Xerox or Canon (or whoever) probably makes copiers that ICE uses to make copies. Lenovo or Apple probably makes hardware that they use also to further their functions. Ford/GM probably supply ICE with vehicles. Farmers grow crops that get into their the meals that ICE personnel eat. Pilots and flight attendants probably have knowingly transported ICE employees.
Why don't the employees at all these other companies object like Github employees? Why do Github employees get a special right to withhold consent for their product to be used in a setting they might object to? Why is ICE the only company that they object to? Why do some causes get their favor and not others?
Where do we start? Where do we stop?
Often when moral question pops up on HN, the top comment is some variation of
> But where do we we draw the line?
> I wonder whether we should even try.
Counterpoint: cynicism is too easy. Actually giving a shit is harder, it's uncomfortable, it involves compromise.
Yes, there's ambiguity.
Yes, the line the law draws is very loose. Github can't legally let someone from Iran or North Korea host repos, but just about anything else is legal. If Golden Dawn (the greek fascist party) wanted to use your product, nothing legally prevents you from having them as a customer.
This is no excuse to avoid the question.
Every person has to decide for themselves the boundaries of who they're willing to work for. If you work for a company, you have a voice in that company's decisions. I think many tech workers underestimate how much power they have. Good engineers are in tremendous demand.
The most compelling arguments I found is that just because we happen to work in a field that lets us exert our influence over society doesn't make our moral sensibilities any better than the rest of society. What us privileged few who work in technology see as using our position of influence for good, many other people may see as a small minority abusing their power to manipulate society for the worse.
I think many technology worker do understand the power they have, and make the deliberate decision that refraining from exercising that power is the morally optimal choice.
I agree this is problematic. However, programmers are uniquely well situated to create a system for asking "the rest of society" questions about what kinds of systems they would like a programmer to support.
> make the deliberate decision that refraining from exercising that power is the morally optimal choice.
Quitting would be (as close as one gets to) refraining from exercising power. What you're describing is cooperating with the status quo, which is definitely an exercise of power.
Working for ICE as an engineer would be you exercising your power for ICE. But working for GitHub as an engineer, where GitHub is customer-agnostic, doesn't seem like an exercise of power to me. Anyone can use the product you build, it's not specifically for ICE. Similarly if you design a car and some cars of that design get used by ICE, that doesn't seem like an exercise of power in favor of ICE, unless you build features specifically for ICE.
Threatening to quit if GitHub continues to sell to ICE seems like an exercise of power against ICE. Silently quitting and not telling anyone why you quit I would consider a very slight exercise of power against ICE, because over time if it happens enough, businesses that deal with ICE will be less competent that businesses that don't deal with ICE, and that will harm ICE slightly.
In that sense, continuing to work for github forwards the net moral "output" of its work. Each wrong or right is weighted differently and though I think we can all agree that there is a direction amplitude is harder.
I just want to add that, in the same sense that quitting github quietly is a tiny blow against ICE, continuing to work for github silently is also clearly supportive of ice. Actions are rarely totally morally neutral, which is ok as long as we don't pretend they are.
Nevermind "good" or "bad" by the select judgement of a few privileged people -- it's whether you even bother to _consider_, or instead just claim "this is hard".
We can create influencing machines, or consensing machines. Your rightful concern is applicable to influencing machines imho. A consensing machine has no centre it's drawing people into. It's a technology for users to find and coalesce around the centres that work for them.
The things the OP is implying unnavigable are the same class of challenges we navigated hundreds of years ago with intellectual property. We thought ownership was worth controlling access over, and we made arbitrary laws to propagate that regime in the world. We could deign it worth creating processes to collectively negotiate moral right/wrong together (without presupposing the will of the steward of the tech is right/wrong) and hold ourselves to that.
The fact that we don't even bother to consider the question of "should we do this" and instead fall on "this is challenging" -- that speaks volumes to how some of us are limited in our imagining of what the sickness in society might be.
I don't mean that in a cynical or nasty way. As the years go by I get more convinced that the rise of atheism is causing some of our biggest problems in western society, and I'm not religious myself. But it seems that for all its flaws, Christianity at least was an infrastructure of people and principles that hung together in some vaguely coherent manner such that people could pose the question "Is this right? Is this good?" and either answer it themselves by reference to a book, or ask it of a full time moraliser (priest).
The reason the OP is expressing unease at this kind of tech worker "morality" is because it's wafer thin in a way that makes medieval theology look like a towering pinnacle of intellectualism.
They aren't making moral judgements of their customers consistently. ICE is targeted only because a bunch of journalists started covering it extensively as part of their anti-Trump agenda. ICE did similar things before Trump but they weren't in the news, so GitHub workers ignored it.
Moreover their morality isn't universal. ICE is bad because it hurts people who only want a better life. OK, so, should there be no borders at all? What happens then to all the American workers in marginal jobs who suddenly lose their income because an immigrant willing to live in practically sub-Saharan conditions took their job? That worker only wanted a better life too, do they not matter? If not why not? Is it because they're white and GitHub workers are racist against whites? What about other border control agencies? What about governments in general?
Christian religious morals are very far from ideal but at least make a show of being universal. You forgive those who trespass against you - it doesn't matter who they are or what they did. You forgive them. You are the good Samaritan who helps those in need. Doesn't matter who they work for. You love your neighbour. Doesn't matter if they voted for the other guy.
You're arguing that tech workers should engage with morality as if it's any other hard question that can be whiteboarded out in a few hours. But tech workers have got nothing to say on this topic that hasn't already been said hundreds of years ago. They have no special insights to provide. The rigour of their moral logic is trivial compared even to a bunch of men in funny clothes reading stories about camels out of a book written anonymously 2000 years ago. Why shouldn't they be reminded of this?
Don't you think the FSF exists as a huge counterpoint to this? The FSF deliberate makes the decision that copyleft is the morally optimal choice and forces others to comply - and I'd imagine more developers view the FSF as a good thing.
All in all, the FSF is arguing for restrictions about how one class of individuals may use what they produce and for the benefit of the other class. Just like how FSF prevents other developers from using their products to lock other users out of their software, similarly, the employees are asking to prevent ICE from using their products against the questionable imprisonment of other human beings.
But I think the main difference lies in that copyleft limits itself purely to the realm of controlling how modified software is distributed. The only thing it limits is how modified software is distributed. The only thing it requires is how modified software is distributed. When a developer writes software to be used by others, it's necessary for the developer to decide how to distributed it, and copyleft provides an answer. Copyleft doesn't venture past the developer's necessary role.
On the other hand, limiting providing stuff to ICE ventures out of the developer's necessary question of how to distribute software and now starts thinking about human suffering, jails, politics, etc. You've gone past the question of how to distribute software, and are now thinking about broader topics.
Developers are allowed to create commercial or otherwise restricted software with FSF tools like gcc.
What, then, does?
Democracy is a good idea, sure. But what happens when democracy reaches a conclusion that seems obviously unjust? Do we decide that our own sense of right and wrong must be flawed? (This is a question I have no good answer to—where should we develop our sense of right and wrong?)
Moreover, historically there are many times that democracy says something is right that the people of a later era (perhaps even just a couple years later) decide was actually wrong, and that's the reason we have constitutional limits on what voters can do—but who decides what the Constitution says? We obviously need a veto over the will of the voters, but who should we trust with it?
What if instead of technical skills you have money? Is it wrong to use money in the service of influencing political goals? (In the US, neither the voters nor the Constitution believe so, by the way.) If others are influencing society with money, is it wrong to use money to counter them?
What about speech and communications media? If you have a platform (say, you're a popular entertainer or writer or talk show host), should you use it to convince others of a particular political position? If you have many listeners and your political opponents don't, is it still okay for you to speak to your listeners, or are you a minority unjustly using your influence and power?
What about weaponry? Traditionally, military might has settled many questions of whether a government should be permitted to engage in an action. Is it unjust to go to war with a country with a smaller army? Would it have been morally optimal for the US to say, we have about 5% of the world's population, the morally optimal choice is to not interfere with World War II?
I worry the argument that it's not our place to act on our principles is popular because it's easy and comfortable—keep your job, don't rock the boat—not because it's morally compelling.
And of these groups who can influence society—the politically-well-connected-200-years-ago, the rich, the media, the military, and the technical builders—if there is an argument for any of them to exert disproportionate influence, it seems to me the strongest argument would be for the builders, since technical work necessarily requires intelligence snd systems thinking more strongly than the others do. That is, if any group is to be entrusted with a veto if the rest agree and they disagree, the builders seem most likely to have a legitimate, informed, reasoned, and non-self-serving reason for the veto.
Society, incidentally, has no stories of praising people who exercised restraint when they saw an obvious injustice and the rest of the world going along with it. It usually disdains them as weak, cowardly, and opportunistic. It does have strong praise for those who took a stand even when it seemed like their position was in the minority.
In that case, we imagine a better democracy. If someone feels empathy is what makes their local democracy work better, and the further-above larger spheres of democracy no longer embody that:
We should imagine a new democracy that optimizes for empathy, no?
Are the protesters in Hong Kong imagining a new democracy that optimizes for empathy? Did the plaintiffs in Obergefell do so? What about the soldiers at Normandy?
Is refusing to work for employers that sell to ICE part of imagining a better democracy?
You don’t need to pick and choose because ICE is splitting up families AND detaining children!
Edit: Of course asylum seekers are a different case and should not be separated.
No matter what thing you are talking about, whether technical or political decision, a decision has to be made. Once it is made, as an employee, I think you've got to either go with it or decide to go somewhere else (perhaps starting your own company if you need to). I say this as a person who obviously holds a minority point of view in most of the companies I've worked for ;-)
At the end of the day, you've got to decide if you are aligned with the ideals of the employer you work for or not. Making suggestions is one thing, but trying to put political pressure on your employer to act in a particular manner is something I would advise people to refrain from.
Engineers are a powerful class of people with the opportunity to swing their weight around on political issues like this. Some believe this opportunity should be seized for good, others believe it is just a soft form of tyranny, an undemocratic exercise of power. This is particularly true when in your own country, where you ought to use the power of the vote to make a difference.
At the same time GitHub should absolutely pay a bit more to get engineers who don't care about this issue.
We don't need to censor employees, and at the same time we shouldn't expand the moral opinions of a vocal minority of opinions to be automatically indicative of what GitHub "should" do. What Github "should" do is replace these employees who are exercising their right to quit.
Why? If it's within your power to prevent your work from being put to use in service of something you find immoral, why not attempt to organize with like-minded workers and put a stop to it?
If you can force your company to make a choice between a contract and its workforce, you can achieve your goal. There's no reason to let things go.
> Why do Github employees get a special right to withhold consent for their product to be used in a setting they might object to?
Because they have, or may have, the power to do so. If they can take control of their work, there's no reason not to do so.
EDITED TO ADD:
> Why don't the employees at all these other companies object like Github employees?
They either don't object, or don't have the power within the company to object effectively.
With these kinds of contracts it feels much more akin to a partnership, so I think the feedback makes more sense. Its odd to me that we question why employees would want to have a say in how their company conducts business. Sure, its a choice for the company to make, but saying it is entitled for the employees to speak out just seems insane to me.
Wokeness and the recent trend of trying to cancel anything that doesn't align within a narrow spectrum of progressive viewpoints is a big reason here.
That's not to say its a good practice or policy but nothing there looks like its any different for ICE detainees.
"Prisoners are being forced to work for almost no pay, its modern day slavery."
"Yeah but think about jury duty, I'm the real slave labour in my middle class lifestyle, having to participate the function of my democracy."
I'm sure you think that taxation is theft as well.
Maybe you and GP are not seeing the stories because the outlets you read choose not to cover this
Simply saying they are doing bad things is reducing the problems to a soundbite.
It is entirely possible to curtail the number of people coming here once there is NO work or services for them. It works, and we know it works, because we have done it before.
No one wants to "solve it" because our entire food supply and production (meat packing to local restaurants) is powered by illegal immigrants. Lawn care, construction, plenty of industries run on cheap (illegal) immigrant labor.
I'd be completely in favor of that. Especially in the recent case where ICE raided a factory in the south owned by the Koch brothers. We need congress to act on that though as AFAIK there is not a current framework to prosecute businesses for it.
> No one wants to "solve it" because our entire food supply and production (meat packing to local restaurants) is powered by illegal immigrants. Lawn care, construction, plenty of industries run on cheap (illegal) immigrant labor.
I agree. Once we stop the illegal flow we could start offering more work visas and other things to the people already here and newcomers. But without stopping the flow the people doing it the legal (hard) way are now competing against the illegal migrants leaving little incentive to do it right.
Trump is kind of a hypocrite on this point: he happily hires illegal labour because it's cheap, but then wants to put up walls politically.
FYI I believe that illegal labour is a major source of economic inequality as well: it hurts the working class the most, and the gains go to capital and middle class.
I got 5 replies in a span of 5 minutes. I can't respond that fast with the detail and nuance of my positions.
> Also, 300k/year was the maximum in 2000.
And now we are up to 500k last year, and another 950k this year. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
I'm not arguing in their favor. I would like nothing more than for us to have strong border control and a functional immigration system that isn't overloaded with false asylum claims so that the real ones can get through. We definitely need to overhaul things like the H1B programs as well.
My argument here is that no country's immigration system could handle this type of steady influx of 100k+ people per month  exploiting the asylum claims. Many of which only claim such after they illegally cross (yes i know you can technically claim whenever, but that's mighty convenient after crossing illegally).
The systems were not built for this kind of thing. Basically under current law you have the choice to detain people until their asylum case is heard or release them on their own recognizance inside the country and hope they return for court. The family separation thing has happened because of a court ruling saying that kids and adults couldn't be detained together because of abuse concerns. If the same thing happened to Canada their systems would be in shambles just like ours. There needs to be a mixture of border security and fixes to immigration law to remedy this problem but none of that can happen while Congress sits on it's hands playing politics.
Source? Last I checked the system was still drastically in need of border patrol, immigration judges, case workers, beds to house people, etc. Those things can't just spin up in a week and be effective.
The system was already desperately in need of resources before Trump added this strain. We could go back to an Obama-era level of need, but instead we've chosen to ramp up the problem and force this outcome.
The former did not work and was infamous as the "catch and release" policy. Detainment could work in principal but the overflow of the system has caused long wait times, overcrowded facilities and not enough staff to handle the cases. If you suddenly switched back to catch and release we would most likely have a greater influx of people coming in who have no valid claim to asylum and would not show up to their court date. It's a shitty problem all around.
And pretending that an overcrowded detention system is a concentration camp is disingenuous at best. If that was the case then California's prison system has been a network of concentration camps for years as they have dealt with constant overcrowding and problems.
People who cross national borders, without documentation, and not at designated points of entry, are NOT "immigrants". They are illegal aliens. People need to stop conflating the two.
One of these means is lengthening the asylum-seeking process and requirements. Another is reducing the allowed number of successful asylum seekers through informal quotas.
The current administration has done both. They are intentionally gumming up the asylum system in order to make good on their campaign promises.
"It's the fault of invalid economic migrants" is a talking point.
HN loves to rail against the corrupt H1-B system, but apparently actually getting asylum seekers is amoral.
What would be more honest is to say “I don’t like cheap tech labor, so therefore clamping down on H1-Bs is good.” And “I don’t like the Trump administration and I want an open immigration system, so what Trump is doing to asylum seekers is bad.”
It’s all politics.
Also, claiming asylum because of local criminal elements (non-state actors) is an automatic no-go for an asylum claim.
(Note, Obama's DOJ fucked this one up by letting an immigration judge (unlawfully) grant an asylum claim because of local non-state criminal threats.) Hence, the flood gates opened and people began sending women and children first, rather than adults to sneak in and find work.
It is lengthening the process no matter how I or anyone "sees" it. It's comparative, I didn't give a value judgement.
It is all politics. Part of the current administration's campaign promises was to let in less immigrants. They now take political moves to do so, including lengthening the asylum process.
There are other reasons besides not liking cheap tech labor to not like H1-B visas. Because they are tied to employers, workers that hold them are easier to abuse, as they have few other options. Other people don't like that it is based on a lottery system, and so companies that request the most H1B visas will get the most H1B visas.
It is not dissonant to believe that H1B should be reduced or removed in its entirety but other visas and legal immigration avenues should be also be opened up.
Edit: arguing about the legality of the asylum seekers is also missing the point.
It's easy to pretend you're fellow Americans are monsters, but they're not.
No, they are people fleeing violence in Central America through Mexico, in large part.
That violence, incidentally, is in substantial part resulting from the US training nonviolent drug war criminals into extremely violent criminals in its original and then deporting then to Central America what they have no substantial roots.
If you are passing through one country because you desire to get to a specific destination, you are basically asylum shopping.
Even nativist politicians making incorrect claims about the law here tend to claim it requires efforts to seek asylum in the first safe country, which even if true would, in fact, fully take into account the problem of an intervening country that shared the same problem being fled from in the country of nationality or habitual residence. See, e.g., referring to this claim:
> These aren't people fleeing genocide.
You as an American should not go there, but them fleeing here is problematic?
They call it “cancel culture” when it is their ox getting gored, but it is not as if no one told them what the harvest is like when you sow the wind...
But I think a fair point of view is that it would be GREAT if the employees of Xerox and Canon and Lenovo and Apple and Ford and the airlines and even the farmers all took the same stance as GH employees.
If that actually happened, ICE would cease to be able to function incredibly quickly.
Which would be good. This is basically the point of these protests.
If you had said "ICE would be forced to reconsider its inhumane methods which have lead to its terrible reputation" - a lot more people would agree with you. There have been a number of polls done over the past year or two which show that only about 25% support abolishing ICE, the majority oppose. I think almost everyone would agree that they need to do their job with a lot more empathy and humanity, so protests are good, but the goal should be to get them to clean up their act, it would be a mistake (and not supported by the people) to try to get rid of the immigrations and customs enforcement function entirely.
Whether that happens because the organization reforms or because the organization ceases to exists is a secondary concern.
Government programs NEVER just end, and certainly not do to simple supply disruptions. So they won't STOP doing bad things, they'll just continue to do bad things with even less resources, making the net effects even worse. Eventually you might end up with ICE detention centers that would make a FOB in Iraq look like a palace. All you need is triple-strand concertina wire, some 55-gal drums cut in half (for burning human waste), and a bunch of plywood.
Law of unintended consequences....
In addition, "Government programs NEVER just end" is also obviously incorrect. Our government once had a program of segregating black people from large swaths of society. This program, thankfully, no longer exists.
And about one of every 10 agents in Homeland Security’s investigative section — which deals with all kinds of threats, including terrorism — is now assigned to child sexual exploitation cases.
It is, apparently, the judgement of a large swatch of GH employees that whatever good ICE does, it is not outweighed by the bad. Given that, I believe their actions make sense.
When an organization is doing some good things, and some bad things, is the best course of action to prevent the organization from doing both good and bad things? In the case of ICE, would it not be more effective to pursue a strategy of more targeted reforms that address the unethical immigration enforcement actions without stopping the other divisions pursuing investigations into human rights violations and child exploitation cases?
My concern here is that empathy for children being negatively impacted by immigration policies, while valid, doesn't imply we should act out indiscriminately against the entire ICE organization. Balancing the needs of victims of bad immigration policies against the needs of victims of criminal activity shouldn't be a zero-sum game, and making gains for one group shouldn't come at the expense of the other.
This is fine, because employees are not in principle slaves. They do have a right to tell their employers to go fuck themselves "at will", just as the opposite is true. Anybody who takes a stand like this is exercising a privilege that not everybody enjoys, sure, but you're running with that in a suppressive direction (why should Github employees get to be special if not everyone can be special, and by the way (gasp) what if they aren't perfectly logical and fair in their activism?) while I'd go the other way: in an ideal world everybody would enjoy this privilege, and any workers who can take a stand for what they believe in certainly should.
The alternative is that corporate leaders alone are responsible for imposing ethics on the markets they play in, and we all know the sorts of decisions such people tend to make.
Because those companies aren't based in the woke-wasteland of San Francisco bay area.
also, quite wrong. microsoft , amazon , not bay area companies.
Well if a business fostered a culture where it's deemed acceptable to question who the business should or shouldn't be working with, nobody can blame the employees for doing exactly what they were incentivized to do.
Plenty of businesses would fired a rebellious employee on the spot without a second thought, or at the very least ask him to resign if he dares question managements on a matter that is neither legally questionable or related to the employee's work conditions, for instance, a group of employees that would be asking management to boycott a certain country.
Seems it is a different culture at GitHub,Google or Facebook where apparently questioning management is a virtue.
I see nothing wrong with that. It's their own doing.
The counter question is how much should a person turn a blind eye (and so implicitly endorse) the uses of your product?
In this case at least, there was a donation made that would not have happened otherwise.
I'm not under the impression that gitlab employees are complaining about the first (surely ICE employees and contractors can make use of the myriads of repositories gitlab makes available to the world at large). They are reacting negatively to specific contracts gitlab has with ICE.
Also for people who draw comparison with discrimination against individuals: Companies, agencies and organizations aren’t “discriminated” against in the same sense as individuals. I am not aware of any legislation where it’s considered wrongly discriminatory to decline B2B contracts.
The moment salaried employee start sabotaging his job and putting his views against his job description - it's clearly time for him to reconsider employment at a place that better matches his priorities.
Win-win for all, no struggle needed.
Shareholder I am - but lets get realistic.
Lol, there is a small difference between few shares and few $billion worth of shares. Latter' voice is easier to be heard.
Is ICE the only thing on GitHub that is morally questionable?
I would venture to guess NO. I would venture to guess that all sorts of things on GitHub are used in illicit, illegal, or morally repressible ways.
Why do you ask question in such a biased frame?
Why don't you ask instead:
Why don't other companies have moral standards?
Aside from the compensation, anything you have implied beyond this is just augmentation derived from capitalism and acceptance of the status quo. Saying "I don't like what you are doing with the thing I am producing for you, so I may stop offering you services" is just...basic human communication. I really can't see how there is any more to this?
You speak with such absolute authority ("You have to let certain control go after a point."). However, this story (and others like it) are proof that this is untrue. Your assertion is false.
Just because somebody is an employee, it does not mean they lose all bargaining power / agency. If you are exchanging goods or services with someone else in a scenario where the power dynamic is not entirely one-sided, there is always room for negotiation. This is all that's happening.
Just because you don't care about how your stuff is used, doesn't mean that it applies to everyone.
I like the way you have framed the argument.
It says more about your own morals that you think it is.
There are two questions here: whether GitHub should allow ICE to buy its software, and whether employees should influence the direction of their company via protests, petitions, and threats to quit.
GitHub specifics aside, I think employees absolutely should organize and quit over issues they feel strongly about (at least when they have the flexibility to find other jobs). Company policy should be guided by the people who work there, and the a company's leadership structure is set up well to resolve the conflict.
It's not really an apples to apples comparison.
In 100% of cases where I've known a small company that got bought by a much bigger company, this has occurred. It's amazing anyone still believes that their small company can get bought and somehow they'll be able to preserve (what they think is) their "company culture".
If it was “toxic” before and still managed to decline, that sounds even worse!
One of the many keys is aligned incentives and values. If there's even a small 1-2 degree difference in the direction you and your acquirer would like to head in, that gap will widen into a vast chasm given enough time.
Also, kudos to the leadership at Stripe. They're intelligent, well-meaning, and they get it.
I'd also like to point out that a small company can be so toxic that the employees would welcome any change in leadership -- because anything different can bring temporary relief.
Has anyone ever believed that?
One of the common ones is that they will have a large enough say to keep the culture of the small company intact and often say things like “we’re just going to continue being ourselves but with more funding or resources or XYZ so it’s really great!”
In the end, they don’t accept the fact that the larger company’s values/culture is their company now and they can try to enact change as much as they want but they are no longer the key decision maker for the company overall.
For a public company at scale, it’s incredibly hard to 1.) grow exponentially or greatly and 2.) keep the hiring bar high enough to maintain your culture. There’s a trade-off made there that you’re public & you cannot slow growth at the risk of upsetting shareholders but it’s a catch-22 cause you can’t also let your salaries go out of control to hire the right talent for your culture cause you have to explain that cost increase to your stakeholders.
JWZ — or maybe Spolsky — wrote about (a more general case of) this. You can either grow fast, or maintain company culture. You can’t do both.
Being bought by a larger company is just one case of growing really fast all at once.
When the rank and file realize there is no lottery ticket for them, or that they are the lottery ticket, then there's a lot of burnout.
And yes, I am fun in interviews. :)
But for all n where n > 1, no.
From issue to issue I hear about various forms of employees making themselves heard but it is REALLY hard to jive with what that means.
We've seen Google employees post about some ideas that seemed to be genuinely popular (measure that how you will...) but later ideas or advocacy were reportedly far less supported by the general employees, but news reports seem to reports that don't know / specify make it sound like issue to issue "employee anger" is somehow uniform / equally supported each time.
I've worked enough places to see a popular topic / concern taken by the same employee advocates into new topics that very much were not popular.
As with any large community of people, there are some who are more vocal than others. Call them what you want (protestors/agitators/woke/etc), but I get the feeling that they're getting a disproportionately large amount of focus from the media and I guess management.
Certainly in my experience at an unnamed employer, the first I heard about protests and problems at my work place was when I read about it on the internet - there was nothing in my immediate workplace at all to suggest any of what was reported was actually even happening, let alone pervasive.
Explicitly so. Loud voices make headlines, headlines get clicks, clicks get ad revenue. The entire industry is geared to produce maximum clicks and, ergo, maximum loud voice. This has been the theme for a while now.
The issue, though, is that Management can ignore a couple of angry cranks -- or just fire them -- but they can't avoid news articles.
(It's also amusing to see that sometimes shift when they get their citizenship; I had a Japanese classmate in college who was on first a student visa, then an H1B, then a green card for about 15 years. He had zero political opinions for the whole time I knew him. As soon as he got his citizenship, he's active in local politics. It's more about urban planning, transit, and YIMBY efforts than immigration, though.)
Where the hell are you working? I'm going to call bullshit, because it's really not that easy to get a work visa in the US. You're saying 90% of your colleagues weren't US citizens?
A similar dynamic works on sex, as well. About half of the teams I worked at were roughly 40% women; the other half of them had zero women. Women are generally reluctant to join a team where they will be the only woman, and also word gets around about who the female-friendly managers are. So those female-friendly managers get teams that are close to 50% female, while other managers get teams of zero women. (Statistically, Google Engineering was about 10% female and IIRC 50-60% foreign-born, which means that I encountered about twice as many women that I would've been predicted to and about half as many foreigners. I wonder what that says about my personality.)
At other companies like Google and Microsoft I've had plenty of immigrant colleagues along with colleagues at offices overseas. Some eventually choose to return to their home country, some migrate here after starting at the employer.
The main game studio I worked for also had lots of chinese and korean immigrants on staff, but I suspect that was influenced by the parent company being korean.
Will people please consider a moment's thought before using this adolescent phrase? People throwing it around are probably not using it with its most precise and defensible meaning (a la Harry Frankfurt). So the most charitable alternative gloss is that it's used carelessly to mean someone is just wrong. It's a very poor (because ambiguous) word choice for that. I suspect it's usually deployed to suggest someone is lying, for which you need specific evidence beyond believing a statement to be incorrect. That evidence is very rarely available in an HN comment.
It's hard to be thoughtful about using language, and I'm no exemplar. But a good start is just avoiding reflexively spitting out some rarely useful prefabricated phrases. This is one.
(Spoilers: personal observation, it's pretty broken.)
In my anecdotal experience it's not so simple.
I would think a large contingent of GitHub employees want the people working at ICE to be using the best tools possible to achieve their mission. Many are probably quite proud of US government agencies using their tools, the same as if NASA or Executive Branch or Congress was using Github.
IMO it’s a very difficult situation when certain employees are arranging political protests against specific customers of the company, and making other employees uncomfortable to express their own potentially divergent viewpoints.
I know many people with visas that are against illegal immigration. Don't assume that everyone who's not from the US hates ICE and supports unfettered immigration.
One of my main reasons for opposing illegal immigration is that it's contrary to the rule of law. It subverts the democratic process, and makes suckers of anybody who does try to follow these laws. I'm actually a big fan of legal immigration.
But I rarely (never?) hear this distinction made in public statements by advocates of illegal immigration. At least in public, they seem to assume that anybody who opposes illegal immigration opposes all immigration, and even worse, does so out of ignorance or bigotry.
Assuming I'm not the only person with my particular views, that conflation is infuriating. I can only hope it's done unwittingly.
If a law is consistently and chronicallhy broken (and especially if the harm for breaking said law is minimal), at some point one must ask if the law is too incompatible with human behavior to justify enforcement or existence.
I don't think anyone "soft on illegal immigration" is against legal immigration. But they may very well be against the laws as they currently stand, because the laws are demonstrably shaped by racist intent; the national quota system used to decide people per year from each country where very much structured out of fear of a "browning" of America.
I'm much less sympathetic to people breaking U.S. immigration law because they want greater economic opportunity for themselves or their children.
That said, I can't argue back to first principles why my preferred balance of virtue maximization / vice minimization is objectively better than anyone else's. So if we're being completely honest, I can't advocate even my own position in good conscience.
Why You Shouldn’t Use the Term “Illegals”
Not only is it offensive, it's dehumanizing.
Well-cited article with numerous references. Teen Vogue has become quite serious of late.
> for using common terminology in a way you don’t like.
When did it become common terminology? I am 47 years old and don't remember that term ever being used until the last presidential election as a means to vilify people of color.
Maybe I just wasn't paying attention the other 44 years?
Unfortunately any word used to describe a population that people don't like will stop being a descriptor and become a slur if it's used long enough.
CBS 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8xTJ8WCGNU
Forbes 2015: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/06/05/obamas-im...
The Nation 2007: https://www.thenation.com/article/what-america-owes-its-ille...
NY Times 2015:https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/magazine/the-unwelcome-re...
Brookings Institution 1996: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-separate-legal-illega...
'Illegal', while possibly indelicate, gets to the root of the immigration discussion...people sidestepping the process of lawfully entering the US because it's too difficult for them or too slow for their circumstances or just impossible because they are ineligible.
Saying that everyone that's against illegal/unlawful/undocumented immigration to this country is also against immigration in general and is racist is a grotesque abuse of logic. Take a poll of people that took the long road to get to the US, I'm sure you'll find lots of 'racists' there.
Have you ever heard of dog whistles?
Anyways, Ive never met someone that says things like this but also opposed efforts to reduce legal immigration like the RAISE act or refugee/travel bans. As it turns out, there’s a high correlation!
An equivalent with your driving example would be "illegal speeding" (as opposed to, say, an ambulance, which can legally be given permission to speed).
The big difference is that "illegal alien" really does refer to a person simply existing in a country they are not supposed to be in, rather than an action like speeding, hence why shortening it to just the adjective "illegals" works. It describes a state of being, just like "asian" or "programmer".
Correct, I have no issue with the term: "illegal alien"
> shortening it to just the adjective "illegals" works
in a derogatory manner
Americans don't, typically, describe people who received a parking ticket, or a speeding ticket, as criminals. In the same way, most people have not, historically, referred to people overstaying or working while on non-work visas, as illegals.
Melania Trump makes a particularly good example for this. Her profession as a model is high status, so the allegations that she worked without an appropriate visa in the US in the mid 90s does not generally lead to people calling her a criminal.
Case in point, I have a young lady on my team at work that came to the US to receive her masters in computer science, and is presently employed on a STEM OPT extension to her F1 visa. We have tried twice to get her H1-B and she hasn't been picked up. Next year will be the last try, and we're unsuccessful she will be kicked out of the US to no press or protest. She's a wonderful person and has been a true asset to my team and the company, she did everything 'right' and yet may have to leave. However if we do the exact same thing to someone that skipped all of those formalities and broke the rules, it's somehow racist and nationalist and practically a human rights violation?
I get it, calling these folks 'illegals' is a bit crass. But it's more precise than calling them 'immigrants' because it's a special case of immigrant that we're talking about, one is distinct not because of race or color or country of origin, but because of legal status.
If you are still here to be deported after your time is up, you haven't followed all the rules, since leaving no later than when your time is up is, itself, a requirement of the rules.
On the other hand, while people who are concerned with the recent border crossers being denied the right to apply for asylum, or being held in humane conditions, may not be concerned about those visa overstayers who are not facing either of those problems, the people who are concerned with the leniency for those illegally present who have done nothing seriously wrong beyond immigration violations tend to be just as well inclined to visa overstayers as any other person illegally present; the distinction you suggest is not accurate.
You consider wrong. Doubly wrong since race has nothing to do with it (there are illegal immigrants of all races, just as there are people of all races on all sides of the immigration debate).
> If so that is an illegal activity so maybe you are also an 'illegal'?
Within the context of driving, yes. You can be called "illegal driver" or "criminal driver" if your behavior raised to the level of a crime (e.g. something like DUI and causing a crash). But we aren't discussing driving here, so no.
> Maybe I am way off base?
Yes, you are.
I can't see the gp comment, but from what you're quoting, I feel compelled to correct you.
gp doesn't say that the people who use the term "illegals" are racist "because" they say illegals. gp just says that it's a comment, in their experience, that's used by racists.
there's an important difference, do you see it?
>> Maybe I am way off base?
> Yes, you are.
nah, not this time.
Technically, almost every expression imaginable could be used by somebody who is racist. Racism does not make one incapable of using language in the same way non-racist people do, so every expression can be - and usually would be - used by racists. Words "a", "and" and "the" are used by racists. Obviously, the distinction is only meaningful when the expression is exclusively or predominantly used by racists, and for a reason that it aligns with their views are racists. That, in this case, is completely false.
> nah, not this time.
Yah, this very time.
you seem to be having a hard time with this. Let me paraphrase something that, if you have an open mind, might help elucidate the issue.
"I'm not saying that everyone who says, 'illegals' is racist, but an awful lot of racists like to say, 'illegals'"
> Yah, this very time.
It may come as a surprise to you, but when people disagree with you, it's usually not because they don't understand the infinite wisdom of your words. It's often because they understand and think you're talking nonsense. And sometimes - like in this case - it's because you are.
> an awful lot of racists like to say, 'illegals'"
So what? Awful lot of racists also like to say "hello" and "breakfast" and "cat" and "good evening". Obviously, that doesn't make these expressions taboo. It would only be meaningful if the link went the other direction - if this designation was predominantly used by racists. So what you're doing here is trying to imply it's the case, by stating the reverse and hinting there's a casual link, but because your case for it is so weak that it would not tolerate direct confrontation, you avoid telling it directly. So that, when challenged, you can feign innocence and cry "I didn't say it's racist, I just said it's used by racist!". Taken literally, you didn't, but you words only have any meaning if that's exactly what you tried to imply without saying it directly, as to avoid being confronted and revealed as falsity. This is an insincere and I'd even say cowardly way to discuss things - casting implications without daring to stand behind them and defend them.
this is the second time you've said essentially, "racists say a lot of other things too, so clearly 'illegals' isn't racist". that's not a particularly helpful or clever point.
are there non-racist people who say "illegals"? sure. do most people understand the racist connotations of the term, "illegals"? yeah, most do. does the original commenter probably understand the connotations? yeah, good bet they do.
do you? I honestly don't care.
I pose this question for you: are there other, non racially charged ways to describe someone's immigration status?
anyway, like I said, elucidating the point only works if you have an open mind. I guess yours isn't.
That's called "circular arfument" - you proclaim that this term is racist and prove it by proclaiming - without any evidence - that "most people" (who?) "understand" that it is racist. What you do is just repeating your original - baseless - claim.
> do you? I honestly don't care
So, being unable to prove your point, or somehow substantiate the claim that calling acts that are agains the law "illegal" is somehow "racist" (tbh, you shouldn't blame yourself too hard for the failure - it's very hard to prove something this idiotic, but you definitely should blame yourself for proclaiming it in the first place, as you should know better) - you resort to denigrating me personally and feigning indifference to my opinion (after all the discussion) because you are so much smarter than me (and the way these smarts are revealed is by mindlessly repeating a slogan which you are unable to substantiate).
> are there other, non racially charged ways to describe someone's immigration status?
Yes, here's one: if someone immigrated legally, she's a legal immigrant. If someone immigrated illegally, she's an illegal immigrant. Nothing to do with race. See how easy it was? Of course, if you tend to reflexively call whoever disagrees with you "racist", it may become harder. But that's exactly the reason to get rid of that foolish tic.
first, it's whom, not who.
second, i didn't claim that it's racist because people know that it's racist.
learn from google, learn from teen vogue.
you bring nothing novel or new or clever to this conversation.
bye, dude. you're intellectually dishonest. even worse, you're boring.
That's the best you can do? "Dude".
> learn from teen vogue
Stephen Pinker explains it well:
By your logic, you are also “an illegal”, because you, too, have broken the law. Everyone is.
But you don’t use it this way. You use it exclusively to define foreigners as bad, as if the law’s opinion about a person’s actions is relevant to their identity.
Actions are illegal. People are not.
This being the case, the situation is generally one of fraud. Some states consider all cases of identity theft to be felonies, while other states can charge the crime either way.
Even names on a petition don't mean much - the kind of people that like to solicit for signatures on petitions are often so insufferable that you sign to make them go away and leave you in peace.
If you're seeing abuse on HN you should take that up with us at firstname.lastname@example.org, not come to the threads to violate the site guidelines. If your concern is the truth, there are better ways to defend it that don't violate the guidelines. If you want to smite enemies, that's not what this site is for.
For example, it seems reasonable to guess that they might be using their Github deployment to help run the National Child Victim Identification System:
The National Child Victim Identification System (NCVIS), owned by U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), is an application that assists federal, state, local, and international law enforcement agencies, INTERPOL, and other supporting organizations, such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) (hereafter, authorized partners) in the investigation and prosecution of child exploitation crimes, specifically those involving images of child sexual exploitation.
From the article:
> In 2019, many experts, including Andrea Pitzer, the author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, have acknowledged the designation of the detention centers as "concentration camps"   particularly given that the centers, previously cited by Texas officials for more than 150 health violations  and reported deaths in custody, reflect a record typical of the history of deliberate substandard healthcare and nutrition in concentration camps. Though some organizations have tried to resist the "concentration camp" label for these facilities,   hundreds of Holocaust and genocide scholars rejected this resistance via an open letter addressed to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. 
15 deaths in ICE detention centers. If you add 2017 it would be about 25.
I have family who immigrated to the US last year with their children. We have the largest immigrant population and we want people to come here.
Seems like a pretty low bar for defining the term, and obscures the pretty real distinctions in overall human suffering that occur at different places.
I don't think you can call something a strawman if the idea seems to actually have wide support.
I realize that the common quick answer these days is to harshly reject people and organizations we deeply disagree with.
But, there may be some things worth pondering, like...
Is there a way technology companies can influence these organizations and the situations of the people they touch for the better? For example, ICE is going to do what's it's going to do whether or not GitHub has a contract with them. Is there a way that technologies from companies can help ICE and organizations like it treat the people they deal with better? Does that make a difference?
I'm not suggesting an opinion on this particular case. Just offering this up as an opportunity to go deeper than we tend to these days.
One thing GitHub could have done, if it was serious about its "but ICE also stops human trafficking and terrorists" narrative, is insisted on selling them professional services / consulting work (perhaps at a discount - they'd already decided to donate more than the revenue of the contract, so working for ICE out of the goodness of their hearts is definitely not out of the question) which let them understand what teams and projects at ICE are using their work and how. But in their letter to employees, they listed it as a positive that they weren't doing this, they just gave ICE the product and told them to have fun. https://github.blog/2019-10-09-github-and-us-government-deve...
"GitHub does not have a professional services agreement with ICE, and GitHub is not consulting with ICE on any of their projects or initiatives. GitHub has no visibility into how this software is being used, other than presumably for software development and version control."
I think if you believed you could make some change for the better working within the system, the way to start is by, first, deciding what your principles are and what your approach is when your customer wants to be at odds with that (refuse to support projects you disagree with? try to change hearts and minds? etc.) in a codified way and getting agreement within the company on it, and second, insisting on a close enough consulting relationship where you can enforce that. (I also suspect that unless you have an uncommonly good product, most customers won't be a fan and will just buy from someone else.)
Also GitHub, being a platform and not a direct tool for work, isn't really in a great position to influence ICE's work. "You can check in the code you use to track terrorists, but not the code you use to track DACA recipients" isn't particularly technically meaningful.
What? With the ethical compass those surveillance system running, addiction-pushing assholes have? We should be talking about how to dial down their power in society.
If they want to repent for their lack of self control in their own actions by pushing their moral standards onto others, then they can go get fucked.
People will come up with all sorts of reasons to convince themselves to take blood money, but surely they're self delusions at best.
The argument basically boils down to supporting literally anything. If enough people start saying “no, we won’t support that”, it pushes up the price of the behaviour, and could eventually lead to the entire industry dropping support - for example when all the pharmaceutical companies decide to stop allowing their drugs to be used for executions.
We are largely a nation of immigrants. We've lost sight of our roots. Its proper to stand up against this inhumane and unnecessary behavior. The government is experiencing social consequences of its own making.
> Making people sleep in cages
There was a spike in the number of illegal immigrants in the last few years, facilities were swamped. This was an unfortunate but temporary measure. It would be more irresponsible to just release people into the country without establishing their identity, criminal history, or a suitable guardian (for children).
> Limiting supplies / legal assistance
There are a finite resources, especially when one party sees every penny spent on immigration matters as "racist". Politicians were sounding the alarms months before this reached crisis-levels, but the other side refused to release a single penny until after it reached critical levels.
> Separating families
When an adult and a child arrive illegally with no documents you have two major facts to deal with: the adult has just broken a law, and you cannot establish familial ties. Given the extent of child trafficking, would you rather just give any adult that says "that's my child" custody, or would you rather separate the child from the adult until you can establish if that is actually a parent? You are damned either way because your critics will say you're "separating families" or "you're a pedophile helping traffic children". Personally, I would rather be told I'm splitting families than enabling child trafficking, but I could see the argument against that preference.
So at the end of the day none of these things are happening because of white nationalism. They are happening because of an inability to control illegal immigration rates, a lack of funding for facilities, materials, and legal aid; and in order to protect minors who may be trafficked.
To me, that is the real problem. One side of the media/political spectrum has decided it's white nationalism. The other sees it as something that has to be done because the alternative is worst. And to be charitable, I am sure there is a tiny fraction of a percent of a segment of the population and people involved who are white nationalists, but to think that's the motivating force is to dismiss the vast majority of people who have good intentions.
What is also exponentially annoying is that both sides have become so polarized that they will never work together on this.
Many of these people who were being caged are people who claimed asylum at the border points of entry; they were not illegal immigrants, nor did they try to sneak in. The correct thing to do in this situation of not having enough room would be to release them into the country pending their asylum hearing, rather than locking them up in substandard, inhumane, occasionally deadly accommodations.
> The asylum seeker must prove to the officer that there is a “significant possibility” he or she is eligible for asylum, and must also be subject to a credibility assessment. If the officer makes a positive finding, the asylum seeker is referred to an immigration court where they will have the opportunity to apply for asylum before an immigration judge. If the individual does not meet the credible fear screening standard, he or she can be deported.
That process ideally happens in a few days, but a system to designed to handle 5,000 people a month getting 100,000 requests a month is going to take longer. In the meantime, those applicants cannot simply be released into the interior.
The onus is on Congress to appropriate the necessary funding to allow for expedited and humane treatment and proper facilities for processing the number of people who are crossing. As long as Congress refuses to provide the funds, the agencies are left to enforce the nations immigration laws without the proper resources, staffing, or even possibly basic sanitation, bedding, clothes, etc.
> There was a spike in the number of illegal immigrants in the last few years, facilities were swamped. This was an unfortunate but temporary measure.
It is still going on. It is not okay.
> It would be more irresponsible to just release people into the country without establishing their identity, criminal history, or a suitable guardian (for children).
They are not keeping people until they "established their identity". There is not a process where they keep people asking for asylum locked up only until they establish their identity and no longer, that's just not how it works.
These are weird excuses for taking people fleeing danger imprisoning them in truly abominable conditions, for the sin of asking for asylum.
"These things" are happening because the government intentionally decided to treat people asking for asylum _as bad as they could_, in order to discourage people from doing it, and look good to those who just want to treat them bad. This is all well-documented. It was not some kind of forced hand, the level of asylum seekers and other migrants was not substantially different from the past couple decades. Whether it was because of "white nationalism" I suppose depends on what was in the hearts and minds of the decision-makers, but it's pretty darn clear they consciously decided to treat migrants like animals (worse than you are allowed to treat pets really) and it is disgusting, and it is TERRIFYING to me that so many Americans like you think it's okay, because if it's okay to treat anyone like that, why couldn't any of us be next?
We are setting a terrible precedent on the international stage for how people fleeing danger are treated. That's a lot of false confidence that nobody we know will ever be in that situation. More and more of us will be though.
What's your source for this? This site indicates otherwise (even the 10-year chart shows a huge growth in applications). And this article states 800,000 people detained so far this year. I'm sure ICE and CBP's infrastructure and processes were never meant to handle populations of this size. Also, note that in  many of these people are asylum shopping.
>>>We are setting a terrible precedent on the international stage for how people fleeing danger are treated.
The precedent has already been set: impoverished people the world over know that if they are willing to accept some risk, they can lie their way into the US and get free stuff. People are kidnapping kids so they can pretend they are family. Migrants from central Africa have NGOs providing them with French-language documents on not cooperating with ICE or the US government. These people are buying plane tickets to Brazil, then taking buses ALLLLLL the way up Central America (lots of places to stop and apply for asylum there) so they can illegally cross the border into the US. Who is paying the salaries for these NGOs? And WHY? Those are the hard questions that aren't being asked. The narrative is one that appeals to empathy in order to obscure deeper issues.
Look at this article. It tries to paint a picture that the rights of African migrants are somehow being infringed upon because Mexico is not enabling them to move onward to the US. But this is specifically discouraged once you are out of your country of origin and no longer in immediate danger. So again, ask yourself, why is this narrative being pushed? And why now?
We could choose to do things differently and treat people with the dignity and respect that we all deserve as humans. No matter the color of our skin.
Making people sleep in cages on concrete
Rhetoric matters, and planting the concept in the public discourse that they see undocumented immigrants as rapists and murderers has done this administration no favors.
The people who are carrying the torch of this mentality were teenagers and twenty-something during the Obama administration. Now they are all grown ups.
The better question is, why were Boomers so willing to go along with these policies (and far worse) for decade after decade?
It comes down to nothing more than scoring political points.
Sure standardUser might have thought it immoral all along, but did he attack both parties (when in power) with the same zeal?
Your history is off. Obama tried to shut it down until it was overturned by Congress.
As soon as the political reality of transferring the prisoners became apparent, all Congressmen blocked the closure of Gitmo. No one wanted to take the prisoners into their own state. No one wanted to be the Senator or Representative to say "I accepted 100 Al-Qaeda detainees into our local prisons! And now our local judges have to put into public trial under our protection, with jury members selected from our State / Cities"
So on the one hand, we had President Bush literally open Gitmo. In the other hand, we have President Obama who tried to close it... but failed because of other more powerful political forces. And yet, you draw a false equivalence between the two.
EDIT: This hits a political pet peeve of mine. False equivalence and whataboutisms. Instead of seeing the differences, a political group deploys propaganda to get their side to believe that there's a false-equivalence on an issue.
And now that you're aware of false-equivalences, I hope that moving forward you'll be better equipped to avoid them in the future. Its an exceptionally powerful propaganda technique. In general, if a group is desperately deploying propaganda to make you believe that two things are equivalent... they probably aren't equivalent.
If you do not wish to discuss a matter seriously, then there's no real point in discussing it at all. This website mostly aims at a higher level of discussion than other websites.
Obama tried to shut it down
 - https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/senate-overwhelmingly...
Obama got plenty of criticism from the left for things like drone strikes, extrajudicial killings, deportations, the intervention in Libya, the weakness of Obamacare and TPP to name a few. Most of this was during his second term (when that massive group of people I keep mentioning started becoming politically active).
Anecdotes are just that. Just because you weren't paying attention to it doesn't mean it didn't happen.]
Left wing media I paid attention to definitely did not drop the issue of Guantanamo during that time. Just google some common sites - MotherJones, commondreams, Obama, and Guantanamo and you will see the criticism did not disappear for Obama not forcing the issue to an unwilling Congress.
The people making all of this noise were children during that time. Just about everything has changed in the last 5 or so years, and a lot of that change appears to be driven by the historically massive and historically diverse Millennial generation.
Politics hasn’t really changed in the US in the last 100 years.
And somehow that moment of clarity by pure coincidence happened on January 20, 2017? Sorry, not buying that particular bridge.
> The people who are carrying the torch of this mentality were teenagers and twenty-something during the Obama administration.
Literally the same people in the press who promoted the "people in cages" thing were working at the same placed during Obama admin and virtually none of them said anything. There were some very small number that did, but the overwhelming majority said nothing and certainly there was no widespread public outrage about it and no employees told their employers they wouldn't work for any contract with Obama administration because it puts people in cages. No, not buying this bridge either - it was several years ago, it's not decades. They were the same grown ups then as they are now. Only back then their tribe was in power, so outrage wouldn't be appropriate.
It's just like JFK, how the media looked the other way at his affairs.
Not true. You just weren't listening.
But both are objectionable.
There are people of other ethnicities that are part of the White Nationalist movement.
None of this is new -- white nationalism has a long and well-documented history. As with all political movements, the exact moment it started is a little fuzzy. Some place it as far back as 1916 with the KKK, but I think that most people place the modern form of it as starting in 1974 with the National Alliance.
I wish I were joking, but these are real arguments that people make.
It's as if the forces of good suddenly decided that any nationalism is unacceptable in 2019.
“One country, two systems” refers to Hong Kong’s separate economic and legal system, not to democracy.
Thank being said, I think the electoral college should go, too.