6 ms·

This highlights the power and voice that individuals in a company have to hold leadership accountable and make more ethical decisions. Well done.

newfriend 6y ago
There's nothing unethical about wanting to keep illegal aliens out of your country.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  There may be unethical aspects of how you go about doing it. For example: https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/15/ice-deport-witness-sexual-assault/ https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/15/ice-deport-witness-s...
  - refurb 6y ago
    "allegations"
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      If you accuse me of something, and I start frantically hiding the evidence, that's probably not a great sign.
- Aloha 6y ago
  Strong Borders doesnt mean children in cages.
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    Tell that to the last President.
    - ssully 6y ago
      That isn't as good of a rebuttal as you think it is.
    - msie 6y ago
      Two wrongs don't make a right.
      - koolba 6y ago
        Sure but they go a long way to discredit the sincerity of sudden changes in people’s positions when the only thing different is the chief executive.
        IvyMike 6y ago
        You say "the only thing different" is the chief executive, but... https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/nielsens-rhetoric-on-family-separations/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/nielsens-rhetoric-on-famil... (If you don't like factcheck.org, fine, but the facts have been widely reported elsewhere as well.) I don't think that this gives cover to either Obama or Bush for any abuses of the system under their administration, but suddenly changing to a zero tolerance policy and massively widening the scope of family separation counts as a difference, no?
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Yes, Obama did a lot of bad things, and his office disillusioned a lot of people (including me). Now, what does that have to do with the point you were replying to?
    - IvyMike 6y ago
      I never understand this retort--how is a long gone administration any excuse for continuing reprehensible behavior? I mean, if you think this is a bad practice, shouldn't we end it now? And if you don't think it is a bad practice, why feign anger at the previous administration?
      - 6y ago
- msie 6y ago
  The ends don't justify the means.
  - refurb 6y ago
    I've always hated this quote. What it saying is "the benefit doesn't justify cost" which is clearly false since we do this all the time. It's a basic cost versus benefit analysis.
    - JetSpiegel 6y ago
      Yup, in Snowpiercer, Ed Harris plays the good guy!
- celticninja 6y ago
  Well if your country was itself formed by other illegal aliens it is a bit hypocritical to want to keep others out. Obviously if this was native Americans it is different, but I bet everyone of those people that want to limit 'illegal immigration' are themselves immigrants only 3 or 4 generations ago. And I'm sure you will tell me they are legal immigrants, but I bet there are native Americans who would call that bullshit.
  - mywittyname 6y ago
    But their ancestors did it the "right"* way. * Just show up and not be obviously sick.
  - nohomeland 6y ago
    3 or 4 generations? Give me a break. My family came over so long ago that we don't know when it happened, just that our lineage can be traced back before the Revolution, to Loyalists and Patriots alike, to both Americans and Canadians, but we don't know and can't discover when they arrived via ship, but it was a lot more than 3 generations ago. 3 generations ago my family was fighting Nazism. 5 generations ago, they fought and died for the Union. How many generations do I and my family need to live on this continent before this is a place we're allowed to live without it being on "stolen land" like the radicals in Canada like to proclaim? Or am I supposed to tell my children they have to "go back" to countries that no longer exist, on a continent that never wanted them in the first place, six, seven, eight generations after their ancestors left? A continent which is also under pressure to accept whatever immigrants wish to move there, no matter the repercussions of conflicts of culture. This kind of dismissive attitude towards European-descended Americans is the same racist attitude that underpins the hatred towards anyone who identifies ethnically as "American," which I do, because my family's heritage is long-severed from the Old World, and thank God my kids won't even be able to be accused of being White, that evil race, due to my own miscegenation, so they do not need to listen to this kind of racist drivel about Americans with light skin on sites like this one day after day after day
    - AlotOfReading 6y ago
      Out of your thousand or so nominal ancestors from ~1776, none of them lived outside the US and Canada? That's an astonishingly complete genealogy and given that the vast, vast majority of Americans have more recent immigrant heritage somewhere, more than a little unbelievable.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  Nations aren't real. People should have freedom of movement.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  ICE was created after September 11, 2001. It doesn't even operate "at the border", but inland. The border is protected by the United States Border Guard, Customs, and local police. The criticism of ICE isn't that they implement the law. It's how they use their power to (to use a recent example) implement forced sterilization of female prisoners: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/21/unwanted-hysterectomy-allegations-ice-georgia-immigration https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/21/unwanted-hys...
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    >ICE was created after September 11, 2001. It doesn't even operate "at the border", but inland. The border is protected by the United States Border Guard, Customs, and local police. I'm not sure that that has much relevance to the above poster's beliefs. Even though ICE was created after 9/11, it's not like no one was doing immigration enforcement before them. ICE was just a re-org of existing agencies like the INS. In some circles, people don't even refer to ICE by its new name: Meet the new "la migra", same as the old one. If you're someone like the GP poster who believes that people shouldn't be in the US illegally, it's logical to support immigration enforcement of people past the border. ~40% of people who are in the US illegally didn't enter illegally. They came legally and overstayed their visas. There's really nothing that the CBP can do about that, unless they take on the INS's responsibilities.
jariel 6y ago
Just the opposite, without some kind of objective basis for this decision making, it's more likely that corporations will make heavily politicized decisions. It's short sighted, and it's basically shocking how narrow in scope a lot of this populism is. Has anyone bothered to venture outside the country, maybe for a 2 week vacation? China is putting people into camps on the basis of their ethnicity. Qatar has a new form of 'indentured servitude' where they bring in workers, grab their passports, force them to work of the 'debt' - and give the absolutely zero form of recourse, there is no 'justice system' just what the ruler decide on a whim. Beatings? Dead workers found the desert? Who cares? Or even softer political movements like Irish Catholic groups that demand and end to all contracts for Northern Ireland based businesses? It's not even scratching the surface. CEO's taking actions on these populist causes willy nilly will lead to their own implosion. There has to be deference to legal or legitimized entities or this will not end well.
- ianleeclark 6y ago
  > There has to be deference to legal or legitimized entities or this will not end well. You'd be surprised just exactly what you can legitimize. No entity, legal or otherwise, inherently deserves deference.
  - jariel 6y ago
    You're basically saying 'my mob is right and that's that'. It's completely wrong. The community is way, way more important than your opinion, and we have many established bodies to help us try to be objective about things, to protect minorities, to make sure we have a civic foundation. Even at the international level, we have some semblance of rules we try to follow. You don't get to pick and chose which laws to follow. The best way to fix ICE is to vote, and support litigation if they are doing something which people feel is against the law. They are a mainstream US government entity, there is otherwise no reason to ban them other than supporting internal political mobs. Finally, I would double down on the excessive narrow mindedness of all of this. Take a moment to talk to migrants of countries with actually 'bad' regimes and you'll get an earful. There's real calamity in this world which makes a lot of consternation over otherwise relatively civic stuff seems really immature. I can't fathom how we must look to the immigrants we work with. At very least, if we're going to be serious about it we have to be consistent, and there are zero corporations that have the ability to do that, which is why we defer to established groups.
yunohn 6y ago
I agree. I also feel that most of the dissent here is straw-manning. Nobody is saying you shouldn't work with the government at all. Rather that helping ICE is inherently more political and distasteful than helping say the DMV.

newfriend 6y ago

There's nothing unethical about wanting to keep illegal aliens out of your country.

ceejayoz 6y ago
There may be unethical aspects of how you go about doing it. For example: https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/15/ice-deport-witness-sexual-assault/ https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/15/ice-deport-witness-s...
- refurb 6y ago
  "allegations"
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    If you accuse me of something, and I start frantically hiding the evidence, that's probably not a great sign.
Aloha 6y ago
Strong Borders doesnt mean children in cages.
- Simulacra 6y ago
  Tell that to the last President.
  - ssully 6y ago
    That isn't as good of a rebuttal as you think it is.
  - msie 6y ago
    Two wrongs don't make a right.
    - koolba 6y ago
      Sure but they go a long way to discredit the sincerity of sudden changes in people’s positions when the only thing different is the chief executive.
      - IvyMike 6y ago
        You say "the only thing different" is the chief executive, but... https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/nielsens-rhetoric-on-family-separations/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/nielsens-rhetoric-on-famil... (If you don't like factcheck.org, fine, but the facts have been widely reported elsewhere as well.) I don't think that this gives cover to either Obama or Bush for any abuses of the system under their administration, but suddenly changing to a zero tolerance policy and massively widening the scope of family separation counts as a difference, no?
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Yes, Obama did a lot of bad things, and his office disillusioned a lot of people (including me). Now, what does that have to do with the point you were replying to?
  - IvyMike 6y ago
    I never understand this retort--how is a long gone administration any excuse for continuing reprehensible behavior? I mean, if you think this is a bad practice, shouldn't we end it now? And if you don't think it is a bad practice, why feign anger at the previous administration?
    - 6y ago
msie 6y ago
The ends don't justify the means.
- refurb 6y ago
  I've always hated this quote. What it saying is "the benefit doesn't justify cost" which is clearly false since we do this all the time. It's a basic cost versus benefit analysis.
  - JetSpiegel 6y ago
    Yup, in Snowpiercer, Ed Harris plays the good guy!
celticninja 6y ago
Well if your country was itself formed by other illegal aliens it is a bit hypocritical to want to keep others out. Obviously if this was native Americans it is different, but I bet everyone of those people that want to limit 'illegal immigration' are themselves immigrants only 3 or 4 generations ago. And I'm sure you will tell me they are legal immigrants, but I bet there are native Americans who would call that bullshit.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  But their ancestors did it the "right"* way. * Just show up and not be obviously sick.
- nohomeland 6y ago
  3 or 4 generations? Give me a break. My family came over so long ago that we don't know when it happened, just that our lineage can be traced back before the Revolution, to Loyalists and Patriots alike, to both Americans and Canadians, but we don't know and can't discover when they arrived via ship, but it was a lot more than 3 generations ago. 3 generations ago my family was fighting Nazism. 5 generations ago, they fought and died for the Union. How many generations do I and my family need to live on this continent before this is a place we're allowed to live without it being on "stolen land" like the radicals in Canada like to proclaim? Or am I supposed to tell my children they have to "go back" to countries that no longer exist, on a continent that never wanted them in the first place, six, seven, eight generations after their ancestors left? A continent which is also under pressure to accept whatever immigrants wish to move there, no matter the repercussions of conflicts of culture. This kind of dismissive attitude towards European-descended Americans is the same racist attitude that underpins the hatred towards anyone who identifies ethnically as "American," which I do, because my family's heritage is long-severed from the Old World, and thank God my kids won't even be able to be accused of being White, that evil race, due to my own miscegenation, so they do not need to listen to this kind of racist drivel about Americans with light skin on sites like this one day after day after day
  - AlotOfReading 6y ago
    Out of your thousand or so nominal ancestors from ~1776, none of them lived outside the US and Canada? That's an astonishingly complete genealogy and given that the vast, vast majority of Americans have more recent immigrant heritage somewhere, more than a little unbelievable.
tehjoker 6y ago
Nations aren't real. People should have freedom of movement.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
ICE was created after September 11, 2001. It doesn't even operate "at the border", but inland. The border is protected by the United States Border Guard, Customs, and local police. The criticism of ICE isn't that they implement the law. It's how they use their power to (to use a recent example) implement forced sterilization of female prisoners: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/21/unwanted-hysterectomy-allegations-ice-georgia-immigration https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/21/unwanted-hys...
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  >ICE was created after September 11, 2001. It doesn't even operate "at the border", but inland. The border is protected by the United States Border Guard, Customs, and local police. I'm not sure that that has much relevance to the above poster's beliefs. Even though ICE was created after 9/11, it's not like no one was doing immigration enforcement before them. ICE was just a re-org of existing agencies like the INS. In some circles, people don't even refer to ICE by its new name: Meet the new "la migra", same as the old one. If you're someone like the GP poster who believes that people shouldn't be in the US illegally, it's logical to support immigration enforcement of people past the border. ~40% of people who are in the US illegally didn't enter illegally. They came legally and overstayed their visas. There's really nothing that the CBP can do about that, unless they take on the INS's responsibilities.

jariel 6y ago

Just the opposite, without some kind of objective basis for this decision making, it's more likely that corporations will make heavily politicized decisions. It's short sighted, and it's basically shocking how narrow in scope a lot of this populism is. Has anyone bothered to venture outside the country, maybe for a 2 week vacation? China is putting people into camps on the basis of their ethnicity. Qatar has a new form of 'indentured servitude' where they bring in workers, grab their passports, force them to work of the 'debt' - and give the absolutely zero form of recourse, there is no 'justice system' just what the ruler decide on a whim. Beatings? Dead workers found the desert? Who cares? Or even softer political movements like Irish Catholic groups that demand and end to all contracts for Northern Ireland based businesses? It's not even scratching the surface. CEO's taking actions on these populist causes willy nilly will lead to their own implosion. There has to be deference to legal or legitimized entities or this will not end well.

ianleeclark 6y ago
> There has to be deference to legal or legitimized entities or this will not end well. You'd be surprised just exactly what you can legitimize. No entity, legal or otherwise, inherently deserves deference.
- jariel 6y ago
  You're basically saying 'my mob is right and that's that'. It's completely wrong. The community is way, way more important than your opinion, and we have many established bodies to help us try to be objective about things, to protect minorities, to make sure we have a civic foundation. Even at the international level, we have some semblance of rules we try to follow. You don't get to pick and chose which laws to follow. The best way to fix ICE is to vote, and support litigation if they are doing something which people feel is against the law. They are a mainstream US government entity, there is otherwise no reason to ban them other than supporting internal political mobs. Finally, I would double down on the excessive narrow mindedness of all of this. Take a moment to talk to migrants of countries with actually 'bad' regimes and you'll get an earful. There's real calamity in this world which makes a lot of consternation over otherwise relatively civic stuff seems really immature. I can't fathom how we must look to the immigrants we work with. At very least, if we're going to be serious about it we have to be consistent, and there are zero corporations that have the ability to do that, which is why we defer to established groups.

yunohn 6y ago

I agree. I also feel that most of the dissent here is straw-manning. Nobody is saying you shouldn't work with the government at all. Rather that helping ICE is inherently more political and distasteful than helping say the DMV.