ICE is not a partisan organization, it's a government agency. If you pay taxes, you support ICE, and are their customer, period.

If you pay taxes, you "support" the entire government. That doesn't mean that you are in favor of all of the things that it is doing.

If you pay taxes, you are a citizen, not a "customer". These things are not the same.

This is key. Modeling citizens as customers of government leads to all sorts of bad conclusions (including that government can choose to refuse service; there's a reason most of the developed world has no legal concept equivalent to the ancient "writ of Outlawry.").

Couldn't you say the same about ICE? You support their main function, protecting the border, but aren't in favor in all of the things they're doing in order to achieve that goal.

Yes, that's my point.

Taxes are not voluntary. I pay taxes for the sole reason that I do not support armed men coming to my house to jail me for not paying taxes.

They are paid under duress. I do not consent.

No laws are voluntary. They are all enforced under duress. Men will come to your house and jail you if you don't follow them. That's why they're called "laws", not "options".

I think you two are in agreement.

No. You entered into an agreement with your employer and the US government when you were hired. You gave them permission by consenting to work within the system and you probably filled out some sort of form with a W in front of it.

You may work outside of the system.

I made no such agreement with the government. You are manufacturing consent where none exists. The sole reason I pay is because of the threat of force, the promise of a gun to my head if I do not. There is no consent.

Who will put a gun to your head if you stop working in the US?

Local cops via MLAT wherever I am working, as I owe US taxes regardless of where I earn money, a fun misfortune based on my location of birth.

Failing that, local cops, when I am working nowhere and have to resort to stealing food to survive.

Starvation, death by exposure, death from preventable disease and the like might not literally be guns, but the effects aren't that dissimilar and they are all consequences of not working in the US. There's not exactly a robust social safety net here.

I think people overstate the dangers of moving to Canada

WAIT. You entered the US? You're not a citizen? You're complaining about our rules after we let you in?

Whether government agencies do their work effectively is absolutely a partisan matter. Remember the founding of CFPB? Remember Rick Perry campaigning on getting rid of the Department of Energy? Remember the per-party vote on the act that created DHS? http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll367.xml

I mean, yes, ICE is a government agency, but it's political parties that decide which government agencies exist and what they do.

> ICE is not a partisan organization,

Only if you have your head deliberately under the sand in the face of all the reporting that has been done so far about wanton cruelty inflicted on human beings by this agency, including but not limited to:

* separation of toddlers from their parents * horrific conditions in detention facilities * detaining immigrants for as long as they possibly can * arresting and trying to deport brown people in suspicion of being illegal immigrants

If none of these policies affect you, yeah you can say "By the laws of the US, ICE is a non partisan branch of the Government". But the actions of the agency and its leadership have shown that its decidedly not so.

The agency will live on past the current administration. The main function of ICE is needed. The policies imposed upon them from above are the root of the problem and need to be removed. But they will be gone in time, hopefully sooner rather than later.

ICE didn't exist until 2003, and isn't necessarily needed.

Sort of. The organization ICE didn't exist. The functions of ICE were executed by other organizations in the government and (correct me if I'm wrong) no additional responsibilities were really added to ICE whole-cloth; it's more of a post-9/11 consolidation of resources.

Abolishing ICE without considering the need for those responsibilities and what org, if any, should take them on is certainly risky. But technically, yes, we could abolish ICE and route things ICE does (immigration management, customs enforcement, non-military border security) to other executive departments (not necessarily back to their originating department, since instituting ICE also abolished some of its predecessor departments).

Huh?

The Programs division [of INS] was responsible for handling all the functions involved with enforcement and examinations, including the arrest, detaining, and deportation of illegal immigrants as well as controlling illegal and legal entry.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Naturalization...

Exactly. ICE isn't needed.

The name matters to you?

Names are important. I'll give you that.

I didn't realize solving the problem was as easy as renaming ICE back to INS.

I'm open to multiple ideas. Your idea of renaming seems to be useful for part of the process of rehabilitating ICE or whatever we're going to call it in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebranding#Elimination_of_a_ne...

Well consider the cultural difference between an agency whose mission is enforcement and one whose mission is service.

You'd be more convincing if you demonstrated how the current purported "culture" problems were there the entire time pre-2016. And absent in INS before that.

Jesus Christ. It was called INS and did the same damn thing. Who cares if the name changed?

The US has had Border Patrol agents for 100 years. From 1920-1940 they were organized under the Department of Labor; from 1949 to 2003, the Department of Justice; since 2003, Homeland Security.

ICE isn't border patrol; they don't patrol American borders. That's CBP, which is a separate wing of the DHS, and focuses on an entirely different area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protec...

The predecessor, INS has an interesting history too. I'd experience some kind of small joy if a new INS were re-established "merging these previously separate areas of administration."

>INS, the agency ceased to exist under that name on March 1, 2003, when most of its functions were transferred to three new entities – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – within the newly created Department of Homeland Security, as part of a major government reorganization following the September 11 attacks of 2001.

>Prior to 1933, there were separate offices administering immigration and naturalization matters, known as the Bureau of Immigration and the Bureau of Naturalization, respectively. The INS was established on June 10, 1933, merging these previously separate areas of administration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Naturalization...

* also separation of children from smugglers. Stoping human trafficking is primary role of ICE.

Important to note that there are different divisions of ICE. The division that tackles International crime (HSI) is different from the one that subjects immigrants to cruelty (ERO).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/seeki...

> * separation of toddlers from their parents * horrific conditions in detention facilities * detaining immigrants for as long as they possibly can * arresting and trying to deport brown people in suspicion of being illegal immigrants

You've proven beyond all doubt that these actions are indeed partisan. Hence, we ought to resist the party that revved this into high gear - the one led by the deporter in chief [1]!! Resist!

[1]: https://www.npr.org/2017/01/20/510799842/obama-leaves-office...

you are making a convincing argument that the organization is extreme, but you haven't addressed the issue of whether or not it is partisan.

to do so you'd need to compare and contrast its behavior across administrations under different political parties. as one data point, roughly same # of people were deported under bush/obama (the definitions changed, so not quite apples to apples data wise).

It truly isn't a partisan organization. The Dems buried their heads when this happened under President "Deporter & Chief" Obama. People are pretending this issue is new because they didn't take the time to learn about it years ago. Some media reported on it under Obama, but few took the time until they were looking for ammunition against Trump.

No, don't do this both sidesim over here.

Obama prioritized deportation of those with criminal backgrounds. He created the DREAM program to help the millions of immigrants who spent most of their life in the US.

Its not the same.

The DREAM act has been around since 2001 and at its peak never even had even a million members throughout its existence. Illegals with a criminal background have always been preferred for deportation in the US. But my question how is which ICE is a government entity partisan for following the immigration edicts of the current administration?

Also looks like Both Sideism can go into the large book of unnecessary and arbitrary -ism words people have come up with during this presidency.

The act was never passed into law whereas Obama gave actual legal status to Dreamers and attempted to do the same for their parents too.

People who deliberately commit crimes typically suffer risk of being deported when they committed no crime because of racial profiling?

If you disagree with the Constitution (Eighth Amendment), I would lead with that caveat.

Are you talking about today, or the way Caesar treated the Helvetii?

The people who crossed the border seeking asylum are not committing a crime (seeking asylum is not illegal unless you stay in the country after being denied at a hearing), and even the people who are crossing illegally are committing a misdemeanor. Do you also support such conditions for people who get parking tickets?

Whether it’s the by-the-book definition of partisan, it is still reasonable for people to have strong moral or ethical objections to working for this client.

But not to receiving their services, apparently.

I can’t pick and choose where my taxes go any more than I can pick and choose which constitutional amendments I want to see enforced. I can’t stop a war but I can choose not to work for military contractors.

Yes you can. You may give up your citizenship in exchange for another.

Without rabbit-holing too far on this, I'd note that the people in concentration camps at the border were trying to do that. May not be as simple as you seem to be asserting.

There are quite a few Americans who would prefer to receive no services from ICE. "Abolish ICE" is a concept that has even started to gather steam in Congress itself.

According to the Washington Times (a right-wing news organization), 49% of Americans live in sanctuary jurisdictions, based on data from FAIR (a right-wing pro-ICE advocacy group). https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/10/half-of-ame...

I think that makes it clear that a sizable number of Americans are opposed to receiving ICE's services, only receive them because there isn't actually a way to opt out of them, and are doing the next closest thing.

That is inconsistent logic.

I have nearly the same power to determine where my taxes go as I do to stop the people in local council making non-binding declarations that don't carry any legal consequences or obligations. If I happen to live in an area with a HOA, does that mean I support HOAs too? If I live next to a Mosque does that mean I support Islam?

My point is that geography is not a good determinant for agreement or disagreement with the politics and beliefs that take place in that geography.

Sure, I'm not claiming that 49% of Americans don't want to receive services from ICE - I am claiming that a large number do, as evidenced by the fact that 49% of Americans live in jurisdictions with sanctuary policies. Of course some people will oppose the policy and live in a jurisdiction that supports it - and some will support it and live in a jurisdiction that doesn't.

From your analogy, the fact that tons of Americans live in HOAs does in fact imply that there is a fair bit of support for HOAs in America. It doesn't imply that everyone in an HOA is happy about it - but it definitely doesn't imply that everyone in an HOA is unhappy about it, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

'creaghpatr is trying to imply that, because ICE exists and is tax-funded, 100% of taxpayers support ICE and everything they do, and anyone who opposes it would just stop paying taxes. That's the inconsistent logic, and it's in the general class of "yet you participate in society" fallacies. I don't know what the true number is and I don't have a good way to get an exact estimate, but I do think the evidence is that it's far closer to 51% than 100%.

Then we are in agreement that the premise of being able to refuse services from a divisive government agency we have no power over is flawed? Because it sounds like we are, but are presenting the argument in different ways. Apologies for speaking for the other commenter.

It’s the opposite of politics. They’re leaving politics out of it and saying, if it’s legit business we won’t deny you business.

That is very much a political decision.

No it’s a neutral position not taking a stance for or against a particular business because of politics. So while it may look to someone like it’s “for” something, they’d also take business from an “ICE-alert” system, so from some PoV that would look like it’s “against”, but it’s not. It’s staying neutral.

If you are helping someone by providing products or services to them, you are by definition actively helping them do whatever they do. That's not neutral. Being neutral is neither helping nor hindering them.

> they’d also take business from an “ICE-alert” system

We have no evidence of this.

On the other hand, we have the statements that I literally quoted in my comment, where GitHub's COO says "it's important that ICE get its job done because they do X, Y, and Z, which are good," you have sales staff using American flag emoji, etc. Would you expect GitHub's CFO to also "it's important that this ICE-alert group get their job done because ICE does X, Y, and Z which are bad actually"?

Doing nothing and accepting money from an organization like ICE is 100% a political choice.

There's the edge of a definitions rabbit-hole looming.

To short-circuit it, let's establish as ground-truth that some people think "neutral" is the same has having no position, and some people think "neutral" is a position one can try to take that will have consequences, same as any other position, and at the end of the day, the effects are the same whether it's not a position or a position so the question of "position-ness" of neutrality is moot in a discussion of outcomes.

If a company declares selling computers to the legitimate government of a country is "Just doing business," then, well, that's IBM during the reign of the Nazi party, and history has held them accountable regardless.

So ultimately we’re societies built on laws. Sometimes we have embargoes. We don’t allow sales to Iran or Cuba, but we allow sales to China and Russia and a bunch of others. Most companies stay neutral and don’t take a stance. Walmart and Amazon don’t check you or me for our good citizen creds before selling goods to us. We could be ex felons for all they care. Unless the gov says don’t sell something to X, then we can. It’s a bit of circular reasoning but that’s all we have. We build human institutions to support our human activities.

Sure, no disagreement there. But I'll note that those institutions all have the liberty (with the exception of specific legal constraints like Title VII) to refrain from providing service to any of the categories you described. In fact, quite a few companies won't hire ex-felons; there's no law requiring them to do so at the federal level. And a recent Supreme Court case indicated that nothing in the law stops a bakery from refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

These are sliding scales of "how much do I care about the metadata on my customers," and most companies find it optimal to set the scales nearly to zero to maximize revenue. That's not a universal truism.

> "If a company declares selling computers to the legitimate government of a country is "Just doing business," then, well, that's IBM during the reign of the Nazi party, and history has held them accountable regardless."

Seems more like a historical footnote than any real accountability. IBM is still around and the era where "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" and had a immense workforce occurred well after the WWII era.

The fact they're noted in the history books as aiding the Holocaust carries a weight to it different than the dollars-and-cents accounting, but if you're interested more in practical effect: they still have to push harder than peer companies to hire because they have a mixed reputation (that younger companies don't have, even if that's merely because they haven't had time to grow one yet).

Non-rhetorical-or-sarcastic question: What human rights violations would ICE have to commit to make it political for you? e.g. above or below Abu Ghraib prison level?

Saying "stay out of their way" about ICE seems pretty political to me.

And I believe the same applies to anyone else who does not support the way that ICE is being run currently.

I can't speak to the perspective of the other side of this issue, though.

Right, and IBM was also leaving out politics when they built custom tabulating machines to help Nazi Germany's logistics.

Obvious hyperbole but you get the idea.

> Yes. If IBM built something that helped the government during the Obama administration, would you consider it "political" too?

Helping the government in general != helping one specific government agency with a narrow mission. Maybe you could provide an example of a government program/agency whose mission you consider somehow "opposite" to ICE.

But sure. Helping any entity accomplish a politically controversial activity is a political act.

> IBM was also leaving out politics when they built custom tabulating machines to help Nazi Germany's logistics.

Yes. If IBM built something that helped the government during the Obama administration, would you consider it "political" too?

For my part - yes. I think it's fine for companies to be political. I am totally supportive of this, and I don't think it's possible for a large company to be apolitical in a meaningful sense. (Many of the largest internet companies are founded on the belief that uncensored sharing of information is a good thing, which is definitely a political stance.)

I think we should admit that, and then say, it's okay for GitHub employees to say "My employer's politics don't agree with mine, so I'm not going to work for them anymore," and for GitHub users to say analogous things. My point is that it's deliberately deceptive for GitHub to hide behind the claim of being apolitical.

I don't think it's meant to be deceptive. When companies say they're being apolitical, they don't normally mean they're attempting some careful calibration where nothing they do is relevant to any political cause. They just mean they don't want to participate in political battles.

> At that point the question isn't "Should we have political opinions on who we sell to," it's "Can you retain employees when your organization is so partisan."

The irony in that statement! Employees are so partisan that they insist on disrupting normal work at corp., while simultaneously accusing management of being "partisan" for not entertaining their polarizing cancel culture.

I cannot find in your quotes or the article where it says they are giving them the product for free. One of your quotes mentions a $56k payment.

That's based on https://github.blog/2019-10-09-github-and-us-government-deve... :

> We will donate $500,000—in excess of the value of the purchase by ICE—to nonprofit organizations working to support immigrant communities targeted by the current administration. The Social Impact team will get Hubber input on which nonprofits can provide the most impact for migrants, to be supported via this donation. In the past, we’ve supported organizations like Border Angels, Families for Freedom, and Movement on the Ground.

The charitable view is that they genuinely care about these causes. The uncharitable one (which I'm espousing) is that they're just buying indulgences and that giving $500K of value to ICE and $500K of donations to anti-ICE groups doesn't actually cancel out and ICE gets significantly more benefit from it - and more relevantly, that if GitHub is keeping the contract and donating the revenue, they're clearly not in it for money anymore, they're in it because they want ICE to have their product.

I'll admit I still do not understand. That quote seems to say that ICE paid GitHub $500,000 and, presumably, ICE received $500,000 in services. GitHub later paid $500,000 to immigrant support nonprofits. In this case, when you say that GitHub gave $500,000 of value, do you mean in the original transaction between the two of them?

Not just that -- github is now PAYING to support ICE. They're actively engaging in whitewashing. it's a corporate bet to them to continue supporting ICE.

i disagree. this is cleverly appealing to the /potential/ of the technology to help people, a classic moral play to technologists.

re-read this carefully:

> We have learned from a number of nonprofits and refugee advocates that one of the greatest challenges facing immigrants is a lack of technology at ICE and related agencies, resulting in lost case files, court date notifications not being delivered, or the wrong people being charged or deported,” read a companywide posting sent Oct. 22, signed by Brescia and the leadership team.

carefully note that there are no examples given of the technology actually helping people, just the possibility dangled out there that somehow by offering GitHub services (??) various other mishaps may get improved.

the underlying theme is, "technology could help people, so it's OK that we're continuing to work with ICE."

If separating children from their parents (who have committed a crime) is "child abuse", then our government is responsible for a whole lot of abuse. It's not clear what this has to do with ICE specifically.

Children are generally not separated from their parents when their parents commit non-violent minor offenses. Crossing a border is, at the least, non-violent. How major or minor it is is debatable.

The basis of your argument is wrong. What else ya got?

  Children are generally not separated from their parents when their parents commit non-violent minor offenses

Children are separated from parents every damn day in cases of neglect or endangerment. Hell, we get CPS involved when a kid is left unattended in a car or alone at home, or even if a home is dangerously unkempt.

Dragging children across two thousand miles of desert and multiple borders (where many die en route) is far worse endangerment.

> Dragging children across two thousand miles of desert and multiple borders (where many die en route) is far worse endangerment.

When compared to your cushy first-world existence, sure. Some might consider continuing to try to raise children in abject poverty permeated by narco-terror to be endangerment. As usual, it comes down to whether you think any random stranger from these countries is likely to be a bad person or likely to be a good person. I am happy that I see goodness in others, and I feel sorry for those who live the other way.

> Dragging children across two thousand miles of desert and multiple borders (where many die en route) is far worse endangerment.

Would you say the same thing about children dragged across the Atlantic Ocean on cramped boats to arrive at Ellis Island?

I really don't think "endangerment" is a reasonable description of this situation. Parents are doing it because it's what they believe is best for the kids, because conditions are more dangerous where the kids are.

When CPS gets involved, do we then keep the kid in a cold warehouse inside a fenced off pen, leave them to sleep on the floor with a space blanket, give them antipsychotics to sedate them, fail to provide them with soap and toothpaste so they become ill? Further, fail to keep records so they may never see their parents again?

This is literally what's happened to thousands of children. We don't know exactly how many. And before another person carelessly posts some sentiment about how this is okay, I hope you also take the time to do some real introspection.

anyone who thinks this is ok is inhumane. not surprising to see so many black-and-white people here though. "crime means you forfeit all rights forever and ever no matter how petty" is such a shitty, petty way to live life.

Applying for asylum is not a crime.

...at the port of entry, not in random places on the border.

do you separate children for jaywalking? or littering? because that's what the "crime" of "being illegal" amounts to. it's a misdemeanor.

so the next time you get caught speeding or get a parking ticket, remember that they could have taken your kids and sold them into sexual slavery. have a good day.

Your argument is pretty bad, but also, have you heard of prison abolitionism? It's a thing. We don't need the carceral state. The US prison system in its current form is a monster, arguing anything different can only be done from ignorance.