I agree. I also feel that most of the dissent here is straw-manning. Nobody is saying you shouldn't work with the government at all. Rather that helping ICE is inherently more political and distasteful than helping say the DMV.
ICE was created after September 11, 2001. It doesn't even operate "at the border", but inland. The border is protected by the United States Border Guard, Customs, and local police.
>ICE was created after September 11, 2001. It doesn't even operate "at the border", but inland. The border is protected by the United States Border Guard, Customs, and local police.
I'm not sure that that has much relevance to the above poster's beliefs.
Even though ICE was created after 9/11, it's not like no one was doing immigration enforcement before them. ICE was just a re-org of existing agencies like the INS. In some circles, people don't even refer to ICE by its new name: Meet the new "la migra", same as the old one.
If you're someone like the GP poster who believes that people shouldn't be in the US illegally, it's logical to support immigration enforcement of people past the border. ~40% of people who are in the US illegally didn't enter illegally. They came legally and overstayed their visas. There's really nothing that the CBP can do about that, unless they take on the INS's responsibilities.
I never understand this retort--how is a long gone administration any excuse for continuing reprehensible behavior?
I mean, if you think this is a bad practice, shouldn't we end it now? And if you don't think it is a bad practice, why feign anger at the previous administration?
(If you don't like factcheck.org, fine, but the facts have been widely reported elsewhere as well.)
I don't think that this gives cover to either Obama or Bush for any abuses of the system under their administration, but suddenly changing to a zero tolerance policy and massively widening the scope of family separation counts as a difference, no?
I've always hated this quote. What it saying is "the benefit doesn't justify cost" which is clearly false since we do this all the time. It's a basic cost versus benefit analysis.
Well if your country was itself formed by other illegal aliens it is a bit hypocritical to want to keep others out. Obviously if this was native Americans it is different, but I bet everyone of those people that want to limit 'illegal immigration' are themselves immigrants only 3 or 4 generations ago. And I'm sure you will tell me they are legal immigrants, but I bet there are native Americans who would call that bullshit.
Yes I'm sure you can, but illegal immigration is only illegal because the current occupants don't want it. However those same occupants are there because their ancestors 'illegally immigrated' that lack of awareness is my problem.
What makes you think I they're unaware? Do you presume to have some kind of insight that everyone else doesn't?
And why is it the children's fault for something their great great grandparents did? Should all the ancestors of everyone who ever went from one country to another be forced to return to that country? I don't think many countries could handle that many people.
nope, i dont believe that is the case at all. The issue I have is that those descendants now seek to prevent others from enjoying opportunities that they themselves have enjoyed.
3 or 4 generations? Give me a break. My family came over so long ago that we don't know when it happened, just that our lineage can be traced back before the Revolution, to Loyalists and Patriots alike, to both Americans and Canadians, but we don't know and can't discover when they arrived via ship, but it was a lot more than 3 generations ago. 3 generations ago my family was fighting Nazism. 5 generations ago, they fought and died for the Union. How many generations do I and my family need to live on this continent before this is a place we're allowed to live without it being on "stolen land" like the radicals in Canada like to proclaim?
Or am I supposed to tell my children they have to "go back" to countries that no longer exist, on a continent that never wanted them in the first place, six, seven, eight generations after their ancestors left? A continent which is also under pressure to accept whatever immigrants wish to move there, no matter the repercussions of conflicts of culture.
This kind of dismissive attitude towards European-descended Americans is the same racist attitude that underpins the hatred towards anyone who identifies ethnically as "American," which I do, because my family's heritage is long-severed from the Old World, and thank God my kids won't even be able to be accused of being White, that evil race, due to my own miscegenation, so they do not need to listen to this kind of racist drivel about Americans with light skin on sites like this one day after day after day
Out of your thousand or so nominal ancestors from ~1776, none of them lived outside the US and Canada? That's an astonishingly complete genealogy and given that the vast, vast majority of Americans have more recent immigrant heritage somewhere, more than a little unbelievable.
Just the opposite, without some kind of objective basis for this decision making, it's more likely that corporations will make heavily politicized decisions.
It's short sighted, and it's basically shocking how narrow in scope a lot of this populism is.
Has anyone bothered to venture outside the country, maybe for a 2 week vacation?
China is putting people into camps on the basis of their ethnicity.
Qatar has a new form of 'indentured servitude' where they bring in workers, grab their passports, force them to work of the 'debt' - and give the absolutely zero form of recourse, there is no 'justice system' just what the ruler decide on a whim. Beatings? Dead workers found the desert? Who cares?
Or even softer political movements like Irish Catholic groups that demand and end to all contracts for Northern Ireland based businesses?
It's not even scratching the surface.
CEO's taking actions on these populist causes willy nilly will lead to their own implosion.
There has to be deference to legal or legitimized entities or this will not end well.
You're basically saying 'my mob is right and that's that'.
It's completely wrong.
The community is way, way more important than your opinion, and we have many established bodies to help us try to be objective about things, to protect minorities, to make sure we have a civic foundation.
Even at the international level, we have some semblance of rules we try to follow.
You don't get to pick and chose which laws to follow.
The best way to fix ICE is to vote, and support litigation if they are doing something which people feel is against the law.
They are a mainstream US government entity, there is otherwise no reason to ban them other than supporting internal political mobs.
Finally, I would double down on the excessive narrow mindedness of all of this. Take a moment to talk to migrants of countries with actually 'bad' regimes and you'll get an earful. There's real calamity in this world which makes a lot of consternation over otherwise relatively civic stuff seems really immature. I can't fathom how we must look to the immigrants we work with. At very least, if we're going to be serious about it we have to be consistent, and there are zero corporations that have the ability to do that, which is why we defer to established groups.
> You're basically saying 'my mob is right and that's that'.
No, I'm saying that it's perfectly fine to critique any system that wields power. Please read my message again. It says so directly.
> The community is way, way more important than your opinion
I never really said you ought to go one way or another, against or pro ice.
Again, I'm just saying you can critique systems as much as you want. There are illegitimate legal and "legitimized" institutions: slavery, Jim Crow, japanese internment.
> Even at the international level, we have some semblance of rules we try to follow.
Sometimes, yeah, if it benefits us. Other times, no, we just go trample someone's country with depleted uranium, or we send death squads to rape nuns, or we help coups move along.
Some rules are followed, insofar as they don't interfere with our material or ideological interests.
> You don't get to pick and chose which laws to follow.
I only ever jay walked whenever I didn't see a cop around. I stayed out past curfew. I drove on rural back roads without a license. Hell, I barely ever updated my license when I moved states. I've sped a shit ton, as well. Almost anyone that breaks laws does so selectively because it's wreckless otherwise.
> Take a moment to talk to migrants of countries with actually 'bad' regimes and you'll get an earful.
Yeah, there are places that are worse than America, but there's plenty of critique to be had if we weren't so cowardly as to look inward. There's nothing more indicative of the American dream being dead than saying, "it's so much worse out there." That's the line of thinking that allows fascism to fester. Anything to protect yourself from the evil outside, no matter the cost.
If I understand the situation correctly, Hootsuite employees had been agitating against ICE contracts. As recently as yesterday, using very careful language, a Hootsuite spokesperson denied they had a contract with ICE. A Hootsuite employee blew the whistle on this contract, on Twitter, yesterday. (See comment to my post below.) This morning, an entrepreneur/activist in this space linked to documents showing that Hootsuite had sold licenses to ICE via an intermediary.
I think this comment could have been more substantive. It appears that you’re trying to say that the opinions and knowledge of a 5-year employee can be dismissed without any consideration, due to these signs. Is it the rational position to dismiss people out of hand?
By the way, it may interest you to know that Hootsuite is a Vancouver-based company.
I actually think that it's totally legitimate to call out whoever you want (employer, customer, vendor, friend, family, etc) when you believe there is a clearly and grossly immoral action being carried out. But when there's a "I can see both sides but I strongly feel x because y" you should leave your political beliefs to your non-business relationships.
Reasonable people can disagree on immigration laws generally or ICE specifically! And I'm disappointed to see the level of confidence people have that anyone who disagrees with them is evil.
I wonder how people feel about immigration laws in other countries. Would Hootsuite employees be mad about working with the Thai department of immigration?
Is it really grossly immoral to have immigration checkpoints, borders and laws... and corresponding enforcement of those laws?
> Is it really grossly immoral to have immigration checkpoints, borders and laws... and corresponding enforcement of those laws?
I don't think many people, of any political affiliation, are making an argument for open borders — that's a red herring.
I do think it is grossly immoral to detain and intern immigrants at the border indefinitely, house them in substandard living facilities, separate them from their children, and both refuse and force (in different instances) medical treatment without consent. All of those things would appear to violate Federal and International law, on top of being the wrong thing to do.
I'm going to put alternative arguments below to try and show there is a reasonable discussion to be had on this topic. My actual views are more complex.
>I do think it is grossly immoral to detain and intern immigrants at the border indefinitely, house them in substandard living facilities,
aka jails. Places for those who committed crimes and who are awaiting procedures for removal. What would you suggest instead? It's worth noting they allow many out into the country with electronic monitoring. The US also allows refugees to stay and has (imperfect, but mostly fair) legal procedures for removal.
>separate them from their children,
A now ended policy that is the same as for people in jail for any other non-immigration crime. Of course immigration crimes are both non-violent and where economic harm is diffused (if it even exists), which is why people feel sympathy for these families.
>and both refuse and force (in different instances) medical treatment without consent.
Which would be improper. The recent case of the OBGYN doctor is both unproven and if proven would lead to imprisonment and universal condemnation. The truth is that thousands of immigrants come here illegally with nothing and get world class medical treatment for no charge. Any cases where that doesn't happen are news because they are exceptions, not the rule.
> aka jails. Places for those who committed crimes and who are awaiting procedures for removal. What would you suggest instead? It's worth noting they allow many out into the country with electronic monitoring. The US also allows refugees to stay and has (imperfect, but mostly fair) legal procedures for removal.
We're not talking about criminals who are being removed, or the morality of immigration being a criminal act at all. People trying to enter the country under asylum claims have not committed any crimes. Furthermore, indefinite detention without a trial is clearly unconstitutional, even for non-residents. Companies weren't quitting government contracts during the Bush or Obama administrations, so we're clearly not talking about the normal actions taken by immigration authorities.
> A now ended policy that is the same as for people in jail for any other non-immigration crime. Of course immigration crimes are both non-violent and where economic harm is diffused (if it even exists), which is why people feel sympathy for these families.
Again, asylum seekers haven't committed any crime, appeared before a magistrate, been indicted, or been tried and convicted by a jury of their peers, yet their rights have been roundly violated by the Trump administration. They ended it only after being caught, investigated, and even then, only begrudgingly.
> Which would be improper. The recent case of the OBGYN doctor is both unproven and if proven would lead to imprisonment and universal condemnation. The truth is that thousands of immigrants come here illegally with nothing and get world class medical treatment for no charge. Any cases where that doesn't happen are news because they are exceptions, not the rule.
This is patently untrue. Beyond the recent case, there is also the ICE official who decided he was the emperor of who in ICE custody could receive an abortion. There are wide-spread reports of neglect, and a lack of medical care and unsanitary living conditions, in stark contrast to your claim of world class care being rendered. Even if you believe these people deserve this treatment (they don't.) — our jails and prisons experience all of these same issues, so to your earlier point - we should also be making our jails more humane places too.
Just to be clear, my point was that reasonable people can disagree on these issues. Do you think that reasonable people can disagree on these issues or not?
But I'll also address some of the counterpoints raised above:
-The supreme court ruled in 2018 on some aspects of detention hearings and of course their ruling is being followed by ICE[1]. So to say that its unconstitutional seems at the very least up for debate, and at the most already settled affirmatively.
-Medical care. I read this article[2], and my reading of it is that ICE generally provides decent care with the exceptions noted in the report/article. These stories seem to be most similar to the stories we heard coming out of the VA hospitals a few years ago - aka due to large government orgs being incompetent not evil.
Seems to me the WP article was not trying to give a comprehensive list of ICE medical negligence. The more I google the more different cases of it I find
> Just to be clear, my point was that reasonable people can disagree on these issues. Do you think that reasonable people can disagree on these issues or not?
About immigration laws, yes. About civil rights, no.
> Medical care. I read this article[2], and my reading of it is that ICE generally provides decent care with the exceptions noted in the report/article. These stories seem to be most similar to the stories we heard coming out of the VA hospitals a few years ago - aka due to large government orgs being incompetent not evil.
I wasn't accusing them of being evil. Your original point was that people should keep politics out of business on grey issues. The Trump administration has moved this from a grey issue where good people could look the other way on incompetence-related failures to a black-and-white issue where it's tough to tell where the incompetence ends and the malice begins.
Since the government is incapable of doing anything useful right now, it shouldn't be that surprising when people with a voice seek redress in the areas they have power. Corporations are at zenith of their power and influence right now, so it follows that people would take advantage of that.
There are literally people on this board indicating that 'Nations are not real'.
There are large numbers of individuals who don't believe in borders, or in any form of real border enforcement.
There are large numbers of individuals who don't think that there is any such thing as an 'illegal status' and that nobody should be deported or sanctioned on any terms.
That's what makes the 'ICE ban' more controversial than it may seem, and probably hard to understand for 'pro ban supporters' why some might not support it.
You seem to be saying 'hey, this is just about arbitrary detention, because that's what I feel is wrong' - but I would say it's a much broader issue.
It's inherently more political than 'detention' which is what makes it difficult, and why there needs to be more objectivity on this.
For the life of me I can't understand why the US government doesn't at least make sure there is fairy consistent law-fullness within ICE.
I'm not saying there aren't people who feel that way, but they don't represent any significant majority. Even in the Democratic party, open borders is a highly unpopular idea. I guess it depends on your definition of "large numbers", but mine is "large enough to affect policy in the US", and by that definition, the open borders lobby does not have large numbers.
> You seem to be saying 'hey, this is just about arbitrary detention, because that's what I feel is wrong' - but I would say it's a much broader issue.
I'm saying that we're violating the rights of the people we are detaining. I'm not strictly against the detention or removal if the law is sane and it's enforced accordingly.
> For the life of me I can't understand why the US government doesn't at least make sure there is fairy consistent law-fullness within ICE.
One party has a vested interested in the way things currently are. Maybe both of them do.
>"I don't think many people, of any political affiliation, are making an argument for open borders — that's a red herring."
Open borders are quite a popular policy among libertarians, though perhaps that just goes to show how far libertarians are from the 'mainstream' of democrats and republicans.[1][2][3]
Canada has a history of being more restrictive and less forgiving of 'permissionless entry' than the USA, so it will be interesting to see how Hootsuite transacts with the Canadian government.
The impression I've gotten is that while some people have coarse/simple views of how some of these things are bad. The main focus is not on them as institutions so much as how they treat those in their custody. Enforcement doesn't need to be abusive.
>Is it really immoral to have immigration checkpoints, borders and laws... and corresponding enforcement of those laws?
I think you are letting your subjective moral lens cloud your judgement. The fact of the matter is certain immigration policies and directives are more effective and have lower political and social costs than other ones. A utilitarian immigration policy framework would perform significantly better than the current "border" rhetoric which has led to billion dollar make-work in the middle of nowhere.
I don't understand what "utilitarian immigration policy framework" means, but in any case policies are made by congress not by ICE. In fact it would be quite undemocratic for ICE to decide universally they aren't going to enforce the laws that congress made.
If the Thai department of immigration was separating children from the families, locking them in cages in dangerous conditions and forcing hysterectomies on women in their custody...
Now the company has taken a political stance that likely doesn't represent the entire view of all its employees. No doubt this is talked about in all the slack channels leaving many to be alienated.
The ask for politics to be left out X these days seems to be impossible. Will only lead to more division and hatred between people with different ideologies.
1) It is nonsensical to ask to leave politics out of social and economic life.
2) Hootsuite is a B Corp. This means they've already publicly committed themselves to act with social responsibility, above and beyond whatever is currently profitable.
This doesn't mean that non-B-corps get to act with zero responsibility in pursuit of profit, but it's just underlining this requirement.
It is curious to me that you think that acting ethically somehow sows division and hatred. Why would that happen? The whistleblower believes strongly in the company and the mission and isn't targeting anyone, not even the CEO, as a figure of hate. The worst thing that's happening here is that ICE will have to use another vendor for their social media management. I think society will be able to continue to function after this.
As a B-Corp I'm somewhat surprised they even considered the contract. Broken bird syndrome perhaps?
> It is curious to me that you think that acting ethically somehow sows division and hatred.
It does, after a fashion. The question is 'do we care'? There are many parties that get upset with people who are assertive. People-pleasers get trapped into thinking that it's their fault if everyone isn't happy with them at all times and in all things. It's unhealthy. Every choosing beggar they meet turns them into their own personal doormat.
In interpersonal dynamics there is a concept that:
"The sort of person who wouldn't like that is not the sort of person you'd want as a friend."
your idea of "acting ethically" may not be how I interpret the situation. Therein lies the creation of division.
The "worst thing that happens is ICE uses another vendor" is such a slippery slope view point.
Should all 3rd party tech companies stop servicing ICE because the employees refuse to support it? What about the millions of Americans who do not work for a company with that power? Should you be given the ability to undermine something that impacts everyone?
This is the direction we are heading and it will create division.
If employees refuse to support it and they have the market power to change the company's behavior, then yes, they should be allowed to stop servicing ICE. Its not a power that the companies are "given" - it's a power they create by creating the product that ICE wants.
Put ICE aside. Is there any organization that you feel "should" not be served by vendors?
If you want to dodge by claiming it should hinge on the legality of the org, I'd be happy to give you a menu of several that were perfectly legal at the time to choose from.
Yeah, politics gets in everywhere and seems impossible to avoid it. Even if you purposefully avoid it, you're making a political statement.
On one hand, what does it mean to have a "no politics at work" policy? If Hootsuite have contracts with ICE, it's already political at that point, as they are helping the organization be more efficient/valuable/whatever. If they don't take any contracts that might be political, they won't be able to do any business at all.
On the other hand, for-profit companies goal is to get profits. If they prioritize political stances in-front of that, they are bound to confuse people who are working there, who understands it's a business, not a political/non-profit organization.
People aren't stupid. "We try to earn money. But if it costs us $1 to save someone, somewhere, we will always do so" is basic moral decency on a level that any five-year old will understand it.
Absolutely, most people are actually smart, at least in my experience. But I think it's important to realize that this "basic moral decency" you talk about, is something that we commonly use in a lot of industries, but no one is forcing us too, so it can quickly disappear or be forgotten. Especially when you're working in a for-profit company.
It starts being murky when the $1 changes to $10 or $100, as now you're trying to balance two values, profits and overall helpfulness. If you're asking the company to take a stance, you and others might feel differently about what's important.
Some industries simply look the other way and make the simple statement that it's all about money, nothing else. Sometimes I dream of taking that stance, just because everything would be simpler.
It's not just about 'looking the other way'; companies that take these stances are presenting a risk of discontinuation of services to customers. Any potentially politically controversial customer now has to discount Hootsuite's reliability; somewhat akin to how Google has a reputation for cancelling products.
Hootsuite has basically eroded every client's faith.
all good points. super confusing times we live in right now. Are we going to evolve where theres conservative companies and liberal companies who only support customers of that same belief system? I dont think so but who knows. I dont see how anyone can get think we are going down a path that wont lead to ugly, ugly times.
I think (and/or hope maybe) that eventually people will realize that corporations are just that, corporations. The purpose is to earn money. If you (also/more) care about something else, then you don't work for a corporation, you work for something else.
> I think (and/or hope maybe) that eventually people will realize that corporations are just that, corporations. The purpose is to earn money.
Even assuming that were true (Hootsuite is a B Corp, so it's not quite that simple), companies have to engage in reputation management as part of making money. The result of this is that even entirely profit-focused companies will often refuse to deal with certain suppliers and customers. This is effectively a cost of doing business for highly disreputable companies and organisations; certain suppliers simply won't deal with them. As I mentioned elsewhere, pornography is a particularly dramatic example, with its own (very expensive) supporting ecosystem of companies.
Thinking only about profit can and has lead corporations to some pretty dark places. Just because you work for a corporation does not absolve you basic human decency.
I agree! But, short-term profits are different than long-term profits as well.
I think the sooner people realize what capitalism does to our world and how focusing on profits, ownership and consumerism makes everything more shit, the better.
Accepting profitable contracts from government agencies shouldn't be seen as political. It's just mature attitude: you accept the process and respect whoever ends up in power and whatever policies that decide on. Refusing to make business with the government if it's not your guys calling the shots is political activism though.
If the government needs gas chambers, the responsible thing to do is make gas chambers. Don't worry about what they're using them for, that's just process and policy. Click your heels and fall in line, that's the mature, responsible and profitable thing to do. Not like those damned political activists; the world would be a better place if they were in gas chambers anyway.
> Refusing to make business with the government if it's not your guys calling the shots is political activism though.
But it's not gas chambers. What ICE does is not universally seen as morally bad unlike gas chambers. USA doesn't have a totalitarian government either. A good sanity check is this: if population is split on the issue it means it's not simple and claiming moral high ground is politicizing. Gas chambers are universally seen as morally deplorable. Deporting illegal immigrants isn't.
The German population was also split on the Nazi issue. That can't be your litmus test!
If holding children in cages, subjecting them to deplorable conditions, separating families, and forcing/denying medical procedures aren't where someone draws the line, then... well... I don't really want to know where they draw the line.
Well it must be a litmus test for the universal moral judgement because otherwise it's not universal by definition. I would argue that German population didn't have as much information as we do today and gas chambers as well as other atrocities committed by the Nazis would still be universally
rejected then.
As to "separating families" and "denying medical procedures" you seem to think it's somehow a God given right to come somewhere and be granted resources and time of others. In many people view it's not. The blame is on the immigrants and their countries not on US. The policy is clear: you can't come without having permission. It's entirely reasonable to not want to give resources to people who are not part of your group, didn't contribute to development of your country, don't help to fund your services and are actively breaking your rules in your own country. It's a difficult situation when someone comes anyway and with small children as well but the blame is not on ICE or your policies. Medical procedures don't grow on trees. Granting them means taking time and resources of others. It means someone will have less time for their families/personal life, that someone else will have to work more to get treatment or in some cases won't get treatment at all or get it later. You can't just hand stuff to all comers or then your policy is meaningless. It also means millions of others who want to immigrate to US legally but respect the procedure will wait for longer or never get in. There are many, many people in the world in a very shitty situation who would love to come to US if given a chance. Knowing that but letting in those who force their way is at best morally suspect.
It's nothing like actively pursuing people who live in your society, packing them on trains and killing them in camps. That's why one is universally seen as morally deplorable and the other is a hotly debated issue.
You're missing a couple key points here. The constitution treats all people as embued with human rights. If they're on American soil, they've got rights. So sure, tearing up the constitution is hotly contested. Right now, ICE is shitting all over the constitution and I don't like that one bit.
Second, many detainees are asylum seekers. The us has policies and processes by which people can lawfully seek asylum in the US. And they're being subject to inhumane treatments that we don't even tolerate in prisons.
Some governments and some agencies do enough evil that the decision to do business with them is a moral choice.
ICE may be one of those agencies. NSA likewise.
Arguably contacting with the US military falls in a similar bucket. I wouldn't call it evil, but it exists almost solely to enforce American interests abroad (vs a purely defensive force). I wouldn't fault somebody for seeing that business as immoral.
There's also a huge difference between selling a product to that agency, but is not specific to that agency (Word, Linux tech support) vs something that exists only to enable that organization to do bad (spying equipment, the cages used to imprison immigrants, etc).
You can always convince yourself something is evil enough. ICE has a lot of support which at least means it's not universally seen as evil. Making a decision to not work with someone who represents widely accepted views/policy is the definition of politicizing.
Same goes for military. If it should be a purely defensive force it one ensuring global interests is a polarizing political issue. It's not simply evil or good.
ICE may have support. But I don’t support forced sterilization. Or splitting families. And I’m sad that a substantial portion of my fellow citizens are ok with either.
They are not ok with it. They just understand the blame is not on ICE or US policies but on immigrants and their countries. If your policy is: "if you come illegally we will jail you and send you back when possible but we are also human enough to not keep children in the same adult jail as you" and then you come anyway the blame is on you.
I don't think anyone is ok with forced sterilization. I don't really know why you put it on ICE or the immigration policy. It has to be investigated and from the information we have that it doesn't seem to be either widespread nor as simple as you portray it. Sure, investigate it, punish the offenders. It doesn't mean you owe stuff to all comers and have to take care of them.
> Accepting profitable contracts from government agencies shouldn't be seen as political.
There's probably an argument to be made that the profit motive has the ability to strip all other political motivations from a decision, but the result of the decision can still be deeply political.
> Refusing to make business with the government if it's not your guys calling the shots
I really don't think that's what's happening here. It doesn't take long to read up on the activities ICE has been (very plausibly) accused of doing that would shock many people. Excusing that just because they're a government agency just seems strange to me.
Could you object if it was a private company doing it, but not object if it's a government agency? I don't get it.
The government represents the people and is created through established political process. By refusing to work with it you're showing disrespect to huge portion of the population which elected it. I mean it won't ever be a healthy environment if you pack your things and refuse to play if the other group won the vote.
> Accepting profitable contracts from government agencies shouldn't be seen as political
But it is, and will always be, political to do anything. If you're accepting a contract with the government, you're saying that you agree that this government should exists, that governments are a good idea in general, and this one is the current rightful government for where you are, otherwise you wouldn't work with them.
It's a fruitless exercise in trying to remove politics from anything, because anything can and will be politicalized.
No. I am saying I respect the political process and the will of those people who voted for the current government. We argue, we vote and then we accept the consequences and work with each other not pack up and cry like 5 years old.
The danger of disreputable customers isn't new. Companies have been refusing to provide service to customers they'd prefer not to be associated with for about as long as there have been companies.
Notably, the pornography industry has a whole ecosystem of supporting industries for this reason, but there are many other examples.
If you are fortunate enough to have privilege, you should exercise it to make the world a better place.
That might mean attempting to change a company from the inside, or that might mean leaving them and not supporting them. And then once you leave, you still have to look for places to exercise your privilege to make the world a better place.
Taking a contract from ICE is an inherently political act. Blaming employees for voicing their disapproval of the company leadership's political decision seems counterproductive at best.
"Leave politics out of X" is almost never actually possible. Politics is in everything. What is usually being asked is "leave politics I find uncomfortable out of X".
Your stance on whether ICE violates human rights of children is orthogonal to your stance on policies that ICE enforces and promulgates. It's not a political stance. In other words:
You can be FOR the deportations and AGAINST treating children that way. You could be AGAINST the deportations policy and OK with the implementation on a human rights level.
Something that seems increasingly the case is that people conflate objections to behavior with political stances.
On the left this might look like "You are accusing Biden of rape because you oppose his policies."
On the right this might look like "The investigation of Trump's dealings in Ukraine are the result of people trying to achieve political goals, they don't actually care about corruption at all."
It is disheartening to see this sort of thinking spread. Hootsuite's decision on whether to deal with ICE can be part of a policy centered on human rights. It's not inherently political, just because ICE currently operates under Trump (many objected to many of its behaviors under Obama as well).
(Incidentally, to the person I'm replying to, I'm not accusing you of sloppy thinking or anything else. I think it's very easy for all of us to fall into this trap because it has become so completely common in the U.S. to deploy rhetoric that all accusations we don't like are made for political reasons.)
I'm surprised by the level of discussion around whether or not this is "justified." The purpose of a corporation is to maximize the utility function of its stakeholders. That doesn't have to be profit, and political/social justification isn't a necessary component of utility, but it is a valid one. If you found a company and are willing to make less money to have a more leisurely lifestyle with less day to day work, your utility function is not maximized if you take on more contracts to try and make more money. In Hootsuite, employees felt that working with ICE was not what they wanted, and they had the necessary market power and influence as stakeholders in the organization to change the organization's behavior. Why would a company be obligated to serve a foreign country's government agency? You shouldn't need to 'justify" your utility function by applying somebody else's normative standard. They don't want to serve ICE, so they don't. Companies should have the right to refuse service to customers they don't want to serve, and the barrier to entry to found competing companies to serve those customers should be low. The company created a product that ICE wants, they built the power to serve the government agency, and they should have the right to exercise it as they see fit. It would be different if they were a utility granted a monopoly by the state, in which case there should be significant regulations and oversight because it's not a new service they created.
Basically, what I'm saying is, if you think that ICE should be able to get the services Hootsuite provides, then go ahead and start (or invest in) a competitor that will service ICE. We have a (reasonably) free market - use it.
Most people's problem with ICE is not that it's enforcing the laws about immigration, it's how it's doing it. Do some research about the actual behavior of the organization, there are plenty of stories of unethical and illegal behavior in their pursuit of immigrants. I live in an area with a lot of southeast Indian families and the stories I've heard first-hand about how ICE agents treat them is atrocious.
Anyone who understands this issue, really understands it, knows:
1. Congress can act tomorrow and improve immigration process/treatment. They won't because politics.
2. Foreign actors have and continue to use immigration as a weapon, against the US and against the immigrants themselves.
3. Walls work. They are far from perfect and far better than nothing.
4. Immigration is actually critical US economic health. The country needs more immigrants.
A combination of political manipulation, orange-man bad, and wishful thinking has turned this issue on its head; and its a corollary to the larger problem of division in this country and both sides unwillingness to build bridges with each other.
Not sure how we survive if we cannot come together in spite of our strongly held differences.
> 4. Immigration is actually critical US economic health. The country needs more immigrants.
This is true in some ways and false in so many others that I hate when people say this.
I can't speak directly to the USA, but I can only assume it's similar to the situation we have in the UK. Here it's true that certain demographics of immigrants are a net-positive to the UK economy. Specifically, Indian and EEA migrants are very beneficial.
However this doesn't mean the vast majority of immigrants are beneficial to the UK economy. Many immigrant groups contribute less in taxes which creates a fiscal deficit which other groups need to pick up. For example, as a group non-EEA migrants added £9bn to the deficit in 2016/17. [1]
Because the data is clear that non-EEA migrants are a net-negative to UK tax payers you'll often see economists and reporters try to justify non-EEA immigration by reporting the benefits in terms of GDP. To the average, economically uninformed person it sounds great that non-EEA immigrants raise GDP, but it's obviously the wrong metric to use unless you aspire to have an economy like Chinas or Indias where sheer population size makes up for low per capita GDP.
And this isn't even considering all the negative effects mass-migration has on communities here in the UK or the increased job competition seen by lower skilled workers. I have an elderly relative who no longer recognises the community he grew up in. He's lived in the same tower block for over 40 years and when he moved in almost everyone was British. Today he may be the only British person left. None of his neighbours celebrates Christmas. The notices and signs in the tower block are written in Arabic. The shops in his area feature Arabic signage and sell foreign produce... While I don't have a problem with any individual culture in the UK, I am sceptical that this kind of cultural transformation which is occurring in many parts of the UK (and US) today is in the interest of the average Brit or American.
So to be clear, the US & UK don't need more immigrants. What we need is more of the right kind of immigrants. We need people who want to work and integrate into our communities. We want people with skills who are able to pay more in taxes than they take out. However, the conversation around immigration has become so black and white that it's impossible to argue for sanity.
GitHub is too busy making empty gestures (like renaming the master branch and black/white lists) to do anything substantive that would affect their income.
Eventually if no private company can be found, they'll just end up doing it themselves. At least with a private company in the mix, some accountability can be had.
I remember that the financial side of ICE wanted to break away from ICE because the hate the immigration side generates. I was reading that it was actually preventing them from taking down bankers (Or someone else that I specifically don't like, but I hate bankers the most) because people who would normally help them stopped helping after the changes Trump made.
Prevailing ideas about moral ethics suggests that corporations are socially responsible to stakeholders and the public at large. Corporations are not black boxes that generate goods and services, they are groups of people that cooperate for a common goal. They are an inseparable part of the communities they operate in, and are inherently intertwined in the politics of that community.
Wasn't the whole "involuntary sterilization" thing a single woman who had her uterus removed as treatment for cancer? Yes, arguably the doctor should have tried to remove a smaller section of that uterus... But it's not obviously the wrong call from the information I remember.
Had the woman in question not been given surgery, we'd be having a similar discussion about ICE not providing appropriate medical care...
I don't see a particular number cited, but a whistleblower alleges that it occurred so often, a particular doctor was known as "the uterus collector".
(Her complaint is largely about failure to follow proper procedures for COVID, and this "uterus collector" thing is not the bulk of her story. Obviously that's a pretty explosive allegation though.)
It is illegal and the doctor who is suspected of potentially performing those procedures (either without proper consent or with poor communication or totally fraudulent) is being investigated.
The fact that someone crosses our border illegally with nothing and is given world class medical treatment for no charge is incredible.
If this doctor did wrong things (potentially just as a way to bill additional charges?) that is obviously terrible. But I don't think that negatively reflects on ICE at all.
"Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Court decided that two police officers in Fresno, California, who allegedly stole more than $225,000 in assets while executing a search warrant, could not be sued over the incident. Though "the City Officers ought to have recognized that the alleged theft was morally wrong," the unanimous 9th Circuit panel said, the officers "did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment.""
> But when it can be proven that people here broke laws, they do go to jail.
>The Irwin County Hospital issued a statement defending Amin, saying he “is a long-time member of the Irwin County Hospital medical staff and has been in good standing for the entirety of his service to the Irwin County community.”
>The Associated Press on Friday reported that at least eight women since 2017 had been taken to see Amin for gynecological treatment, though it did not find evidence of mass hysterectomies as alleged in the complaint.
And even if you disagree with existing immigration laws, refusing to provide services to ICE doesn't make ICE go away, it just makes them carry out their mandate less efficiently - leading to a worse experience for the people they're charged with investigating.
Refusing to serve customers you believe to be behaving unethically is one way to make their operations more expensive -- the goal is to deter them from pursuing morally bankrupt policies (like separating families at the border or giving unwanted/unneeded hysterectomies)
Whether or not you agree with Hootsuite, your point doesn't make sense.
Should every company stop doing business with the US Government?
After all they are ultimately responsible for all the human rights violations.
Activists employees imposing "do not sell/service to people I don't agree with" is a very dangerous precedent.
Before you say this isn't politics but a human rights issue, ask yourself: Does the other side thinks the same? If not, it definitely is a political issue.
