I think there's something to be said for listening to your customers and community. But how much of the pushback was from the community? Certainly the developer who yanked their code. And from what I've read the internal developers too.
But I think having to fear crowds of probably less than completely informed people generally lacking nuance is not something to be lauded.
Even for those that do think halting border crossings is bad, the consequences of making ICE change to a different IT solution is likely that ICE's bureaucracy is hampered and people detained at the border take longer to process and thus result in more hardship.
Thwarting ICE? Incredibly unlikely and impractical . Slowing ICE down? Probably.
If the objective is to gain some immediate press exposure for immigrants rights issues, it seems totally rational, and it appears to have achieved the goal.
If the objective is to improve conditions for immigrants in ICE/CBP custody in the near term, it's not clear it will help, and it could definitely have unintended negative consequences. For example, ERO agents under increased pressure due to IT systems going down may be less likely to offer DA on humanitarian grounds, if it's just easier and less paperwork to deport en masse. Maybe there's a strong rational argument to be made in favor, but average citizens don't have complete information or authority to investigate, so it really seems to boil down to more of a "gut instinct" decision.
If the objective is improvement in conditions for immigrants in the longer term, it might be rational if it's part of a persistent, steady application of pressure to reform ICE/CBP/ORR through a combination of protests, opening cases to trigger judicial oversight, and lobbying to achieve change through legislative processes. But it's unclear if this kind of boycott is particularly effective use of time/resources towards that goal.
nothing else works, people work with the tools they have at their disposition, and if companies don't have any morals when it comes to us (results driven approach no matter the consequences), why should we have any morals when dealing with companies? We're just playing at their own game, and getting good results, and there is nothing wrong with that, so keep on going as long as there are results.
My objections aren't to these specific actions. I'm trying to discuss the phenomena of very vocal outrage at a distance motivating company change. I specifically didn't mention my stance on the results because I don't want to be one of those people who supports the means only when it leads to results I like (e.g both Democrats and Republicans when it comes a President of their party overreaching their power to do something their party supports).
For the record, I am very pro-immigration and don't like the current Administration. That's part of why I have mixed feelings about the general approach.
The other reason I have mixed feelings is because corporations do need to be accountable, and currently the outrage mob seems to be the most effective, if very narrow tool for helping accomplish. But while I don't think it's the proper tool for that, I'm not really sure what else to try to replace it with.
> Your statement also completely disregards morality and ethics.
That's a fair point, my description was lacking. I think mobs also tend to act amorally and without regard for ethics. May they have reactions rooted in moral and ethical causes? Absolutely. I don't think often gets applied to their reactions though. I think in these situations, most people check their civility at the "keyboard" (door, getting online, etc).
The reaction here was relatively mild. There have been bigger, badder ones though, and while this doesn't really compare effect-wise, it is on the same spectrum, in my mind.
Do I want things to change? Absolutely. Do I want things to change just because a large number of people were informed of something through a random news article and poor handling of it? I'm not so sure.
Personally, I consider myself to be a Republican, but it seems fear and hatred has tainted my party. A great example would be to look at all the Republican presidential candidates for 2016 and watch how many opposed the current administration.
However, once they saw the voters following they were forced to do the same rather than demonstrate what a backbone is for.
Please give a counter example so we have evidence to back it up to the contrary.
1) The first time
2) Later than that
They did the second. It’s sucks that it isn’t the first, and it sucks that they didn’t pick the right horse during the race up until this point. But they changed their mind, openly and in plainly spoken terms.
“Worked” doesn’t need a qualifier here. Their failure to implement #1 correctly, and their pivot to implement #2, will help them serve as a lesson to others.
No, I disagree. What they have done is literally the minimum amount of effort.
The right thing to do is not to "continue to do what we're doing, offering a passive promise to not get more money."
The question is on this aspect.
Disclaimer: I bid on federal gov projects. The work is fairly fungible.
Where does it end? Maybe next year Chef decides they don't like DEA. Or ATF. Or something else.
It is not noble to deny work with the US Government. It's inefficient, bureaucratic, and deeply flawed. But it does a powerful lot of good.
Let them pick the contract up. Hopefully they charge more, take longer to implement, and are generally worse.
No one is ever going to deprecate ICE because it’s too expensive. They’ll just pull the money from someplace like NASA (unfortunate reality, not a policy I endorse).
No one is going to deprecate ICE because it's too expensive, but they might do it due to extensive political pressure from all sectors. I'm okay with paying 0.001 USD or so to send that message.
Maybe a compromise between voters picking where their taxes go and a minimum for what tax payers have to pay for a certain area?
The same is true of law enforcement generally. Police get a lot of hate on HN because of some obviously over-the-top policies that need to be corrected. But we would have major problems without law enforcement, including CBP.
We should address the issues without taking them to the extremes. This applies pretty broadly in politics these days, sadly.
It's possible and rational to believe that agencies like CBP are (or would be at some level of funding) a net positive in absolute terms, while also believing that they're a net negative at the margin. This is approximately equivalent to the belief that these agencies should exist but should be smaller than they are today.
Eliminating service contracts won't "bankrupt" CBP and prevent it from getting anything done, but it will reduce the amount that it can do at the margin. For anyone who believes that CBP funding is a net negative at the margin, including those who believe it's a net positive in absolute terms, this is a desirable outcome.
This seems like a fantastic leap. I think there are zero or borderline zero instances of calls, even implicitly, for the abolishment of law due to individual horrors.
It's totally understandable that people are confused by the distinction between CPB and ICE. I certainly was baffled myself, until I spent a big chunk of time digging into it. And I still don't fully understand the multiple transfers of custody between those agencies, plus ORR which often ends up having custody of unaccompanied minors.
It's hard to imagine how abolishing ICE alone would resolve the humanitarian issues. I think it's reasonable to assume "abolish ICE" is really referring to a broader reform encompassing all of ICE, CBP, and ORR.
And abolishing a particular enforcement agency isn't abolishing law. Law around the border didn't disappear when INS was dismantled.
The reason for this separation has to do with consistency and scope: legality of immigration, and illegality of counterfeiting, should be consistently the same from state to state. Cases involving these issues could happen in any state and are likely to involve more than one state at a time, whereas most police work usually involves only a small area. They also are not areas where the states have authority to set policy, so it could create difficult situation for police if there were a disagreement between their state and the federal government over an issue like income tax. These factors together seem to explain why we have so many federal police forces.
How would things be better if local police had authority to detain and deport people, or to investigate customs matters?
I agree with you though that it would be great if local police were enabled to find and deport all of the illegal aliens currently residing in the US illegally.
Why? It is a misdemeanor.
You've got no legal right to park in a handicapped spot, either, but that doesn't make it a felony.
The only reason to point it out as a misdemeanor is to make it seem like it is not a problem.
This is false.
"The U.S. government initiated deportation proceedings in May 2007 against Saul as he returned from a holiday in Mexico. Saul is a British citizen, born in London, and at the time his removal proceedings began, he had been living in the United States for almost a full decade as a legal permanent resident... As grounds for deportation, the government cited a misdemeanor—check fraud—that Saul had committed at the age of 19."
"Aggravated felonies sound serious, and many of them are (kidnapping, theft, and bribery make the list, among many others), but there are also many misdemeanors that could fall within this term’s scope due to the mismatch between federal and state law. Crimes of moral turpitude are equally tricky."
> The only reason to point it out as a misdemeanor is to make it seem like it is not a problem.
It's to put it in perspective when folks try to act like crossing the border is a crime against humanity.
I don't understand why you're being so pedantic about this. You absolutely know that people use the 'misdemeanor' phrasing to make it seem like crossing the border is as innocuous as jaywalking. It's not. It has real effects and has been a major problem in the US for many decades.
> It's to put it in perspective when folks try to act like crossing the border is a crime against humanity.
Sure, crossing the border is not a crime against humanity, but neither is enforcing the law.
It's not pedantic, the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor offense has very real consequences on how a case is processed. ICE ERO officers are dealing with a variety of cases, and the outcome of a specific enforcement action will depend on the severity of the offense.
One common situation is someone came to the country on a visa, and they remained in the country and continued working after the visa expired. This is not a felony, and the person is likely to be released while the legal process plays out. This person might obtain authorization to remain in the country and never be deported, for example by obtaining a different visa.
Another common situation is someone who overstayed their visa as above, but ERO officers also discover a large quantity of drugs and/or weapons in the vicinity. In this case, there is a strong reason to believe the person has committed a felony, and that person is very likely going to remain in custody while the legal process plays out. This person is also very likely to be deported, since a felony conviction would rule out pretty much all pathways to legal authorization to remain in the country.
“shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”
> It has real effects and has been a major problem in the US for many decades.
Like many other misdemeanors.
ICE has jurisdiction over a large number of federal laws involving immigration as well as laws involving transporting illegal goods across national boundaries (narcotics, weapons, money laundering, child pornography, etc...). Some of these crimes certainly are felonies, whereas others are misdemeanors.
In fact, equating to two is common tactic of the "throwing children into cages is good, actually" crowd and most of the time it means the person is arguing in bad faith.
Mind: I disagree strongly with OP's initial comment.
That's not at all the conclusion. At some point you stop thinking about what value is added by the contract work. For many people, that point is somewhere before "lock children up and separate them from their families".
Nobody say they don't provide any valuable service. It's not a reason to support an unethical service though.
Here's a good example:
> As for CPB. Fuck them. Abolish ICE. That branch, that puts children in cages, it doesn't provide any value -- nothing can justify there existence.
You'll want to be careful in applying that too liberally, but there are places where it applies.
You've been trying to argue that point throughout this thread for "the mob" itself.
Um... what? ICE has been around since Bush. And Obama, IIRC< did some "detention reforms" while he was in office.
Look, ICE does more than just "separate families" they also fight human/sex trafficking and they also a bunch of other stuff. I get that you may disagree with the detention stuff, but what about their work in other areas?
'Abolish ICE' means that the agency as it currently exists needs to go. That doesn't mean we don't need at least some of the services they provide. It means they've become a harmful agency with a culture of abuse in many areas, not just with detention. Tear down the bad agency and start over with something new.
Is there some sort of scale we measure these things on where if you do enough good things you're allowed a certain amount of atrocities without intervention?
Note that the investigatory group within ICE (Homeland Security Investigations) that is key to fighting human trafficking is almost entirely separate from the rest of ICE and has raised being part of ICE in the current environment, because of the backlashes the rest of ICEs practices have been producing, as inhibiting their work, because it reduces the willingness of people they need voluntary cooperation from to work with them, because “ICE”.
So, another reason to dismantle ICE.
The existing laws should be enforced, and they haven't been for decades. If the laws should be changed, then congress should work to change them. Allowing millions of people to evade the law because of feelings is not a solution.
No matter what your views on immigratiom policy are otherwise, I don't see how that's a great reason for preserving the present organization.
If you view the present legality as correct, it's a reason to have the enforcement function in a competent and effective organization that is broadly respected by the public, but that doesn't sound like ICE.
Here is Jeff Sessions' "zero-tolerance policy".
This policy has been one source of the controversial separation of family members from one another. Whether you supported previous admin policy or not is not really relevant, this is easily the most widely discussed component of the existing controversy.
This is one way in which the current administration has departed from previous ones, in a concrete policy based manner, and there are others. You can find all of this information online quite easily, and I would encourage you to do so.
edit: I'm going to disengage, but for anyone saying "What about Obama?" did you watch the last Democratic primary debate? Biden was asked directly if he would apologize for the policies of that administration.
do i get extra argument points for not liking ICE no matter who's sitting in the white house?
So the answer is no, I wasn't because I was unable to be outraged due to my lack of information.
If you don't want them held until trial, what should we do instead? They are essentially prisons, because that is what we do with people who break the law.
Those are called death camps.
A concentration or internment camp is where you stick people who you don't trust, so you can keep an eye on them. Prisons are essentially a form of concentration camp, but the key distinction is that you have to be found guilty of something to end up in prison. It's probably more accurate to think of a concentration camp as a long term jail.
> Those are called death camps.
I try to not engage in political discussions, but I'm going to strongly disagree with you. The popular definition (i.e. actual living language) of a "concentration camp" is "where people are killed" - for example, see Wikipedia page Auschwitz concentration camp.
One pattern I've seen, is that some people use "concentration camps" to refer to bad ones, and "internment camps" to refer to okay ones, and maybe that's a an okay distinction, but the reality is often a lot less black and white than our words would like to suggest.
Google gives the OED definition, "a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz."
While colloquially a lot of these terms are conflated, the literature seems to make a clear distinction.
If you cross the border to request asylum, doesn't matter if walking or by using a star trek teleporter, you are committing no crime. They are breaking no laws.
It is NOT false. You need to be either at a port of entry or in the US to apply. You have one year to do so.
> You may apply for asylum regardless of your immigration status and within one year of your arrival to the United States.
You may apply even if convicted of a crime (although it doesn't mean it will be granted)
> Yes, but you may be barred from being granted asylum depending on the crime
Taking petty stabs at ICE (like making it harder for them to do CI/CD) seems pretty unhelpful.
The only people who were being released were the ones which border authorities themselves deemed "low risk", and were released with ankle monitoring, and even then only released because we refuse to process them in anything approaching a timely manner.
Current updated immigration detention facilities are on par with or better than most other developed countries. The problem is with the overcrowding. It's too bad that efforts to improve the efficiency of the system (and thus the crowding), whether it is furniture or tech like Chef is experiencing such counter-productive boycotts.
Over a year ago there was a plan to give current illegal residents a pathway to citizenship and build a wall to significantly reduce the now 100k+ monthly crossings -- it was opposed by the same activists now complaining of the consequences.
When it comes to matters such as these, being powerful is good and being weak is bad. Do you think their ancestors never took anything from any other group of people? Or if they did that they felt any remorse about it later?
Because of this:
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
It's the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. The US decided, long ago, that we'd be a haven for people of other countries who are being persecuted or who otherwise want a better life.
If we don't want to do that anymore, I suggest we tear down the Statue and replace it with a closed gate.
Besides that, we've been meddling in the affairs of Central and South America for decades with mostly-disastrous effect on their economies and political systems. Accepting refugees would be a small step toward acknowledging and working to right that wrong.
The US absolutely never decided that, and certainly not at that time. That inscription was put there by wealthy New York liberals, and it certainly did not reflect the feelings of the majority of the people at the time. In fact in the decades that followed, the people of the United States instituted strong immigration restrictions, which by the way were specifically designed until 1965 so that they would not alter the national origin demographics of the country, so the American people at the time obviously did not want tens of millions of people from poor third world countries pouring in.
>Besides that, we've been meddling in the affairs of Central and South America for decades with mostly-disastrous effect on their economies and political systems.
Their ancestors before them went to war against other groups and took their land and resources. Something tells me they didn't feel particularly bad about it.
That's... not really relevant to the point being made.
At the end of the day, I'm tired of trying to advocate for the idea that you should care about other people. Especially if it doesn't cost you anything! Which, as it turns out, is actually the case for most kinds of immigration, despite what loads of unsupported FUD would like people to believe.
Of course it is. We don't owe them anything any more than they owe the victims of their ancestors' pillaging, which is nothing.
>At the end of the day, I'm tired of trying to advocate for the idea that you should care about other people.
Presumably you are discovering that people have their own problems to deal with, and don't always feel like being lectured about how they should put the problems of the rest of the world first.
>Which, as it turns out, is actually the case for most kinds of immigration, despite what loads of unsupported FUD would like people to believe.
It's actually not the case if you're a tax payer. More than 60% of households headed by an immigrant use some form of welfare.
That's money those taxpayers could otherwise have used to pay for their own children, and maybe could've afforded to have more.
It's also not the case if you're a low or medium skilled worker.
It is the case if you're a wealthy business owner who benefits from cheap labor or a highly skilled worker in a field that's not greatly affected by an influx in labor.
I wish we could let every one come here and make himself successful, but I don't foresee entitlement spending ever gong any where but down. I don't take the position of limiting immigration for idealistic reasons, but because there is a limit on how many resources we have.
You have room and you're partly responsible for why they're displaced?
> Where do you propose to put 4,200 people in "humane conditions"? Who should shoulder the burden of that cost?
The shuttered Trump Plaza has 900 rooms according to Wikipedia, two bunk-beds to a room and that's 3600 people in that building alone. Finding room for the remaining 600 can't be that difficult I'd imagine.
The people of the United States should shoulder the burden of that cost. Tax the rich even 1% more than you do now and you could build a new Trump Plaza every year if you wanted to.
Sweden found room for 80,000 Syrian refugees that all arrived within a span of ~12 months (6600 people per month), and we're a nation of 10 million people.
The US is supposed to be the greatest nation on Earth. Figure it out.
You guys just don't want to pay for things. That's cool, but say that you don't want to pay for things instead of pretending that this is some unsolvable problem.
Ahh, yes, the good ole "fight fire with fire," approach where you let your agents run rampant sexually abusing children, yet claim to be doing good.
Yeah, what about that works? That work justify doing unethical things on the side?
I've never used Chef myself but I have noticed some message board posts lately claiming it's dead in the water and Ansible is the victor.
I've used Ansible since it came out, came straight from Puppet, so I'm biased. But I don't care what you use, as long as it works.
Chef is just no longer going to provide them with a paid support contract.
Those willing and able to do such support will find themselves with a very narrowed set of non-ICE clients.
There's a reason moral suasion and taboo are such effective social management engines.
I'm still at the "shell scripts are enough for everybody" camp, but Ansible is looking stable enough to use.
Ansible is too procedural. "do this if that otherwise something else. Then that. Then this other thing". This is very much prone to human error.
As a platform engineer I care that this file exists with this specific content and these specific permissions. I don't care how it happens. Puppet and Chef have the advantage of being declarative and that's 100% better than procedurally telling ansible what to do and what not to do (plus the overheads of every ssh connection that it creates every single time it generates a script). You might as well just write a bash script that does it all for you and execute it over ssh.
These examples seem as declarative as Chef and Puppet:
On the same image it sometimes succeeded and sometimes failed. This was happening on Amazon Linux 2, and basically once in a while yum database got corrupted. I'm suspecting there was a conflict between yum run by Amazon Linux 2 on boot, and ansible didn't respect locks acquired by yum?
2. If there is nobody willing to adopt a cluster using conf mgmt that they do not prefer.
We had an admin that set up an ELK cluster with cfengine. All of the other admins do not claim to understand it, and hesitate to maintain it, update it, make changes to it, and otherwise perform their job duties. One of the admins is partial to Chef, and the other wants to maintain the ELK cluster with Kubernetes. Only problem is neither has done so, and they have made little progress. I hope to see that change.
It can be, depending on how complex your environment is and the availability of people that understand it. Chef doesn't make this easy by storing so much "state" (nodes, environment, databags, etc).
But at the end of the day, these are just scripts. You can reverse-engineer the environment and replicate in Ansible or what have you.
One red flag is, if this process is found to be too difficult(as opposed to just time-consuming), then you have a very incomplete understanding of your system. That's dangerous.
This sector is important. Quality is essential. The stakes are high. I'd rather the work get done by people who are proud to do it than by people who detest the whole enterprise. Which do you think is going to lead to higher quality?
Thank you, Chef.
I'm just wondering, to publish these GEMS for chef, do you have to sign over your copyright? or is there a specific licensing requirement?
Assuming ICE made the most efficient decision in the first place, the new option will be less efficient, imposing a cost.
If the most efficient alternative is also unwilling to contract with ICE for the same reason, the cost is higher. Etc.
Of course, the goal in any refuse-to-participate campaign is to build to reach more essential rather than peripheral service providers, most particularly the people directly implementing (not setting) the opposed policy.
This isn't about affecting change, it's about feeling good about ourselves.
You've poisoned discourse to a degree where you no longer can see the plain truth that publicly acting like a hateful ghoul does not ingratiate you with the general public.
The invisible hand of the free market has spoken, and it isn't touching that with a 10-foot pole. Get over it.
Yes, some political overlap is inevitable. But flamewar is not, and holding that distinction is key to preventing this site from exploding itself.
It shows that the people in US, are influenced, to a large degree by selective outrage.
Selective outrage, is not just a sign of intellectual dishonesty.
Selective outrage leads to selective justice, selective justice leads to unfair justice, and that leads to Orwellian state or dictatorship.
So showing the poison in selective outrage is totally appropriate.
If indeed it was inappropriately withheld in the past, I don't see any moral necessity to remain consistent, even if the flip-flopping turns out to be politically convenient.
For example, at least one of the infamous chain-link-cage detention centers was indeed built under Obama. That's worth knowing, and it's also worth knowing that, by law, children were to be kept there for no more than 72 hours before being transferred to better quarters.
The zero-tolerance policy that separated children from parents as the norm rather than an exception, that resulted in children being stuffed in those cages far beyond their intended capacity and left there for weeks, in unsanitary conditions, was all Trump. The deaths of an unprecedented seven children in one year in ICE custody, despite the total number of detainees nationwide being lower, was on Trump's watch.
Downvoters: I'm curious if you believe my facts are incorrect, or if you're just downvoting because you don't like my politics.
What abhorrent behavior? They've attempted to disincentive people abusing asylum policies. You don't have to come and apply for false asylum, and you're free to self-deport.
Did you ignore my comment two comments up from yours? Read it, and the links.
What a miserable, angry world you inhabit, that you're willing to hurt some of the most vulnerable people on the planet, because of a useless worry that someone somewhere might be taking advantage of us.
Perhaps you should climb down off of your ivory tower and visit blue-collar America from time to time. You're accusing me of hurting others, while defending policies that... hurt others.
There is no "unchecked migration" to the United States. There's a hard cap on the number of refugees that can be admitted every year, and the asylum process is long, complex, and stressful.
Over the past 10 years, more than 50% of asylum claims have been denied. So it's not like claiming asylum comes with any sort of guarantees either.
That was just a lie Pence told.
The claim is regarding the current flow on the southern border, not historical trends across the nation as was cited. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
This is like that old chestnut, "Bill Gates and I have a combined average net-worth of 40 billion dollars!"
Well, I have none and he has 80 billion. You can't use broad statistics to disregard specific, regional trends.
> Something like 90+% of claimants disappear after their initial catch-and-release
Citation needed. The claimants who are eligible for release are ones that _CBP_ deemed low risk, and are fitted with ankle monitors. They're also only released in the first place because we make very little (to now nearly zero) effort to process them in a timely manner.
Arguably if the migrants are not stopping to apply at a port of entry then they broke the law.
How about you provide a citation.
> Families are given court dates, a head of household is often fitted with an ankle monitor, and they are dropped off at a charity-run shelter or bus station.
> Electronic monitoring devices, or ankle monitors, are increasingly being used as ATDs since Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have found them to be both economical and effective. Motivated by cost savings, their use is appropriate for immigrants who are neither a flight or safety risk
> private contractor, BI Industries Inc., monitors migrants through check-ins at ICE offices, in-person home visits, telephonic monitoring and electronic ankle bracelets. ICE determines how a migrant will be monitored based on factors including flight risk and likelihood of showing up to court.
Page 33 shows that, from FY 2013 to 2017, more than 92% of asylum applicants have in fact appeared in court to receive their final decision.
It's not about the numbers, it's all about not being an absolute disgrace while handling the topic.
I suggest you do as I did and flag the offensive flamebait comments. You need to click through to each individual comment (the nnn hours/minutes ago links) to see the flag link. I think you also need some minimum karma/reputation but don't know the specific number.
Never did figure out, are dang and scbt doing this on some kind of part-time / volunteer basis?
> I suggest you do as I did and flag the offensive flamebait comments.
Did hours ago...
From the article: "Gackle and Bell are the only Y Combinator employees working on the site. In addition to moderating it, they maintain its technical infrastructure."
On the flagging, you may not see anything happen for some time after you flag a comment - or sometimes you may find that your flag was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" and the comment immediately changes to [flagged] [dead].
However, the rule of law was still enforced. Obama concentrated on immigrants with a criminal record and those "picked up" at the border. Family separation was rare, and there was an advocacy and appeal process. USCIS judges were not silenced and neutered. It was far from a perfect system, but there was an attempt to make it compassionate.
This is why the numbers don't tell the whole story. G.W returned more than Obama, Clinton more than G.W., H.W. more than Clinton.
This is not a Obama vs Trump issue - this is a "Every US President in modern history" vs Trump issue. It is possible to enforce immigration laws compassionately. It is not hypocrisy to call this out.
This is why people are crying whataboutism. "Attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument," per Wikipedia.
Of course if you engage in this sort of "fallacy fallacy!" argument style, you rapidly get far from the discussion on the actual topic. The best move is probably just not to play.
> Overall at the end, the result will be that freedoms of the citizens of USA will get reduced, whichever side wins.
US Gov will likely start blacklisting of companies and business associated of companies that succomb to this behavior.
This, overall will shift billions of dollars to a fewer set of companies.
Anytime, power is concentrated in several mega-corps, ability to compete freely is reduced.
Fewer choices for paths of economic progress, fewer freedoms.
I am also almost 100% sure any new contract with US Gov will include clauses that will address this in a way, that doing govtech, and hiring contractors/employees for govtech businesses will be even harder.
Alternatively, if the mob justice wins -- then hiring/firing people based on their views on Immigration/Abortion/Religions Freedoms/etc -- will be the norm.
Either way, US citizens loose.... That was my point.
Honestly, that was my first thought - it’s entirely possible that the same people who pressured Chef in this case will start pressuring companies that hire anybody who, say, had worked with ICE in the past.
Protesting company decisions is a American right.
It's been like that since before humans even existed, so I don't quite get the hand-wringing.
In fact, a web server responds to each client request; taking something down is simply failing to reply to future requests. Past page loads do not obligate you to serve future ones.
Allowing dependent users to make a copy, and making this say 2-3 week allowance -- would be appropriate.
The responsibility is that of the fetcher to cache or mirror as required.
They also need to cancel their contracts with DHS, the Police, the Army, and any other US Gov agency, especially while Trump is in power.
See, when somebody throws something like this out, I can’t tell if they’re just uninformed or being intentionally misrepresentative. Family separation started under the Clinton administration when they found that large number of children were being assaulted in predominantly adult detention facilities, as well as finding that many of the migrant children were being accompanied by adults who were not their parents (that is, were being trafficked). I’m… not entirely sure what else you expect the border patrol to do other than, but I have to suspect it’s something like “don’t detain anybody, give them a court date and hope they show up for it” which was the policy until recently. They have a difficult job and a difficult mandate - trying to make them out to be the bad guys here just makes it harder, but isn’t going to help anybody.
(I realized this sounded quite caustic when I typed it. I do mean minimum causticness when discussing this. I'm admittedly super baffled by this Coca-Cola thing, because the contexts are completely different.)
Trying to live by a practice of avoiding any specific harmful actions can easily compromise ones ability to pursue more general goals. CBP does important and essential work combatting human and drug trafficking, and handling what remains of the good parts of their imigration management mission that ICE has contorted. This choice will limit their effectiveness. Degrading the efficiency of an organization at this scale has meaningful costs; 1% of 100 people saved from trafficking is an entire person. Will the degradation of capabilities here effect CBP in this manner? I am unprepared to speculate, but it seems worth factoring into an ethical decision about whether specific activities by ICE make ICE+CBP intolerable to work with.
Moreover, down the road this is probably the end of any business arrangement between Chef and US Government agencies. Administrations change, and if Chef can be expected to end contracts over public pressure like this then it cannot be relied upon to be involved with any sort of system that is going to need to last across multiple administrations, which is most of them. Minor degradation of efficiency across the whole US Government has very meaningful costs in human life and suffering.
I think the forest has been missed for the trees, and I'm not convinced that from a utilitarian perspective those advocating against Chef's contracts with CPB+ICE aren't also in the moral wrong.
Similarly here, your post is mistaking the scope of the action and drawing a line between one dev deleting their reposity and being responsible for killing people (of note, ICE has lost children to human trafficking already so the boat has already sailed).
"...can you appease the mobs with their pet issue of the day that has gained public attention?"
If we do not care about the gravity of the action, then that is what is being asked. It is not being moral, it is not about doing the right thing for society, this is just about making a small group of privileged people feel good about something that will not help the kids crossing the border.
Are you talking about Chef or this whole discussion thread (myself included)?
Specifically that, in the context of this comment subtree. If we are requesting action from Chef because we believe ICE, a customer of Chef, is behaving unethically then we cannot play favorites and dismiss other Chef customers who also behave unethically; Coca-Cola being responsible of much more illness, death, and abuse of the poor than ICE despite just "producing a beverage".
Do we care about moral issues, or do we care about just this specific issue for a particular reason? Looking at the root comment from this chain (and from south of the border, mind you) it seems there are ulterior motives at play.
Yes, is this actually being done? That's my question.
Whether or not Chef dropping ICE as a customer directly saves one kid isn't the only marker of success. The combination of hamstringing operations along with increased public awareness are steps along the path to shutting them down for good.
I also agree there is a moral obligation in advertising unhealthy foods, but equating the damages of that to ICE just undermines the efforts of both avenues.
On the contrary--hamstringing their operations just raise their costs. They are funded by US taxpayers, so if costs go up US taxpayers will pay more.
If you want to shutdown ICE or change how they operate, the US Congress must change the law. If you are a US citizen, write / call / email your representatives and demand that they act accordingly. Also, VOTE! If you don't like what your representatives are doing, vote them out!
Petty protests like this do little to change the operations of a federally-funded, legally-mandated entity that is enforcing federal law. If you want change to occur, federal law must be changed. Congress changes federal laws, so you must start with them.
I think it's a pretty farfetched stretch from human rights and internment of children to soft drinks that people choose to consume.
People also choose to cross the border illegally.
Also, it's not illegal if you're filing an asylum claim (which most are).
And it's not sensationalist to speak the truth. There are plenty of photos and videos. We are actually doing this.
Children have less of a choice, I think in drinking soda than families do in seeking asylum.
It’s not choose one or the other, person if Chef is a moral company they should block both.
/s "whataboutism" is a useless venture
But chef should surely block all the pharma companies too right?
Thousands of detained children are bad. Tens of millions dead from obesity is certainly worse than that right?
Also it’s quite possible to not work with lots of terrible companies that are doing great harm. Why stop with just a few. Surely chef will help the world by not doing business with all the bad companies of the world.
Obviously, there is more personal freedom and choice in choosing beverages vs needing to wait 10+ years for a green card, etc. Most companies have negative externalites and we have to draw the line somewhere but the distance between the Coca-Cola & ICE lines is miles apart.
Plastic, too. Coca-Cola is the largest source of plastic waste in the world.
Do we stop manufacturing cars because it helps support many unfavorable people/organizations?
If Ford were separating children from their parents and imprisoning them in warehouses then I'm sure many people would stop buying Fords or doing business with them.
There have actually been campaigns against vehicle manufacturers because of who they sell to. I recall that JCB and Land Rover have had campaigns against them as they sell vehicles (mainly armoured) to the armies of countries with questionable human rights records.
I'm somewhat certain your beef is with the idea of that specific organisation being considered bad, not with the reaction to that determination.
What's ICE and CBP?
Family separation has exited way before 2014 and in most criminal cases they do not let the child with a criminal who committed a crime. If police catches you with DUI while you have your children in the car they will separate you. It also existed under Obama. Not sure where anybody with internet connection and the ability to read and understand English gets this idea that it is a new thing.
I for one, do not support Chef and will never use their product as Ansible is better anyways.
What does this have at all to do with made up stories?
What does it have to do with this Topic? I belive the developer watched to much MSM to believe their lies and that ICE is bad and treating people bad but not realizing the previous admin deported more people, and had much worse conditions. </rant>
Another note: There is a difference between anonymous and unnamed. Most reporters know and verify their sources. They just do not name them to the public.
As for the "outrage under previous administrations", previous administrations weren't perceived to be actively malicious towards immigrants.
Being late to recognize a problem is not a reason to ignore it.
If the previous administration's allies had called any attention to the issue, maybe their current calls would be taken seriously rather than as a continuous knee-jerk reaction to every action of the current President.
These people are discounted now so that bad-faith arguments can be made.
This administrations rhetoric is bombastic and often times xenophobic. That rhetoric creates a different perception and generates mistrust.
Imagine you had two co-workers. One was incredibly clumsy, and constantly, accidentally, stepped on people's foot. They always apologized, and generally tried to make it right, but every day, someone's foot was stepped on.
Another co-worker walks around talking about how they're going to punch every one in the face. They punch a lot of people in the face, more often than not people who don't deserve it.
By the numbers, the first co-worker is harming far more people.
But the second one is the guy who gets fired.
Which is irrelevant; the anger at ICE isn't over the number of people deported (or even particularly about deportation, specifically.)
Other than disproving this administration’s defenders’ talking point that opposition to this administration’s policy is about opposition to the enforcement of immigration laws, I'm not sure what pointing out that the Obama administration deported more people in the early years of his administration than Trump has in a comparable time frame.
There's also more than a few people talking about removing the entire organization, and decriminalizing illegal border crossing (open borders) and not enforcing immigration laws. Pretending that high profile politicians are not promoting this is kind of silly.
Shutting down the legal border crossings to legal asylum seekers was not an Obama policy. Even if all the other treatment of detained persons crossing other than at designated border crossings were a continuation of Obama policies (which it's not), that alone would change the entire equation because the population targeted had changed because people who never would have crossed anywhere but at a designated crossing for the purpose for applying for asylum are now subjected to it.
OTOH, family separation was an outcome that the Obama administration chose to avoid by not detaining families with children after the court orders that forced that as the outcome of detention
> There's also more than a few people talking about removing the entire organization
Not the function of border enforcement, just the current agency given the function, parceling the function out elsewhere as a way of destroying broken organizational culture.
> and decriminalizing illegal border crossing (open borders)
Using civil enforcement (including deportation, which is a civil, not criminal, sanction) for illegal border crossing, as is done for most immigration violations (most of which are not criminal) is not “open borders”.
> and not enforcing immigration laws.
No one is talking about not enforcing border laws as a desired end state. Some people are talking about changing laws, but that is a different thing.
> Pretending that high profile politicians are not promoting this is kind of silly.
No, your description is (more than kind of) silly, and more the point simply a regurgitation of false and misleadig talking points used repeatedly against anyone criticizing the current administration on immigration.
Beyond that, it may come as a surprise humans don't act in perfectly logical ways and all of us on some level exhibit small hypocrisies on a daily basis.
In previous administrations, people in violation of immigration law were given a court date and released. The new policy is to hold the people in detention until their court date.
I understand that this sounds like a reasonable response for an administration that wants to take a hard line against illegal immigration, and I can understand why right-wing folks would support it. After all, if someone has broken the law, shouldn't they be detained until we figure out who they are and what they're doing?
Here's the problem: If you have to detain people until their hearings, that means you have to house/feed/cloth/etc them. The administration has done a poor job of this and people have died in detention. That's bad policy. If your funding doesn't match your policy, you shouldn't implement that policy knowing it will be underfunded and cause harm to humans.
Also, because parents are being detained, the children with the parents have to go somewhere, so they're being sent to detention camps for children. This is why you're hearing about "kids in cages" more now than in previous administrations. It's a bad consequence of bad policy.
Keep in mind that detaining kids is not new. It's just that in previous administrations, it was a last resort that only happened if a parent was actually a threat that needed detention, and if there was no other family arrangements that could be made to care for the kids. The reason to minimize this type of detention is the enormous psychological harm it does for young children to be ripped from their parents. Due to policy change, this is now common.
If you accept the premise that detaining people pending immigration cases is a sensible policy, at best the policy change caused massive unintentional collateral damage to children of migrants. You could even go so far as to blame Democrats for not funding massive detention centers, which is what the right is doing, but this doesn't have credibility for me. We all know you can't scale up and then be surprised when the servers shut down because you can't pay the bill. In this case, outrage is appropriate, because the administration intentionally put people in harm's way.
If instead you think it's all political theatrics, then you'd believe that the underfunded detention facilities and stripping children from families aren't actually failures, but rather are by design. In this line of reasoning, if enough migrants die in detention and they gain a reputation for being death camps, and if enough children are put through hell of being separated from family, then it will have a deterrent effect on future migration. This may "work" in a technical sense of discouraging the activity, but it's evil. If that's the argument for doing it, we might as well be intellectually honest and just start executing anyone we catch crossing the border. Trump wouldn't be the first leader to put heads on pikes. If we're intentionally harming humans on display as a deterrence policy, it's understandable why that's causing outrage as well.
In previous administrations, there wasn't outrage because this detention and separation policy wasn't in effect.
That policy change is the whole reason people are upset. It's no surprise that ICE and CBP, who carry out the policy, have developed an even worse reputation than usual. It's also not surprising that it's bad for business to work with evil organizations, once the public is aware.
Also, to preempt the obvious rebuttal: Yes, I realize that this policy change was due to public outrage over illegal immigration that put Trump in office. No, I don't think inhumane policies are a reasonable response to Trump's mandate to address illegal immigration.
edit: If you're going to downvote my understanding of this, consider leaving a comment explaining why. I'm pretty sure I've got the facts right.