4 ms·

I actually think it should be easier to become a legal immigrant. Not "walk across the border and you're a citizen" easy but easier than it is. The fact is ille

I actually think it should be easier to become a legal immigrant. Not "walk across the border and you're a citizen" easy but easier than it is. The fact is illegal immigration helps no one though and until there's legal means to come to the country, coming illegally is not a good idea and I don't see those tasked with stopping that as amoral. Remember this discussion isn't about if immigration policy should change. It's if Github is "evil" for working with ICE, an agency currently tasked with enforcing existing laws and policy.

shadowgovt 7y ago
We're in agreement on the need to change immigration policy. On the topic of the morality of working with the current system: evil is something people decide by their conscience. But if a person feels the actions of ICE are evil (and those photos generate a real visceral reaction that is hard to ignore, at least in my conscience), refusing to perpetrate that implementation, facilitate its perpetration, and walk away if one's company does so and one lacks the power to change their policy is the moral option. We know the opinion history has of people who choose complicitness or complacency in the face of evil. We appear to be in agreement that the cruelty is the point---it's intentionally harsh and dangerous to the immigrants as a deterrant. When the system actively engages in cruelty, refusing to aid that system diminishes its ability to inflict cruelty. While I don't think it's true that evil would not exist if people did no actions, I do believe that a system architected to perpetrate evil (which I believe "cruelty as the goal" qualifies as) starts to break down if people don't support it. Those people wouldn't be in cages if nobody showed up to put them in the cages. No reason Github staff should feel compelled to help that process go easier for the people perpetrating it.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  We are in agreement that we should change immigration policy. We are not in agreement that "cruelty is the point". When I look at those pictures it doesn't cause a visceral reaction. It looks pretty much exactly how I imagine it would look. They're dealing with hundreds of thousands of people flooding across the border illegally. That seems like a reasonable way to house them until they can be sent back or processed. We're also not in agreement on who's fault it is that those people ended up like that. To me and many others, it is 100% their own fault. They took the risk and now they have to pay the price for getting caught. That's not cruel, it's just sensible. Advocate for legal change, don't break the law if you can't handle the consequences.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    I don't really care about fault regarding the immigration waves any more than I care about fault for a natural disaster. On the one hand, we have people arriving with the clothes on their back. On the other, we have a country with a federal tax revenue of $3.6 trillion gross. It's obvious where the power balance lies in that relationship. To be blunt, "they took the risk and now they have to pay the price" sounds a lot like justice without mercy, and most schools of faith and philosophy I'm familiar with would call that "cruelty." It doesn't breed positive outcomes; it breeds resentment. Nobody knows all the rules of the games they're playing by; we only get by globally as a species by being merciful when we can afford it. And we can afford it, collectively, if we get creative. Three point six trillion dollars. This Congress and administration passed a big tax cut package. I believe you did agree the cruelty was the point; that it was intentionally a harsh process to deter further attempts at illegal immigration. Apologies if I misunderstood you and am putting words in your mouth.

shadowgovt 7y ago

We're in agreement on the need to change immigration policy. On the topic of the morality of working with the current system: evil is something people decide by their conscience. But if a person feels the actions of ICE are evil (and those photos generate a real visceral reaction that is hard to ignore, at least in my conscience), refusing to perpetrate that implementation, facilitate its perpetration, and walk away if one's company does so and one lacks the power to change their policy is the moral option. We know the opinion history has of people who choose complicitness or complacency in the face of evil. We appear to be in agreement that the cruelty is the point---it's intentionally harsh and dangerous to the immigrants as a deterrant. When the system actively engages in cruelty, refusing to aid that system diminishes its ability to inflict cruelty. While I don't think it's true that evil would not exist if people did no actions, I do believe that a system architected to perpetrate evil (which I believe "cruelty as the goal" qualifies as) starts to break down if people don't support it. Those people wouldn't be in cages if nobody showed up to put them in the cages. No reason Github staff should feel compelled to help that process go easier for the people perpetrating it.

malvosenior 7y ago
We are in agreement that we should change immigration policy. We are not in agreement that "cruelty is the point". When I look at those pictures it doesn't cause a visceral reaction. It looks pretty much exactly how I imagine it would look. They're dealing with hundreds of thousands of people flooding across the border illegally. That seems like a reasonable way to house them until they can be sent back or processed. We're also not in agreement on who's fault it is that those people ended up like that. To me and many others, it is 100% their own fault. They took the risk and now they have to pay the price for getting caught. That's not cruel, it's just sensible. Advocate for legal change, don't break the law if you can't handle the consequences.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  I don't really care about fault regarding the immigration waves any more than I care about fault for a natural disaster. On the one hand, we have people arriving with the clothes on their back. On the other, we have a country with a federal tax revenue of $3.6 trillion gross. It's obvious where the power balance lies in that relationship. To be blunt, "they took the risk and now they have to pay the price" sounds a lot like justice without mercy, and most schools of faith and philosophy I'm familiar with would call that "cruelty." It doesn't breed positive outcomes; it breeds resentment. Nobody knows all the rules of the games they're playing by; we only get by globally as a species by being merciful when we can afford it. And we can afford it, collectively, if we get creative. Three point six trillion dollars. This Congress and administration passed a big tax cut package. I believe you did agree the cruelty was the point; that it was intentionally a harsh process to deter further attempts at illegal immigration. Apologies if I misunderstood you and am putting words in your mouth.