What about oligarchs who aren’t sanctioned? What rule of law do you apply to determine oligarchs have committed some crime? Is there a certain number of tweets where you consider an oligarch sanctioned? Do you rely on an ICC ruling? A judgement from a single nation? A UN resolution? A case being brought to the ICC?

The challenge I see here is that applying an arbitrary measurement to what constitutes “ICE violates human rights” because it is so obvious will be problematic and unpredictable.

Will we get to the point where felons can’t use MSOffice? Or only certain felons?

Where to draw the line is a matter of judgment for each business. All ethics and justice relies on judgment. No murderer knows whether they'll be sentenced to ten years or twenty, just as there is no list of exact crimes that will get you sanctioned by the UN.

So while I cannot answer your questions, I can point out that the UN human rights chief has denounced the ICE policy as "unconscionable". That seems like ample grounds to end a business relationship.

I don’t think this is a good idea as judgement requires due process. For significant decisions it’s important that rule of law is followed to reach determinations.

Since technology is becoming more and more essential for human rights (speech, assembly, etc), having providers exercise their corporate judgement (whatever that is) will lead to high variability and stands to come in conflict in areas against corporate motives. So it would require heavy regulation.

While the UN human rights chief is a reputable source it’s important to distinguish between ver official capacity and vis personal judgement.

This is why we don’t have repercussions from a judge denouncing policy as “unconscionable” personally. And in the US, governement figures are prohibited from making nonofficial statements that can be confused with official statements. [0]

Due procress applies so that rule of law can be as fair as possible.

So while this has the appearance of an injustice, I want a method for official determination so we don’t devolve into a lynch mob society making emotional decisions where systems of law are established and appropriate.

[0] http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-unite...

ELI5 what human rights is ICE violating in this case? Is due process not being followed?

It is official US government policy to separate children from their parents as a deterrent: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/us/politics/family-separa...

Children have the right not to be abused. The UN human rights chief calls the practice "unconscionable": https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/world/europe/trump-migran...

Separating children from parents causes permanent changes to a developing brain due to toxic amounts of stress. It’s torture.

It seems like we are treating these children well (and I'm glad): "he seemed cheerful, “He shared how he was learning English, playing games and being well treated,” Ms. Ortiz said." [1]

However, I was appalled by the horrible "children in cages" photo taken during the Obama era. How was this allowed to happen? Wish I/we all had known about this, back then.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/immigration-deported-p...

> Under federal law, which adopts the United Nations definition, torture is: “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as … punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person … has committed or is suspected of having committed.” And though in theory any action inflicting such suffering is banned, that is what is inflicted by separating parents and children in border detention.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/0...

If being separated from your parents is torture, then what about the prison system?

The U.S. prison system is widely condemned as inhumane, overcrowded, and violent. So yeah, I would say that's torture, too.

Am I the only one who appreciates the difficult situation that ICE is put in here? They're tasked with enforcing U.S. immigration law which, like any immigration law implies that only certain people are allowed to enter the country under certain circumstances. No matter what they do, they're going to be stuck dealing with otherwise decent people who are knowingly violating immigration law. I see a lot of people complaining, in the most hyperbolic way, but I'm not seeing anybody suggesting any solutions other than "let anybody come who wants to come" (which might actually be workable, but a lot of other things would have to change at the same time).

Here's a solution: go back to the policy under Bush or Obama. Immigration policy is rarely pleasant, and we may have different views on hard choices, but I hope we can agree when a policy is evil.

Didn't this start under Obama, though?