I should probably clarify - I don't mean to presume to know if the judge did it, I just mean I agree with the above poster's qualifier.

Not every case of reframing in a debate is "whataboutism". Whataboutism is where you bring up unrelated topics. In this case, looking at how we got into a messy situation in the first place is entirely legitimate.

[flagged]

> There is no discussion to be had when the Trump admin is directly violating people's constitutional rights.

And yet here you are, still talking. So long as we are continuing this conversation, do you have any thoughts on how the executive branch should effectively enforce immigration law, which it has an obligation to do, according to the constitution?

I've heard that accusation so frequently from people who have zero concern about the constitution, let alone even know what it says, that I honestly struggle not to laugh.

I quite obviously reject your framing, and believe that there is a real discussion about how to properly adhere to the constitution in the face of conflicting considerations. But you do you.