That's also quite convenient in that it allows you to say "shrug" to basically everything under the sun.
Who would provide communication and awareness on this specific issue, then? Someone/something specific. Not just "not people I can't trust", that's a negative set.
> Who would provide communication and awareness on this specific issue, then?
Maybe a good start is someone who doesn’t break the law to do it?
I mean the issue is caused by a government breaking its own laws, correct? Isn’t that what’s bad? I guess I don’t see how breaking a law to expose someone else breaking a law makes you virtuous and trustworthy.
But you're doing it again. You're saying "I don't trust X Y and Z". So who do you trust? "Someone who doesn't break the law." Who?
Because you're only just saying "I don't believe anything because everyone lies" and you can't name a specific person/group/entity that you'd trust, it's just this nebulous and vague "people who don't break the law".
So again, who would you trust to break this story (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the allegations are correct)? Because so far you have "not the media", "not the government" and "not people involved".
Do you agree that it could be possible to find someone who could prove whether a name was left off a list without resorting to breaking the law to do it?
Do you agree that a reporter could write a story about a deportee’s name being left off a deportation list and the subsequent government admission that the person was in fact deported without ignoring or perhaps burying the fact that the deported was legally deported after a judge ordered them deported?
Do you agree that a government or government official could provide accurate information the first time when questioned about someone who was detained and deported?
Those are the types of people that I would consider trustworthy. None of that happened here which fans the flames of my skepticism.
