass judgement. Difference of opinion.
To be clear, I’m not judging the hidden facts. I’m judging the known facts:
He was selected by FIFA.
He had a visa.
He had credentials.
He was denied entry with no public explanation beyond “vetting concerns.”
Given this administration’s record, that is enough for me to draw conclusions about the credibility of the explanation.
I get what the author is arguing here and broadly agree but I think they are also trying to feed the "trump administration immigration enforcement is evil" propaganda narrative.
The author admits it is not public why he was denied. Maybe he has an arrest record or was deported previously from the US or another country. We simply don't know. It seems highly unlikely out of the thousands of players, team staff, and FIFA staff they just arbitrarily denied one guy.
Maybe. Maybe not. Either way it suits the media's purpose.