via Twitter:
And from the thread:
And even then, the reader is left to guess at why or how he could have been found removable.
This oblique paragraph is all there is: “Aldaoud had a criminal conviction for disorderly conduct and served 17 months for a home invasion.”
Disorderly conduct is not typically something that makes you removable.
Home invasion, depending on what the home invasion really was (that’s not actually how states categorize this type crime, again, great job, journos), might be. But, again, the reader still can have no idea.
And it’s hard to believe that the failure of immigration journalists to convey the *how* and *why* people could be removed from the U.S. is anything but intentional.
Yes, it’s a sad story. They’re all sad stories. But readers deserve to know how and why individuals get removed.
It’s almost like immigration journalists want their readers to think that removal is at random. Or, even worse, that it’s purposefully sadistic.
This Politico piece almost invites the reader to think he was removed because he’s insulin-dependent. It’s bad journalism.
But it furthers the cause.
h/t SG