3 ms·

I think it's a mistake for the EFF to get involved in the politics of enforcement of immigration law. I support EFF's main mission. But I don't necessarily ag

I think it's a mistake for the EFF to get involved in the politics of enforcement of immigration law. I support EFF's main mission. But I don't necessarily agree with their positions on these ancillary issues. I'm less likely now to support the EFF financially and otherwise.

panarky 7y ago
This is a bigger issue than immigration, and the EFF isn't taking a position on immigration. The EFF identified abuse of the CLETS system before immigration became relevant. It's now relevant since a new California law prohibits use of state resources for federal immigration enforcement (except for prosecuting property crimes and violent crimes). So using CLETS to support mass deportations of people who aren't wanted for property crimes or violent crimes is unlawful. Are we a nation of laws, or is it just ideology all the way down? Do we expect law enforcement to follow the law, or can they break the law with impunity?
- tomatotomato37 7y ago
  >Are we a nation of laws, or is it just ideology all the way down? Do we expect law enforcement to follow the law, or can they break the law with impunity? In this context there's a conflict between state and federal law, so any law enforcement would be simultaneously following and breaking the law. Personally I'm more for state sovereignty than federal control (for issues on both side of the spectrum, none of that hypocritical bullshit here), but proponents of a more centralized form of government would argue differently.
  - panarky 7y ago
    There's no conflict between state and federal law. Immigration law a federal responsibility. States don't maintain national borders. California isn't contravening federal law, they've made it unlawful to use California-funded networks to enforce federal law. Federal law enforcement officers are violating California law, currently with impunity. Seems to me if you believe in the rule of law, then you shouldn't support law enforcement breaking the law.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > Do we expect law enforcement to follow the law, or can they break the law with impunity? I think DoofusOfDeath was criticizing that law itself - that it shouldn't exist, not that it shouldn't be followed. But it's a very odd argument, calling for strict adherence to the law as a means of allowing illegal immigrants to stay. Isn't law enforcement willfully turning a blind eye to the breaking of immigration law just as injurious to the 'nation of laws'?
dragonwriter 7y ago
This is about illegal misuse of personal information in an online data system by government agencies, for the purpose of harm to the person's whose information is illegally used, enabled by lack of adequate administrative controls. This is exactly EFF’s core mission, not an ancillary issue. Now, you may disagree with EFF’s core mission being zealously pursued in this case because of your view on an ancillary issue at play here, but that's not EFF engaging in ancillary issues, it's EFF declining to compromise their core mission the way you'd prefer because of your view of an ancillary issue. And, yes, people with your views on the ancillary issue may withhold support for EFF because of it. But that's what being dedicated to the core mission costs.

panarky 7y ago

This is a bigger issue than immigration, and the EFF isn't taking a position on immigration. The EFF identified abuse of the CLETS system before immigration became relevant. It's now relevant since a new California law prohibits use of state resources for federal immigration enforcement (except for prosecuting property crimes and violent crimes). So using CLETS to support mass deportations of people who aren't wanted for property crimes or violent crimes is unlawful. Are we a nation of laws, or is it just ideology all the way down? Do we expect law enforcement to follow the law, or can they break the law with impunity?

tomatotomato37 7y ago
>Are we a nation of laws, or is it just ideology all the way down? Do we expect law enforcement to follow the law, or can they break the law with impunity? In this context there's a conflict between state and federal law, so any law enforcement would be simultaneously following and breaking the law. Personally I'm more for state sovereignty than federal control (for issues on both side of the spectrum, none of that hypocritical bullshit here), but proponents of a more centralized form of government would argue differently.
- panarky 7y ago
  There's no conflict between state and federal law. Immigration law a federal responsibility. States don't maintain national borders. California isn't contravening federal law, they've made it unlawful to use California-funded networks to enforce federal law. Federal law enforcement officers are violating California law, currently with impunity. Seems to me if you believe in the rule of law, then you shouldn't support law enforcement breaking the law.
deogeo 7y ago
> Do we expect law enforcement to follow the law, or can they break the law with impunity? I think DoofusOfDeath was criticizing that law itself - that it shouldn't exist, not that it shouldn't be followed. But it's a very odd argument, calling for strict adherence to the law as a means of allowing illegal immigrants to stay. Isn't law enforcement willfully turning a blind eye to the breaking of immigration law just as injurious to the 'nation of laws'?

dragonwriter 7y ago

This is about illegal misuse of personal information in an online data system by government agencies, for the purpose of harm to the person's whose information is illegally used, enabled by lack of adequate administrative controls. This is exactly EFF’s core mission, not an ancillary issue. Now, you may disagree with EFF’s core mission being zealously pursued in this case because of your view on an ancillary issue at play here, but that's not EFF engaging in ancillary issues, it's EFF declining to compromise their core mission the way you'd prefer because of your view of an ancillary issue. And, yes, people with your views on the ancillary issue may withhold support for EFF because of it. But that's what being dedicated to the core mission costs.