Even if this weren't a cool thing to be, it sure is a legal thing to be or you know that shit would have made the headline. That reinforced the point that this is the absolute least charitable interpretation they could think of. If you're the least bit concerned with journalistic ethics or, if we're talking about extrajudicial killing, the longevity of any national project that's not eventually/currently fascism why is your perspective so embittered against a young mother who got murdered by a citizen of the republic without being charged by the state? Even if you value immigration status, your claim is that immigration officers suspected a citizen of being an abrasive person to deal with? What the fuck are you talking about in the wake of her fucking death?! She's dead, it's a national tragedy, and you're giving her a fucking performance review?! It's a perfect echo of how fucking disgraceful the country is, proving the point of anyone criticizing the US. You can just kill and you can just lie, but don't worry because this tactless, biased newspaper will support you anyway. This is a degraded version of the tactic where you say that the person was no angel. You didn't find a juicy enough headline and you needed a post hoc rationalization to be against her, so you said she was likely to not like ICE. But anything for another view, right? All you want is attention and this fit the calculus? You should fire everyone and let chatgpt publish and save everyone the trouble of the illusion that the New York Post is a publication worth writing or reading.

Only 53% of Americans and 28% of Republicans disapprove of ICE. Absolute stinker of a country