Some reviewers seem to be missing the point: this site's purpose does not involve a debate about constitutional rights. Rather, are the facts presented in a piece credible? Case in point: the question here is whether the group exists, not whether it should or should not. Investigators have done a good job, in this case, of documenting the existence of said group.

I wish there was a better way to verify a story like this. It's hard. I completely believe that groups like this exist and that there is terrible issues with racism/sexism within certain populations including border patrol agents. If this story is true, it's horrifying. It's also hard to know when you can't see the whole feed if the authors are cherry picking posts and most of it is totally benign with a few horrendous actors.

While I agree that people have the first amendment right to speak freely, that does not mean the reporting should be criticized. It is important to understand the mindset of individuals responsible for patrolling the borders. It's also worth considering that many government agencies have restrictions on social media posting based on their own ethics department's rules. If government officials are violating their ethics department's rules, it's definitely newsworthy.

While I believe the pictures within the article pose as enough evidence that this group(s) exist, there was little opportunity for the authors to post more of the conversations (and names) of the individuals making these comments from CBP. The article also mentioned that the CBP hasn't responded yet but I was wondering how long its been since the request for comment was made? 1 day vs. 7 days is a huge difference.

The coverage seemed like it listed the facts, just the facts, and did some interviewing to discuss whether this is 'just a few bad apples' or the entire Border Patrol culture. Seems like a solid article. Reviewers -- try to review the article FIRST, then maybe add your commentary. Someone wrote "FB is where people vent" and "I would die to defend freedom of speech" -- these are valid opinions, but not really related to whether the article is valid. As for dying to defend freedom of speech, hope you feel the same re: govt 'gag orders' on doctors & abortion, as well as AOC calling these Concentration Camps. I support freedom of speech as well, but draw the line at hate speech. Sharing ideas and views with each other freely is important, but incendiary speech that is meant only to incite violence ... Mmmmm, nah. I'd say that goes under 'intent to incite violence', 'assault', 'slander', etc

I agree with Jacob B. about the ridiculousness of trying to control people’s minds and censor their opinion. But I strongly believe that people that are racists to the level described in the article shouldn’t be dealing with immigrants where their biases can costs human lives. Assuming that what’s described is true, it has to be reported to authorities to investigate, not published in an incendiary article.

Facebook groups are where people let off steam and express opinions. While you may not agree with their ideas or opinions, their right to express themselves is constitutional. Thought policing needs to stop, and the idiocy of trying to control opinions needs to die with identity politics. We may disagree about what we think, but I will fight, and die if necessary, to protect the right to speak our minds.