How is it possible that despite the half-dozen or so people the Post interviewed for the article, the Post was not able to find one person in favor of the deal or even neutral about it? Might it be because the benefits of the plan run counter to the Post’s views? Obviously, as there are people in favor of the deal. Interviewing solely those on one side of an issue while excluding the other side is another example of journalistic malpractice by the Post.
That would make me support it more.
That sounds more like a feature than a bug.
It will cost but a fraction of the money to repatriate the Muslim squatters to Muslim countries - whether their home countries or others. A major step forward if this is accomplished now. It’s long overdue
The Washington Post never lets the truth stand in the way of a "let's hate __________" story.