I have mixed feelings. It was basically a mob-driven decision. Mob made decisions can have good or bad outcomes, but the action being pressured for by mobs is usually irrational.
I think there's something to be said for listening to your customers and community. But how much of the pushback was from the community? Certainly the developer who yanked their code. And from what I've read the internal developers too.
But I think having to fear crowds of probably less than completely informed people generally lacking nuance is not something to be lauded.
There was no mob. Chef is a company that a lot of people in the tech community had a lot of respect for. So after the gems were pulled, revealing their sloppy handling of their own codebase, followed by their CEO and CTO coming out with embarrassing statements that failed to justify their position, and blamed their poor practices on someone who hasn't been an employee in years, and had no real power over them, they got some well-deserved pushback from peers, customers, employees, and community members. If it felt like a mob, that's because these people with a tremendous amount of power really did hurt a lot of people with their stances. I'm glad they've changed their minds.
For those that see halting illegal border crossings as a positive (which are likely a minority on HN but HN is not representative of the nation), this change hampers the ability to enforce the law.
Even for those that do think halting border crossings is bad, the consequences of making ICE change to a different IT solution is likely that ICE's bureaucracy is hampered and people detained at the border take longer to process and thus result in more hardship.
So yeah, I say "I'm not sure" because I don't know the personal motives of the individual outspoken people. It really depends on what they thought it was going to accomplish, and why they wanted those things to happen.
It is impossible to control the actions of other people. What they will or will not do should play little role in your own moral determinations. At the end of the day, anything done in business is only done for money. If you do something which you believe to be immoral, being able to say "but I got paid" will not help. If others step in and do it instead, they bear the moral consequence rather than you.
Whether one would consider the action requested to be rational really depends on the objective of the "mob".
If the objective is to gain some immediate press exposure for immigrants rights issues, it seems totally rational, and it appears to have achieved the goal.
If the objective is to improve conditions for immigrants in ICE/CBP custody in the near term, it's not clear it will help, and it could definitely have unintended negative consequences. For example, ERO agents under increased pressure due to IT systems going down may be less likely to offer DA on humanitarian grounds, if it's just easier and less paperwork to deport en masse. Maybe there's a strong rational argument to be made in favor, but average citizens don't have complete information or authority to investigate, so it really seems to boil down to more of a "gut instinct" decision.
If the objective is improvement in conditions for immigrants in the longer term, it might be rational if it's part of a persistent, steady application of pressure to reform ICE/CBP/ORR through a combination of protests, opening cases to trigger judicial oversight, and lobbying to achieve change through legislative processes. But it's unclear if this kind of boycott is particularly effective use of time/resources towards that goal.
nothing else works, people work with the tools they have at their disposition, and if companies don't have any morals when it comes to us (results driven approach no matter the consequences), why should we have any morals when dealing with companies? We're just playing at their own game, and getting good results, and there is nothing wrong with that, so keep on going as long as there are results.
> These abstract objections to specific actions are, frankly, a cop out.
My objections aren't to these specific actions. I'm trying to discuss the phenomena of very vocal outrage at a distance motivating company change. I specifically didn't mention my stance on the results because I don't want to be one of those people who supports the means only when it leads to results I like (e.g both Democrats and Republicans when it comes a President of their party overreaching their power to do something their party supports).
For the record, I am very pro-immigration and don't like the current Administration. That's part of why I have mixed feelings about the general approach.
The other reason I have mixed feelings is because corporations do need to be accountable, and currently the outrage mob seems to be the most effective, if very narrow tool for helping accomplish. But while I don't think it's the proper tool for that, I'm not really sure what else to try to replace it with.
> Your statement also completely disregards morality and ethics.
That's a fair point, my description was lacking. I think mobs also tend to act amorally and without regard for ethics. May they have reactions rooted in moral and ethical causes? Absolutely. I don't think often gets applied to their reactions though. I think in these situations, most people check their civility at the "keyboard" (door, getting online, etc).
The reaction here was relatively mild. There have been bigger, badder ones though, and while this doesn't really compare effect-wise, it is on the same spectrum, in my mind.
Do I want things to change? Absolutely. Do I want things to change just because a large number of people were informed of something through a random news article and poor handling of it? I'm not so sure.
Your point is extremely valid. Misinformation spread online and repeat in echo chambers seems to be the political climate for the USA.
Personally, I consider myself to be a Republican, but it seems fear and hatred has tainted my party. A great example would be to look at all the Republican presidential candidates for 2016 and watch how many opposed the current administration.
However, once they saw the voters following they were forced to do the same rather than demonstrate what a backbone is for.
Stonewall Riots. Boston Tea Party. Battle of Blair Mountain. Young Patriots and their “Rainbow Coalition”. If you have not heard of all of these then ask yourself this simple question:
These are examples of civil disobedience, in which the persecuted fought back against injustice. Next difference is that the outcomes were favorable for the victims, not so much for some innocent Massachusetts colonists.
Eh, maybe? It "worked" in that they're choosing to not renew the contracts over the next year, but he admitted that over the last year employees have been fighting for this and have been ignored until now, which is pretty shitty. For revenue that appears to be only $95k USD (the amount they're earning from the contract that they're instead going to match to charity)?
They did the second. It’s sucks that it isn’t the first, and it sucks that they didn’t pick the right horse during the race up until this point. But they changed their mind, openly and in plainly spoken terms.
“Worked” doesn’t need a qualifier here. Their failure to implement #1 correctly, and their pivot to implement #2, will help them serve as a lesson to others.
The project is worth ~$100k-$200k. It’s a rounding error in their budget (ICE annual budget is about $8 billion a year for FY2018; for context, US DHS is ~$92 billion/yr)
No one is ever going to deprecate ICE because it’s too expensive. They’ll just pull the money from someplace like NASA (unfortunate reality, not a policy I endorse).
So it's a rounding error for DHS but an expensive soaking for the taxpayer? That doesn't bear out.
No one is going to deprecate ICE because it's too expensive, but they might do it due to extensive political pressure from all sectors. I'm okay with paying 0.001 USD or so to send that message.
The problem with this is the mob too quickly concludes CBP provides no valuable service to the nation (i.e., service worth contract support) because of a policy I don't like. That really is unjustified, I think.
The same is true of law enforcement generally. Police get a lot of hate on HN because of some obviously over-the-top policies that need to be corrected. But we would have major problems without law enforcement, including CBP.
We should address the issues without taking them to the extremes. This applies pretty broadly in politics these days, sadly.
As is often the case, it's important to distinguish absolute value (the total net positive or negative created by, say, CBP or law enforcement in general) from marginal value (the additional net positive or negative created when you increase their funding).
It's possible and rational to believe that agencies like CBP are (or would be at some level of funding) a net positive in absolute terms, while also believing that they're a net negative at the margin. This is approximately equivalent to the belief that these agencies should exist but should be smaller than they are today.
Eliminating service contracts won't "bankrupt" CBP and prevent it from getting anything done, but it will reduce the amount that it can do at the margin. For anyone who believes that CBP funding is a net negative at the margin, including those who believe it's a net positive in absolute terms, this is a desirable outcome.
>Police get a lot of hate on HN because of some obviously over-the-top policies that need to be corrected. But we would have major problems without law enforcement
This seems like a fantastic leap. I think there are zero or borderline zero instances of calls, even implicitly, for the abolishment of law due to individual horrors.
Calls to abolish ICE are mostly based on the opinion that the current state of its management and culture irreparably harms its ability to lawfully pursue its mission. Agree or not with that opinion, but it's not an opinion to cease law enforcement in general.
The whole "abolish ICE" movement seems to revolve around conflating the two - an awful lot of the things people point to when justifying their calls to abolish ICE were actually done by CBP.
It's totally understandable that people are confused by the distinction between CPB and ICE. I certainly was baffled myself, until I spent a big chunk of time digging into it. And I still don't fully understand the multiple transfers of custody between those agencies, plus ORR which often ends up having custody of unaccompanied minors.
It's hard to imagine how abolishing ICE alone would resolve the humanitarian issues. I think it's reasonable to assume "abolish ICE" is really referring to a broader reform encompassing all of ICE, CBP, and ORR.
ICE, because it’s useless. There is a service for catching criminals it’s called the police. There is absolutely no need for a nazier one that would handle only one type of misdemeanors in the most brutal And devastating way they can do.
The need for ICE has to do with jurisdiction. Immigration and customs (ivory and stuff like that) are federal matters. A lot of federal stuff gets handled by federal police agencies, like the DEA and the ATF. The Secret Services investigates and disrupts counterfeiting and money laundering. The IRS has a small number of armed officers that perform arrests for very specific crimes.
The reason for this separation has to do with consistency and scope: legality of immigration, and illegality of counterfeiting, should be consistently the same from state to state. Cases involving these issues could happen in any state and are likely to involve more than one state at a time, whereas most police work usually involves only a small area. They also are not areas where the states have authority to set policy, so it could create difficult situation for police if there were a disagreement between their state and the federal government over an issue like income tax. These factors together seem to explain why we have so many federal police forces.
How would things be better if local police had authority to detain and deport people, or to investigate customs matters?
Local police are often prevented by Sanctuary City policies from aiding the enforcement any form of immigration law - and they get away with that due to immigration being scoped as a federal policy. Unless there is an immigration omnibus bill or constitutional amendment, federal enforcement will continue to be necessary.
There is obviously a current need for ICE. There are more than 10 million illegal aliens currently living in the US illegally, and this problem has been happening for decades. It's disingenuous to call this a misdemeanor when it's in regard to people who have no legal right to be in the United States.
Immigration law is a federal issue, and local law enforcement is not setup to deal with these situations.
I agree with you though that it would be great if local police were enabled to find and deport all of the illegal aliens currently residing in the US illegally.
Because there are no other misdemeanors where the penalty is deportation. You are knowingly likening it to minor infractions by legal residents as an attempt to frame it in a palatable manner.
The only reason to point it out as a misdemeanor is to make it seem like it is not a problem.
"The U.S. government initiated deportation proceedings in May 2007 against Saul as he returned from a holiday in Mexico. Saul is a British citizen, born in London, and at the time his removal proceedings began, he had been living in the United States for almost a full decade as a legal permanent resident... As grounds for deportation, the government cited a misdemeanor—check fraud—that Saul had committed at the age of 19."
"Aggravated felonies sound serious, and many of them are (kidnapping, theft, and bribery make the list, among many others), but there are also many misdemeanors that could fall within this term’s scope due to the mismatch between federal and state law. Crimes of moral turpitude are equally tricky."
> The only reason to point it out as a misdemeanor is to make it seem like it is not a problem.
It's to put it in perspective when folks try to act like crossing the border is a crime against humanity.
The penalty for check fraud is not deportation, I'm sure you know that. The US is free to decide who gets to reside here and who doesn't. Obviously the case you linked is an outlier.
I don't understand why you're being so pedantic about this. You absolutely know that people use the 'misdemeanor' phrasing to make it seem like crossing the border is as innocuous as jaywalking. It's not. It has real effects and has been a major problem in the US for many decades.
> It's to put it in perspective when folks try to act like crossing the border is a crime against humanity.
Sure, crossing the border is not a crime against humanity, but neither is enforcing the law.
> I don't understand why you're being so pedantic about this. You absolutely know that people use the 'misdemeanor' phrasing to make it seem like crossing the border is as innocuous as jaywalking.
It's not pedantic, the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor offense has very real consequences on how a case is processed. ICE ERO officers are dealing with a variety of cases, and the outcome of a specific enforcement action will depend on the severity of the offense.
One common situation is someone came to the country on a visa, and they remained in the country and continued working after the visa expired. This is not a felony, and the person is likely to be released while the legal process plays out. This person might obtain authorization to remain in the country and never be deported, for example by obtaining a different visa.
Another common situation is someone who overstayed their visa as above, but ERO officers also discover a large quantity of drugs and/or weapons in the vicinity. In this case, there is a strong reason to believe the person has committed a felony, and that person is very likely going to remain in custody while the legal process plays out. This person is also very likely to be deported, since a felony conviction would rule out pretty much all pathways to legal authorization to remain in the country.
“shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”
> It has real effects and has been a major problem in the US for many decades.
ICE has jurisdiction over a large number of federal laws involving immigration as well as laws involving transporting illegal goods across national boundaries (narcotics, weapons, money laundering, child pornography, etc...). Some of these crimes certainly are felonies, whereas others are misdemeanors.
ICE the agency isn't old enough to vote or buy cigarettes. CBP is different agency and no one is calling to abolish it.
In fact, equating to two is common tactic of the "throwing children into cages is good, actually" crowd and most of the time it means the person is arguing in bad faith.
People unironically post on HN that prisons should be abolished on a semi-regular basis. It's not groupthink by any means, but some people have far more extreme beliefs about the law than I think you realize.
> The problem with this is the mob too quickly concludes CBP provides no valuable service to the nation (i.e., service worth contract support) because of a policy I don't like. That really is unjustified, I think.
That's not at all the conclusion. At some point you stop thinking about what value is added by the contract work. For many people, that point is somewhere before "lock children up and separate them from their families".
> The problem with this is the mob too quickly concludes CBP provides no valuable service to the nation (i.e., service worth contract support) because of a policy I don't like. That really is unjustified, I think.
Nobody say they don't provide any valuable service. It's not a reason to support an unethical service though.
There is a quite rational position in determining that there is some point of no return at which something -- an organisation, company, government department, movement -- goes past the point of return or acceptance, and becomes dead to you.
You'll want to be careful in applying that too liberally, but there are places where it applies.
You've been trying to argue that point throughout this thread for "the mob" itself.
> Policies such as family separation and detention did not yet exist.
Um... what? ICE has been around since Bush. And Obama, IIRC< did some "detention reforms" while he was in office.
Look, ICE does more than just "separate families" they also fight human/sex trafficking and they also a bunch of other stuff. I get that you may disagree with the detention stuff, but what about their work in other areas?
You can't look at what's happening right now and think those policies haven't changed since they were implemented. There's explicit orders from above to transform these policies into atrocious deterrents so people will see them and reconsider coming to the US for help.
'Abolish ICE' means that the agency as it currently exists needs to go. That doesn't mean we don't need at least some of the services they provide. It means they've become a harmful agency with a culture of abuse in many areas, not just with detention. Tear down the bad agency and start over with something new.
So because they fight human trafficking (which is undoubtedly a good thing), we should overlook people dying in their concentration camps and children being kept in inhumane conditions?
Is there some sort of scale we measure these things on where if you do enough good things you're allowed a certain amount of atrocities without intervention?
> So because they fight human trafficking (which is undoubtedly a good thing), we should overlook people dying in their concentration camps and children being kept in inhumane conditions?
Note that the investigatory group within ICE (Homeland Security Investigations) that is key to fighting human trafficking is almost entirely separate from the rest of ICE and has raised being part of ICE in the current environment, because of the backlashes the rest of ICEs practices have been producing, as inhibiting their work, because it reduces the willingness of people they need voluntary cooperation from to work with them, because “ICE”.
There are more than ten million illegal aliens currently living in the US illegally -- a great reason to not dismantle ICE.
The existing laws should be enforced, and they haven't been for decades. If the laws should be changed, then congress should work to change them. Allowing millions of people to evade the law because of feelings is not a solution.
> There are more than ten million illegal aliens currently living in the US illegally -- a great reason to not dismantle ICE.
No matter what your views on immigratiom policy are otherwise, I don't see how that's a great reason for preserving the present organization.
If you view the present legality as correct, it's a reason to have the enforcement function in a competent and effective organization that is broadly respected by the public, but that doesn't sound like ICE.
This policy has been one source of the controversial separation of family members from one another. Whether you supported previous admin policy or not is not really relevant, this is easily the most widely discussed component of the existing controversy.
This is one way in which the current administration has departed from previous ones, in a concrete policy based manner, and there are others. You can find all of this information online quite easily, and I would encourage you to do so.
edit: I'm going to disengage, but for anyone saying "What about Obama?" did you watch the last Democratic primary debate? Biden was asked directly if he would apologize for the policies of that administration.
what if my answer is yes? this line of questioning where somehow "obama did it too" is supposed to be the ultimate own for anyone left of Reagan confuses me.
do i get extra argument points for not liking ICE no matter who's sitting in the white house?
That's fair.. it's also fair that the US takes in roughly 1/5 of the world refugees, more than any other nation by a wide margin. And illegal crossings alone are nearly double those numbers this past year.
Quit calling them concentration camps. That's ridiculous and hyperbolic. No one forced people to cross the border illegally, whereas Jews were rounded up and starved to death. Not even a close comparison. By your logic, all prisons are "concentration camps".
If you don't want them held until trial, what should we do instead? They are essentially prisons, because that is what we do with people who break the law.
> whereas Jews were rounded up and starved to death
Those are called death camps.
A concentration or internment camp is where you stick people who you don't trust, so you can keep an eye on them. Prisons are essentially a form of concentration camp, but the key distinction is that you have to be found guilty of something to end up in prison. It's probably more accurate to think of a concentration camp as a long term jail.
> > whereas Jews were rounded up and starved to death
> Those are called death camps.
I try to not engage in political discussions, but I'm going to strongly disagree with you. The popular definition (i.e. actual living language) of a "concentration camp" is "where people are killed" - for example, see Wikipedia page Auschwitz concentration camp.
I see where you're coming from. The problem is that German death camps are by far the most talked about type of concentration camp. Canadians and Americans had concentration camps for the Japanese, for example, where the conditions were significantly better. Even most of the German concentration camps were relatively humane.
One pattern I've seen, is that some people use "concentration camps" to refer to bad ones, and "internment camps" to refer to okay ones, and maybe that's a an okay distinction, but the reality is often a lot less black and white than our words would like to suggest.
I get that this is a sensitive topic and understand the association, but the first sentence on Wikipedia's Auschwitz page says, "The Auschwitz concentration camp was a complex of over 40 concentration and extermination camps" The first section of the "Nazi concentration camps" wikipedia page ends with, "Holocaust scholars draw a distinction between concentration camps (described in this article) and extermination camps, which were established by Nazi Germany for the industrial-scale mass murder of Jews in the ghettos by way of gas chambers."
Google gives the OED definition, "a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz."
While colloquially a lot of these terms are conflated, the literature seems to make a clear distinction.
> They are essentially prisons, because that is what we do with people who break the law.
If you cross the border to request asylum, doesn't matter if walking or by using a star trek teleporter, you are committing no crime. They are breaking no laws.
False. If you cross the border illegally you are a criminal, period. It is not suddenly legal if you subsequently request asylum and asylum may only be granted if entering at a legal port of entry, so these people do not qualify for asylum.
EDIT: technically, you are breaking a law, as it is a misdemeanor. Have you found any instances where this was prosecuted, following a successful asylum application?
It is NOT false. You need to be either at a port of entry or in the US to apply. You have one year to do so.
A port of entry is a place where one may lawfully enter a country. There is no law carving-out an exception to lawful entry for people who plan to eventually travel to a lawful port of entry.
So why don't we want to help ICE do their job? We can provide better living situations for people waiting for their case to be processed and better IT solutions to improve our ability to process cases.
Taking petty stabs at ICE (like making it harder for them to do CI/CD) seems pretty unhelpful.
Yet we have seen budget after budget blocked that would fund more humane facilities. If you care about stabilizing the asylum pathway, you have to be willing to fund it.
So said Mike Pence, and was later shown to be "not correct".
The only people who were being released were the ones which border authorities themselves deemed "low risk", and were released with ankle monitoring, and even then only released because we refuse to process them in anything approaching a timely manner.
>Short term they should be held in humane conditions, trials should not take months and instead take weeks at most, families should not be separated. It's not rocket science. Take some of the money you're burning up every day and spend it here instead (and on other things that improve the lives of people).
Current updated immigration detention facilities are on par with or better than most other developed countries. The problem is with the overcrowding. It's too bad that efforts to improve the efficiency of the system (and thus the crowding), whether it is furniture or tech like Chef is experiencing such counter-productive boycotts.
Over a year ago there was a plan to give current illegal residents a pathway to citizenship and build a wall to significantly reduce the now 100k+ monthly crossings -- it was opposed by the same activists now complaining of the consequences.
>Some of those conditions are the direct result of US policies and actions in Central and South America.
When it comes to matters such as these, being powerful is good and being weak is bad. Do you think their ancestors never took anything from any other group of people? Or if they did that they felt any remorse about it later?
> why is is the job of America to hold every displaced guy on two continents?
Because of this:
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
It's the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. The US decided, long ago, that we'd be a haven for people of other countries who are being persecuted or who otherwise want a better life.
If we don't want to do that anymore, I suggest we tear down the Statue and replace it with a closed gate.
Besides that, we've been meddling in the affairs of Central and South America for decades with mostly-disastrous effect on their economies and political systems. Accepting refugees would be a small step toward acknowledging and working to right that wrong.
>It's the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. The US decided, long ago
The US absolutely never decided that, and certainly not at that time. That inscription was put there by wealthy New York liberals, and it certainly did not reflect the feelings of the majority of the people at the time. In fact in the decades that followed, the people of the United States instituted strong immigration restrictions, which by the way were specifically designed until 1965 so that they would not alter the national origin demographics of the country, so the American people at the time obviously did not want tens of millions of people from poor third world countries pouring in.
>Besides that, we've been meddling in the affairs of Central and South America for decades with mostly-disastrous effect on their economies and political systems.
Their ancestors before them went to war against other groups and took their land and resources. Something tells me they didn't feel particularly bad about it.
> Their ancestors before them went to war against other groups and took their land and resources. Something tells me they didn't feel particularly bad about it.
That's... not really relevant to the point being made.
At the end of the day, I'm tired of trying to advocate for the idea that you should care about other people. Especially if it doesn't cost you anything! Which, as it turns out, is actually the case for most kinds of immigration, despite what loads of unsupported FUD would like people to believe.
>That's... not really relevant to the point being made.
Of course it is. We don't owe them anything any more than they owe the victims of their ancestors' pillaging, which is nothing.
>At the end of the day, I'm tired of trying to advocate for the idea that you should care about other people.
Presumably you are discovering that people have their own problems to deal with, and don't always feel like being lectured about how they should put the problems of the rest of the world first.
>Which, as it turns out, is actually the case for most kinds of immigration, despite what loads of unsupported FUD would like people to believe.
It's actually not the case if you're a tax payer. More than 60% of households headed by an immigrant use some form of welfare.
That's money those taxpayers could otherwise have used to pay for their own children, and maybe could've afforded to have more.
It's also not the case if you're a low or medium skilled worker.
It is the case if you're a wealthy business owner who benefits from cheap labor or a highly skilled worker in a field that's not greatly affected by an influx in labor.
I agree with you in principle one-hundred percent. However, at the time that was written, there was one key difference: entitlements. Once the government started taking on the burden of providing a safety net, we lost the ability to admit every one. This was somewhat mitigated in the twentieth century by the sponsor system, but this is gone now, too.
I wish we could let every one come here and make himself successful, but I don't foresee entitlement spending ever gong any where but down. I don't take the position of limiting immigration for idealistic reasons, but because there is a limit on how many resources we have.
I'm not the OP, but I think that would at least be a closer comparison, although what the Japanese-Americans went through was still a somewhat worse transgression, as they were by and large citizens. It would also be a good reminder of what happens when you let the government infringe upon natural rights enumerated by the constitution.
I get that there is a legal and constitutional distinction between citizens and non-citizens, but the idea that a non-citizen is (ethically) less entitled to basic human rights simply because they're not "one of us" is just disgusting to me.
> That's debatable, but why is is the job of America to hold every displaced guy on two continents?
You have room and you're partly responsible for why they're displaced?
> Where do you propose to put 4,200 people in "humane conditions"? Who should shoulder the burden of that cost?
The shuttered Trump Plaza has 900 rooms according to Wikipedia, two bunk-beds to a room and that's 3600 people in that building alone. Finding room for the remaining 600 can't be that difficult I'd imagine.
The people of the United States should shoulder the burden of that cost. Tax the rich even 1% more than you do now and you could build a new Trump Plaza every year if you wanted to.
Sweden found room for 80,000 Syrian refugees that all arrived within a span of ~12 months (6600 people per month), and we're a nation of 10 million people.
The US is supposed to be the greatest nation on Earth. Figure it out.
Trump Plaza is supposed to be destroyed, the government could buy it and then not destroy it. Like I said, it's not rocket science.
You guys just don't want to pay for things. That's cool, but say that you don't want to pay for things instead of pretending that this is some unsolvable problem.
Which, in my experience, makes continued use of it completely impossible. There is no other product I've had to sit through vendor calls as much with while trying to do some kind of maintenance on the Chef server.
Coming from Puppet, I almost migrated to Chef long ago because Puppet lacks stability (not "the system is down" stability, but "all my scripts stopped working again this month"), but looking at it, I concluded Chef lacked it too.
I'm still at the "shell scripts are enough for everybody" camp, but Ansible is looking stable enough to use.
Terraform + Ansible and a little Salt has pretty much deleted my needs for Chef and Puppet. Strongly recommend TF + Ansible as a building block of orchestration + post-orchestration config mgmt.
All these replies saying ansible is the better tool. Highly disagree.
Ansible is too procedural. "do this if that otherwise something else. Then that. Then this other thing". This is very much prone to human error.
As a platform engineer I care that this file exists with this specific content and these specific permissions. I don't care how it happens. Puppet and Chef have the advantage of being declarative and that's 100% better than procedurally telling ansible what to do and what not to do (plus the overheads of every ssh connection that it creates every single time it generates a script). You might as well just write a bash script that does it all for you and execute it over ssh.
> As a platform engineer I care that this file exists with this specific content and these specific permissions. I don't care how it happens. Puppet and Chef have the advantage of being declarative and that's 100% better than procedurally telling ansible what to do and what not to do
These examples seem as declarative as Chef and Puppet:
I was under the impression that this is a consulting contract that will eventually end. They haven't said anything about banning government agencies using the product directly, so my guess is that said agencies are just going to have to find someone else to provide that expertise while they continue to use Chef's products.
I personally used Chef, Salt and Ansible, Ansible was the easiest to start with, but also the least dependable one, and didn't deliver on one thing it supposed to - reproducibility.
On the same image it sometimes succeeded and sometimes failed. This was happening on Amazon Linux 2, and basically once in a while yum database got corrupted. I'm suspecting there was a conflict between yum run by Amazon Linux 2 on boot, and ansible didn't respect locks acquired by yum?
I have used all 3 of them in the order of Chef, Puppet, Ansible. I still have bad dreams about Chef & Puppet. I never had any serious problem with Ansible. Maybe because its design is much simpler.
1. If there is nobody who knows how the previous conf mgmt system was configured, or how the technology works.
2. If there is nobody willing to adopt a cluster using conf mgmt that they do not prefer.
We had an admin that set up an ELK cluster with cfengine. All of the other admins do not claim to understand it, and hesitate to maintain it, update it, make changes to it, and otherwise perform their job duties. One of the admins is partial to Chef, and the other wants to maintain the ELK cluster with Kubernetes. Only problem is neither has done so, and they have made little progress. I hope to see that change.
It can be, depending on how complex your environment is and the availability of people that understand it. Chef doesn't make this easy by storing so much "state" (nodes, environment, databags, etc).
But at the end of the day, these are just scripts. You can reverse-engineer the environment and replicate in Ansible or what have you.
One red flag is, if this process is found to be too difficult(as opposed to just time-consuming), then you have a very incomplete understanding of your system. That's dangerous.
Good. Actions like Chef's create a business opportunity for the rest of us. There's nothing wrong with working with defense and security sector. When SV companies refuse to enter this sector, they create a vacuum for others to fill and profit.
This sector is important. Quality is essential. The stakes are high. I'd rather the work get done by people who are proud to do it than by people who detest the whole enterprise. Which do you think is going to lead to higher quality?
I don't know much about chef (have used ansible and salt-stack). In a previous story, it talked about how a developer removed his code from a repository of Ruby Gems that chef uses, and broke many systems that had that as a dependency. And that Chef then "fixed the issue" after a bit of time.
I'm just wondering, to publish these GEMS for chef, do you have to sign over your copyright? or is there a specific licensing requirement?
Um. Do you mean that they directly took the existing code and took his name out of it? That would be a pretty big no-no from a copyright perspective. (But it also wouldn't do anything, so I assume I'm misunderstanding)
> This just means that ICE will hire a few people to maintain their build pipeline rather than outsourcing it to a third party
Assuming ICE made the most efficient decision in the first place, the new option will be less efficient, imposing a cost.
If the most efficient alternative is also unwilling to contract with ICE for the same reason, the cost is higher. Etc.
Of course, the goal in any refuse-to-participate campaign is to build to reach more essential rather than peripheral service providers, most particularly the people directly implementing (not setting) the opposed policy.
I'm curious with choices like this: how, concretely, does this change anything for the better? Was Chef on the critical path for any of ICE's distasteful work? If not, which part of the agency (and in support of which mission) was Chef working with, and is it good to impair that?
So much pearl clutching and "but Obama" in this thread.
You've poisoned discourse to a degree where you no longer can see the plain truth that publicly acting like a hateful ghoul does not ingratiate you with the general public.
The invisible hand of the free market has spoken, and it isn't touching that with a 10-foot pole. Get over it.
Please don't do political flamewar on HN, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. It's incompatible with intellectual curiosity, which is what this site exists for.
Yes, some political overlap is inevitable. But flamewar is not, and holding that distinction is key to preventing this site from exploding itself.
As long as you’re polite you can advocate for all the ethnic cleansing you want. But if you get upset about all that ethnic cleansing, well someone has some shadow ban and words for you.
Many people are upset about the child separation and detention policies which were not standard under the Obama administration as opposed to deportation. Conflating the two seems to embody the same intellectual dishonesty you're railing against.
Even assuming outrage is selective, the question remains: was the outrage inappropriately withheld before, or is it inappropriately applied now?
If indeed it was inappropriately withheld in the past, I don't see any moral necessity to remain consistent, even if the flip-flopping turns out to be politically convenient.
Intellectual dishonesty is pretending that Trump's policies are identical to Obama's.
For example, at least one of the infamous chain-link-cage detention centers was indeed built under Obama. That's worth knowing, and it's also worth knowing that, by law, children were to be kept there for no more than 72 hours before being transferred to better quarters.
The zero-tolerance policy that separated children from parents as the norm rather than an exception, that resulted in children being stuffed in those cages far beyond their intended capacity and left there for weeks, in unsanitary conditions, was all Trump. The deaths of an unprecedented seven children in one year in ICE custody, despite the total number of detainees nationwide being lower, was on Trump's watch.
> by this government's disgraceful and abhorrent behavior
What abhorrent behavior? They've attempted to disincentive people abusing asylum policies. You don't have to come and apply for false asylum, and you're free to self-deport.
> They've attempted to disincentive people abusing asylum policies.
What a miserable, angry world you inhabit, that you're willing to hurt some of the most vulnerable people on the planet, because of a useless worry that someone somewhere might be taking advantage of us.
Consider I've witnessed the economic damage that unchecked migration causes, first-hand, I'm rather right to be angry that our politicians let this problem fester for decades at the expense of our nation's poorest.
Perhaps you should climb down off of your ivory tower and visit blue-collar America from time to time. You're accusing me of hurting others, while defending policies that... hurt others.
There is no "unchecked migration" to the United States. There's a hard cap on the number of refugees that can be admitted every year, and the asylum process is long, complex, and stressful.
Over the past 10 years, more than 50% of asylum claims have been denied. So it's not like claiming asylum comes with any sort of guarantees either.
No, Washington Post is referring to a different set of statistics to attempt to discredit Pence's more specific claims.
The claim is regarding the current flow on the southern border, not historical trends across the nation as was cited. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
This is like that old chestnut, "Bill Gates and I have a combined average net-worth of 40 billion dollars!"
Well, I have none and he has 80 billion. You can't use broad statistics to disregard specific, regional trends.
It is not illegal, in any situation, to _apply_ for asylum. It is up to the government to evaluate. If granted, it is inherently legal. If not, well, still not illegal to apply for asylum.
> Something like 90+% of claimants disappear after their initial catch-and-release
Citation needed. The claimants who are eligible for release are ones that _CBP_ deemed low risk, and are fitted with ankle monitors. They're also only released in the first place because we make very little (to now nearly zero) effort to process them in a timely manner.
It may be legal to apply for asylum but it is still a misdemeanor to enter the US without proper authorization. How these two things may interact is up for debate, but there is plenty of legal precedent that these "gotchas" are intentional.
Arguably if the migrants are not stopping to apply at a port of entry then they broke the law.
> Families are given court dates, a head of household is often fitted with an ankle monitor, and they are dropped off at a charity-run shelter or bus station.
> Electronic monitoring devices, or ankle monitors, are increasingly being used as ATDs since Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have found them to be both economical and effective. Motivated by cost savings, their use is appropriate for immigrants who are neither a flight or safety risk
> private contractor, BI Industries Inc., monitors migrants through check-ins at ICE offices, in-person home visits, telephonic monitoring and electronic ankle bracelets. ICE determines how a migrant will be monitored based on factors including flight risk and likelihood of showing up to court.
There are only two moderators, so I hope they can be forgiven for being late on a thread here or there.
I suggest you do as I did and flag the offensive flamebait comments. You need to click through to each individual comment (the nnn hours/minutes ago links) to see the flag link. I think you also need some minimum karma/reputation but don't know the specific number.
From the article: "Gackle and Bell are the only Y Combinator employees working on the site. In addition to moderating it, they maintain its technical infrastructure."
On the flagging, you may not see anything happen for some time after you flag a comment - or sometimes you may find that your flag was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" and the comment immediately changes to [flagged] [dead].
Indeed Obama was "deporter in chief" - all presidents are.
However, the rule of law was still enforced. Obama concentrated on immigrants with a criminal record and those "picked up" at the border. Family separation was rare, and there was an advocacy and appeal process. USCIS judges were not silenced and neutered. It was far from a perfect system, but there was an attempt to make it compassionate.
This is why the numbers don't tell the whole story. G.W returned more than Obama, Clinton more than G.W., H.W. more than Clinton.
This is not a Obama vs Trump issue - this is a "Every US President in modern history" vs Trump issue. It is possible to enforce immigration laws compassionately. It is not hypocrisy to call this out.
This is why people are crying whataboutism. "Attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument," per Wikipedia.
Downvoters: I'm curious if you believe my facts are incorrect, or if you're just downvoting because you don't like my politics.
I'm beginning to hate this term. It's recent popularity has a tendency to turn everything into a reductionist argument. It shuts down discussion about the bigger picture or broad ideals in favor of a very narrow band of discourse.
Join the club! One useful phrase to keep in mind is "Chinese Robber Fallacy"[0] (edit: and for more than just spotting questionable uses of "whataboutism"[1]). It's "where you use a generic problem to attack a specific person or group, even though other groups have the problem just as much (or even more so)."
Of course if you engage in this sort of "fallacy fallacy!" argument style, you rapidly get far from the discussion on the actual topic. The best move is probably just not to play.
> Overall at the end, the result will be that freedoms of the citizens of USA will get reduced, whichever side wins.
US Gov will likely start blacklisting of companies and business associated of companies that succomb to this behavior.
This, overall will shift billions of dollars to a fewer set of companies.
Anytime, power is concentrated in several mega-corps, ability to compete freely is reduced.
Fewer choices for paths of economic progress, fewer freedoms.
I am also almost 100% sure any new contract with US Gov will include clauses that will address this in a way, that doing govtech, and hiring contractors/employees for govtech businesses will be even harder.
--
Alternatively, if the mob justice wins -- then hiring/firing people based on their views on Immigration/Abortion/Religions Freedoms/etc -- will be the norm.
Either way, US citizens loose.... That was my point.
> hiring/firing people based on their views on Immigration/Abortion/Religions Freedoms/etc
Honestly, that was my first thought - it’s entirely possible that the same people who pressured Chef in this case will start pressuring companies that hire anybody who, say, had worked with ICE in the past.
Taking down something you have published from your website is not “sabotage”.
In fact, a web server responds to each client request; taking something down is simply failing to reply to future requests. Past page loads do not obligate you to serve future ones.
I don’t know how they can live with themselves by allowing Coca Cola as a customer. Any idea how much damage sugar does? Chef is contributing to the obesity epidemic and Coca Cola costs more lives than ICE.
See, when somebody throws something like this out, I can’t tell if they’re just uninformed or being intentionally misrepresentative. Family separation started under the Clinton administration when they found that large number of children were being assaulted in predominantly adult detention facilities, as well as finding that many of the migrant children were being accompanied by adults who were not their parents (that is, were being trafficked). I’m… not entirely sure what else you expect the border patrol to do other than, but I have to suspect it’s something like “don’t detain anybody, give them a court date and hope they show up for it” which was the policy until recently. They have a difficult job and a difficult mandate - trying to make them out to be the bad guys here just makes it harder, but isn’t going to help anybody.
There was a lot more content to that response than the simple fact that the practice has been going on for a while, and I think that your response demonstrates bad faith.
This is the territory we get into when we pressure tech companies to not work with very specific politically unfavorable customers. Does helping ICE with their CI/CD stack do more damage to children than advertising freebase sugar to them? I'd say probably not, especially since ICE is just going to migrate to a new stack.
But, generically, "how do we minimize harm to all children" is not what is being asked here. What is being asked here is "how do we dissociate ourselves with this specific harmful action" which is a much, much lower bar to clear. If you wish to propose a secondary harmful acction, you are free to take down your repos that Coca-Cola uses, same as anyone else?
(I realized this sounded quite caustic when I typed it. I do mean minimum causticness when discussing this. I'm admittedly super baffled by this Coca-Cola thing, because the contexts are completely different.)
> What is being asked here is "how do we dissociate ourselves with this specific harmful action" which is a much, much lower bar to clear.
Trying to live by a practice of avoiding any specific harmful actions can easily compromise ones ability to pursue more general goals. CBP does important and essential work combatting human and drug trafficking, and handling what remains of the good parts of their imigration management mission that ICE has contorted. This choice will limit their effectiveness. Degrading the efficiency of an organization at this scale has meaningful costs; 1% of 100 people saved from trafficking is an entire person. Will the degradation of capabilities here effect CBP in this manner? I am unprepared to speculate, but it seems worth factoring into an ethical decision about whether specific activities by ICE make ICE+CBP intolerable to work with.
Moreover, down the road this is probably the end of any business arrangement between Chef and US Government agencies. Administrations change, and if Chef can be expected to end contracts over public pressure like this then it cannot be relied upon to be involved with any sort of system that is going to need to last across multiple administrations, which is most of them. Minor degradation of efficiency across the whole US Government has very meaningful costs in human life and suffering.
I think the forest has been missed for the trees, and I'm not convinced that from a utilitarian perspective those advocating against Chef's contracts with CPB+ICE aren't also in the moral wrong.
I'm not advocating for anything. I'm merely stating that the premise(if a dev can rip out a repository b/c a company that uses it has ICE relations, how come we're not outraged over coca-cola relations?) is ridiculous on its face due to a severe misunderstanding of the scope of the action.
Similarly here, your post is mistaking the scope of the action and drawing a line between one dev deleting their reposity and being responsible for killing people (of note, ICE has lost children to human trafficking already so the boat has already sailed).
I feel like it's worth recognizing that a company can be as morally ambivalent as they want as long as the particular brand of moral laxity isn't politically unfavorable at the time.
"...can you appease the mobs with their pet issue of the day that has gained public attention?"
If we do not care about the gravity of the action, then that is what is being asked. It is not being moral, it is not about doing the right thing for society, this is just about making a small group of privileged people feel good about something that will not help the kids crossing the border.
> But, generically, "how do we minimize harm to all children" is not what is being asked here. What is being asked here is "how do we dissociate ourselves with this specific harmful action" which is a much, much lower bar to clear
Specifically that, in the context of this comment subtree. If we are requesting action from Chef because we believe ICE, a customer of Chef, is behaving unethically then we cannot play favorites and dismiss other Chef customers who also behave unethically; Coca-Cola being responsible of much more illness, death, and abuse of the poor than ICE despite just "producing a beverage".
Do we care about moral issues, or do we care about just this specific issue for a particular reason? Looking at the root comment from this chain (and from south of the border, mind you) it seems there are ulterior motives at play.
The idea is to avoid normalizing the actions of ICE. Public perception is one of the largest drivers of change in government. Look at things like marriage equality and marijuana usage have driven legislation over time.
Whether or not Chef dropping ICE as a customer directly saves one kid isn't the only marker of success. The combination of hamstringing operations along with increased public awareness are steps along the path to shutting them down for good.
I also agree there is a moral obligation in advertising unhealthy foods, but equating the damages of that to ICE just undermines the efforts of both avenues.
>> The combination of hamstringing operations along with increased public awareness are steps along the path to shutting them down for good.
On the contrary--hamstringing their operations just raise their costs. They are funded by US taxpayers, so if costs go up US taxpayers will pay more.
If you want to shutdown ICE or change how they operate, the US Congress must change the law. If you are a US citizen, write / call / email your representatives and demand that they act accordingly. Also, VOTE! If you don't like what your representatives are doing, vote them out!
Petty protests like this do little to change the operations of a federally-funded, legally-mandated entity that is enforcing federal law. If you want change to occur, federal law must be changed. Congress changes federal laws, so you must start with them.
The children are not choosing to do so in any meaningful sense, no. But anyway, most of the families are filing for asylum, which is legal. They aren't entering illegally; they are filing for asylum at the border. We're the ones choosing to cage them instead of treating them more humanely.
And it's not sensationalist to speak the truth. There are plenty of photos and videos. We are actually doing this.
I mean if you look at lives lost it seems quite obvious. Americans and the world consume too much sugar. Empty calories contribute to obesity.
Thousands of detained children are bad. Tens of millions dead from obesity is certainly worse than that right?
Also it’s quite possible to not work with lots of terrible companies that are doing great harm. Why stop with just a few. Surely chef will help the world by not doing business with all the bad companies of the world.
Obviously, there is more personal freedom and choice in choosing beverages vs needing to wait 10+ years for a green card, etc. Most companies have negative externalites and we have to draw the line somewhere but the distance between the Coca-Cola & ICE lines is miles apart.
Car manufacturers are not really accurate metaphors as it is CBP and ICE themselves who are carrying out actions that many people strongly disagree with. Whereas a car company has no control over its customers
If Ford were separating children from their parents and imprisoning them in warehouses then I'm sure many people would stop buying Fords or doing business with them.
There have actually been campaigns against vehicle manufacturers because of who they sell to. I recall that JCB and Land Rover have had campaigns against them as they sell vehicles (mainly armoured) to the armies of countries with questionable human rights records.
Summary: "After deep introspection and dialog within Chef, we will not renew our current contracts with ICE and CBP when they expire over the next year. Chef will fulfill our full obligations under the current contracts."
>> Policies such as family separation and detention did not yet exist.
Family separation has exited way before 2014 and in most criminal cases they do not let the child with a criminal who committed a crime. If police catches you with DUI while you have your children in the car they will separate you. It also existed under Obama. Not sure where anybody with internet connection and the ability to read and understand English gets this idea that it is a new thing.
Who said it was? You can go to any ____legal____ port of entry of the United States and apply for asylum. There is 2.3% chance for a Mexican to get it granted (based on 2015 data). The problem is when people try to cross the border illegally (which is a crime) dragging their children along. Not too surprisingly this is what the US CBP people want to stop.
Succumbed to the political biases/fake news of this country. Too bad as Chef did not have to say anything or do anything. Where was the outrage under previous admins? hypocrisy x10
I for one, do not support Chef and will never use their product as Ansible is better anyways.
It's interesting to see that someone has an issue with someone else using the term Fake news when there are many examples of MSM's hypocrisy and biased reporting everyday. MSM is protected under 1A, so they can say whatever they want with little or no consequences. When you're a "News" agency, one would think they would report on news topics backed by facts. Not anonymous sources, and opinions they never retract or apologize for.
What does it have to do with this Topic? I belive the developer watched to much MSM to believe their lies and that ICE is bad and treating people bad but not realizing the previous admin deported more people, and had much worse conditions. </rant>
In regards to anonymous sources, what do you want them to do? Most sources need to stay unnamed, or they cease to be sources (and no future sources come forward).
Another note: There is a difference between anonymous and unnamed. Most reporters know and verify their sources. They just do not name them to the public.
> If the previous administration's opponents had called more attention to the issue, maybe Chef would have acted at that time.
If the previous administration's allies had called any attention to the issue, maybe their current calls would be taken seriously rather than as a continuous knee-jerk reaction to every action of the current President.
There were a lot of people paying attention to the issue during the Obama administration. There were numerous articles, and advocates, who spoke up then and there.
These people are discounted now so that bad-faith arguments can be made.
As another commenter said, "perceived to be" is the key phrase.
This administrations rhetoric is bombastic and often times xenophobic. That rhetoric creates a different perception and generates mistrust.
Imagine you had two co-workers. One was incredibly clumsy, and constantly, accidentally, stepped on people's foot. They always apologized, and generally tried to make it right, but every day, someone's foot was stepped on.
Another co-worker walks around talking about how they're going to punch every one in the face. They punch a lot of people in the face, more often than not people who don't deserve it.
By the numbers, the first co-worker is harming far more people.
Which is irrelevant; the anger at ICE isn't over the number of people deported (or even particularly about deportation, specifically.)
Other than disproving this administration’s defenders’ talking point that opposition to this administration’s policy is about opposition to the enforcement of immigration laws, I'm not sure what pointing out that the Obama administration deported more people in the early years of his administration than Trump has in a comparable time frame.
The fact is, a lot of the policies currently aren't really different than they were under Obama, many started under Obama.
There's also more than a few people talking about removing the entire organization, and decriminalizing illegal border crossing (open borders) and not enforcing immigration laws. Pretending that high profile politicians are not promoting this is kind of silly.
>The fact is, a lot of the policies currently aren't really different than they were under Obama, many started under Obama.
Shutting down the legal border crossings to legal asylum seekers was not an Obama policy. Even if all the other treatment of detained persons crossing other than at designated border crossings were a continuation of Obama policies (which it's not), that alone would change the entire equation because the population targeted had changed because people who never would have crossed anywhere but at a designated crossing for the purpose for applying for asylum are now subjected to it.
OTOH, family separation was an outcome that the Obama administration chose to avoid by not detaining families with children after the court orders that forced that as the outcome of detention
> There's also more than a few people talking about removing the entire organization
Not the function of border enforcement, just the current agency given the function, parceling the function out elsewhere as a way of destroying broken organizational culture.
> and decriminalizing illegal border crossing (open borders)
Using civil enforcement (including deportation, which is a civil, not criminal, sanction) for illegal border crossing, as is done for most immigration violations (most of which are not criminal) is not “open borders”.
> and not enforcing immigration laws.
No one is talking about not enforcing border laws as a desired end state. Some people are talking about changing laws, but that is a different thing.
> Pretending that high profile politicians are not promoting this is kind of silly.
No, your description is (more than kind of) silly, and more the point simply a regurgitation of false and misleadig talking points used repeatedly against anyone criticizing the current administration on immigration.
The key phrase in the comment you're replying to is "perceived to be."
Beyond that, it may come as a surprise humans don't act in perfectly logical ways and all of us on some level exhibit small hypocrisies on a daily basis.
You seem like you don't understand what happened and are chalking it up to fake news, so I'm going to answer your question of "where was the outrage under previous admins?" and explain to you why the current outrage is not hypocrisy:
In previous administrations, people in violation of immigration law were given a court date and released. The new policy is to hold the people in detention until their court date.
I understand that this sounds like a reasonable response for an administration that wants to take a hard line against illegal immigration, and I can understand why right-wing folks would support it. After all, if someone has broken the law, shouldn't they be detained until we figure out who they are and what they're doing?
Here's the problem: If you have to detain people until their hearings, that means you have to house/feed/cloth/etc them. The administration has done a poor job of this and people have died in detention. That's bad policy. If your funding doesn't match your policy, you shouldn't implement that policy knowing it will be underfunded and cause harm to humans.
Also, because parents are being detained, the children with the parents have to go somewhere, so they're being sent to detention camps for children. This is why you're hearing about "kids in cages" more now than in previous administrations. It's a bad consequence of bad policy.
Keep in mind that detaining kids is not new. It's just that in previous administrations, it was a last resort that only happened if a parent was actually a threat that needed detention, and if there was no other family arrangements that could be made to care for the kids. The reason to minimize this type of detention is the enormous psychological harm it does for young children to be ripped from their parents. Due to policy change, this is now common.
If you accept the premise that detaining people pending immigration cases is a sensible policy, at best the policy change caused massive unintentional collateral damage to children of migrants. You could even go so far as to blame Democrats for not funding massive detention centers, which is what the right is doing, but this doesn't have credibility for me. We all know you can't scale up and then be surprised when the servers shut down because you can't pay the bill. In this case, outrage is appropriate, because the administration intentionally put people in harm's way.
If instead you think it's all political theatrics, then you'd believe that the underfunded detention facilities and stripping children from families aren't actually failures, but rather are by design. In this line of reasoning, if enough migrants die in detention and they gain a reputation for being death camps, and if enough children are put through hell of being separated from family, then it will have a deterrent effect on future migration. This may "work" in a technical sense of discouraging the activity, but it's evil. If that's the argument for doing it, we might as well be intellectually honest and just start executing anyone we catch crossing the border. Trump wouldn't be the first leader to put heads on pikes. If we're intentionally harming humans on display as a deterrence policy, it's understandable why that's causing outrage as well.
In previous administrations, there wasn't outrage because this detention and separation policy wasn't in effect.
That policy change is the whole reason people are upset. It's no surprise that ICE and CBP, who carry out the policy, have developed an even worse reputation than usual. It's also not surprising that it's bad for business to work with evil organizations, once the public is aware.
Also, to preempt the obvious rebuttal: Yes, I realize that this policy change was due to public outrage over illegal immigration that put Trump in office. No, I don't think inhumane policies are a reasonable response to Trump's mandate to address illegal immigration.
edit: If you're going to downvote my understanding of this, consider leaving a comment explaining why. I'm pretty sure I've got the facts right.
