Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the oooh-look-shiny dept.

Several sites are reporting, without reference to IBM's activities 70 years ago, that Microsoft's contact with ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is drawing fire online. The Computer Business Review includes a quote from Microsoft now missing from their press release:

"ICE's decision to accelerate IT modernization using Azure Government will help them innovate faster while reducing the burden of legacy IT. The agency is currently implementing transformative technologies for homeland security and public safety, and we're proud to support this work with our mission-critical cloud," he wrote.

KUOW radio writes on their web site that Microsoft is facing outrage their for blog post touting ICE contract:

As outrage grew online, a Microsoft employee quietly removed mention of ICE from the January press release this morning. Social media users noticed that, too. The company has since restored the press release's original language, and called its removal a "mistake."

After a little bit of conference swag gets handed out and a few advertising contracts^W^Wscholarships get handed out, this will all blow over and be forgotten.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by slinches on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:47PM (14 children)

    by slinches (5049) on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:47PM (#695286)

    What part is a lie? The law requires separation of children from their families if the adult parents/guardians are being detained for prosecution and there are no family members legally in the country that are willing to accept custody. If that isn't the case, then ICE is illegally kidnapping people's children, which would be an even bigger story.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -2  
       Troll=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:00PM (13 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:00PM (#695292) Journal

    What part is a lie? The law requires separation of children from their families if the adult parents/guardians are being detained for prosecution and there are no family members legally in the country that are willing to accept custody.

    That is simply FALSE. Why the hell do you think they only STARTED separating families in April? Before that they we allowed to stay together throughout the entire process.

    No, the Law Does Not Require Separating Immigrant Children from Parents [patheos.com]

    There is, of course, no such law. There is an administration policy that everyone who crosses the border illegally must be immediately charged criminally, even if they request asylum. Previous presidents have put asylum seekers into family detention centers, which keeps them together until they can get a hearing before a judge to consider their case, after which they are either allowed into the country or deported — but kept together as a family the entire time, regardless of the outcome.

    Fact check: There is no law that requires family separation at the border, despite Trump administration's claims [dallasnews.com]

    In reality, mandatory family separation is a consequence of a policy decision that can be changed at any time.

    Was the ‘Law to Separate Families’ Passed in 1997 or ‘by Democrats’? [snopes.com]

    There is no federal law mandating children and parents be separated at the border; a policy resulting in that outcome was enacted in May 2018.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:31PM (#695302)

      So build the wall! [independent.co.uk]

    • (Score: 2, Troll) by slinches on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:58PM (11 children)

      by slinches (5049) on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:58PM (#695317)

      The only policy change that occurred in May 2018 is that ICE was directed to prosecute all illegal immigration cases.

      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday June 19 2018, @10:46PM (10 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Tuesday June 19 2018, @10:46PM (#695336) Journal
        "The only policy change that occurred in May 2018 is that ICE was directed to prosecute all illegal immigration cases."

        I haven't researched this as thoroughly as one might and it's possible I'm wrong, but as far as I know, what you're saying here is exactly the truth of the matter. The change was the policy to criminally prosecute ALL cases, so-called zero tolerance policy.

        And you get labeled troll for stating it plainly.

        Trump derangement syndrome is a real thing, people see red and don't think. They downmod you here, for instance, instead of attacking the actual policy decision that's been identified. They don't seem to actually care about the policy, only about hating Trump.

        It's a horrible decision, btw. Discretion is a good thing, tolerance is one of the core values of our civilization, 'zero tolerance' policies are both a sign and a substance of our degradation.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by pipedwho on Tuesday June 19 2018, @11:08PM

          by pipedwho (2032) on Tuesday June 19 2018, @11:08PM (#695351)

          So true, this pre-judgement 'zero tolerance' policy is equivalent to having a policy jail all cases of assault pre-trial, even where there is a clear claim of self-defence.

          If someone attacks you, there is legal recourse since your act of self-defence was forced on you. The same is true for an actual refugee, who are forced out of their country due by threat of death or persecution. They are then stateless, and have to enter a country somewhere. International law through treaties have held that refugees have special legal status. It is fairly recent thing that countries detain refugees, mainly because the countries that people are fleeing to are also countries that have 'caused' some of the problems that require the fleeing in the first place. So naturally some disgruntled victims of invasion are acting as 'refugees' to 'bring the fight' to the aggressor nations. The assumption is that these people are not real refugees and must be filtered out and 'dealt with' somehow. Maybe that's true, but like any legal structure going back to the signing of the Magna Carta, there should be some reasonable due process and oversight involved.

          'Zero tolerance' and 'mandatory sentencing' policies for anything (drunk driving, non-visa border crossing, gang association, copyright infringement, jaywalking, etc) fail this due process of oversight.

        • (Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday June 19 2018, @11:14PM (7 children)

          by slinches (5049) on Tuesday June 19 2018, @11:14PM (#695355)

          Thanks. I think there's absolutely room for debate about whether a zero-tolerance policy makes sense. There's also a need to debate whether we should allow for families to be detained together when they cross the border illegally and how we can do that while still protecting minors from child smuggling.

          My personal take is that we shouldn't tolerate any illegal crossings, but there should be quite a bit of discretion in the penalties for doing so. For example, those honestly seeking asylum who end up crossing illegally because they don't know the correct process should be deported without prejudice and redirected to the closest port of entry. While those who have illegally crossed repeatedly and have records of violent crimes in the US should be penalized in a way that ensures they never have the opportunity to come back (some combination of prison and deportation, probably).

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday June 20 2018, @12:58AM (6 children)

            by Arik (4543) on Wednesday June 20 2018, @12:58AM (#695398) Journal
            "My personal take is that we shouldn't tolerate any illegal crossings"

            And that still sounds like the zero tolerance nonsense coming right back out.

            There are lots of technically illegal acts that are not actually unlawful. This is the space that is under attack, the space they want to erase from our consciousness and our consciences.

            It may be illegal to set poke your big toe across the border and pull it back, but you'd be insane to do anything other than ignore such an 'invasion.' It may be technically illegal to cross the border without a visa, full stop; but when someone fleeing for their life crosses a border inadvertently, without any criminal intention, there is no criminal act to prosecute - only a bare status offense. When someone applying for asylum becomes confused and fails to fill out precisely the correct forms in the right way, submits them improperly, etc. there is similarly no criminal act to prosecute. This is utter insanity, it's the cargo-cult version of law and order.

            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday June 20 2018, @05:03AM (5 children)

              by slinches (5049) on Wednesday June 20 2018, @05:03AM (#695458)

              I generally agree that zero tolerance policies are garbage, but illegal immigration is a special case. Most infractions are transitory in nature. An offense is committed and then people go back to normal legal activity. Illegal immigration, however is a continuous status. They don't have legal standing which makes them an easy target for criminal activity and exploitation. So not enforcing the law 100% is in effect creating a sub-class of people who don't have access to the support of the law.

              Instead, if we can have compassionate penalties in cases where the only intent is to improve their lives, then we can solve both problems at once.

              • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday June 20 2018, @06:36AM (4 children)

                by Arik (4543) on Wednesday June 20 2018, @06:36AM (#695475) Journal
                This is simply not the case, not what we're talking about, at all. This is about policy concerning asylum seekers. They flee here and apply for asylum, there is a review process that takes some time, and eventually they either are approved for asylum, or it's denied and they're deported. None of that is new.

                What's new is they are now choosing to file criminal charges against the asylum seekers! Not only in cases where they have a reason to suspect lack of honesty or sincerity (which, again, would just be continuing normal policy,) no the order went down to charge every single person, mechanically, without discretion.

                And of course once they slap the cuffs on the parents and haul them away for daring to come and apply for asylum, the children are now 'unaccompanied' and must be seized as well.

                This is not required, and it has no connection I can see to anything that you wrote.
                --
                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                • (Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday June 20 2018, @02:54PM (3 children)

                  by slinches (5049) on Wednesday June 20 2018, @02:54PM (#695602)

                  Is this happening to asylum seekers who legally apply at a port of entry? If so, that's a very different story, but I don't believe I've heard anything to indicate that.

                  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:31PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:31PM (#695622)

                    Yes! It's literally the reason people are in an uproar. You might want to find better resources if you haven't heard anything about that yet.

                    • (Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday June 20 2018, @04:53PM

                      by slinches (5049) on Wednesday June 20 2018, @04:53PM (#695650)

                      Please point me to a reference for that. All of the cases I've heard of are for illegal border crossings (i.e. not at a port of entry)

                  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday June 21 2018, @01:47AM

                    by Arik (4543) on Thursday June 21 2018, @01:47AM (#695927) Journal
                    The best I can tell, it is not, not exactly. (If anyone knows of such a case please post it!)

                    If you go to an official port of entry, go straight up to the first officer you see, and tell him you want to apply for asylum, then you should be allowed to apply for asylum and not be arrested still.

                    However any deviation from that, for any reason whatsoever, is to result in criminal charges. Many people fail to comply perfectly with such procedures every day, in many cases this may be technically illegal, but it's still not normal for charges to result when it's an innocent mistake and there was no criminal intent. Apparently we have no more innocent mistakes, we've simply resolved that they don't exist, and so we shall no longer see them. This is extremely bad policy.

                    On top of that, there are numerous reports that what happens when people actually follow the correct procedure, they're simply told no, go away, or waved off with a 'try tomorrow.' If true, this is a problem on more than one level - systematic disregard for the law inside the executive branch, and creating a moral hazard for legitimate asylum seekers who might well respond to such tactics by using another crossing, when they would not otherwise have broken any laws.
                    --
                    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @11:18PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @11:18PM (#695357)

          It's the emotional hot button issue going into the midterms. The Democrats don't want people to think rationally; "think of the children" is pure emotional manipulation. The popular opinion is that some democrats need to stop thinking of children [youtu.be]