As I get older, it's becoming clear how intertwined our morality is with our politics. And how that bleeds into business, sports, religion, etc. It's nice to think of aspects of life that should be free from politics, but in reality that seems hard to achieve.
The idea that one can live outside of politics comes either from naiveté or from tacit support for the existing status quo. The later option is the most common, people just figure that they don't want to put the effort needed to change the system and at the same time want to deny the morality of such decision.
As I get older, it's becoming clear how intertwined our morality is with our politics. And how that bleeds into business, sports, religion, etc. It's nice to think of aspects of life that should be free from politics, but in reality that seems hard to achieve.
The idea that one can live outside of politics comes either from naiveté or from tacit support for the existing status quo. The later option is the most common, people just figure that they don't want to put the effort needed to change the system and at the same time want to deny the morality of such decision.
HN is very guilty as of this. The insistence that HN should never discuss politics is morality reprehensible.
The people in this community creates many tools and products that could help or hurt a lot of people. As such, we should readily engage in political discussion so that we fully understand the impact we have.
As I get older, it's becoming clear how intertwined our morality is with our politics. And how that bleeds into business, sports, religion, etc. It's nice to think of aspects of life that should be free from politics, but in reality that seems hard to achieve.
This situation in particular is more complicated than the media portrays. Separating children from parents is obviously bad, and needs to stop. Zero tolerance for illegal crossings, on the other hand, is probably actually good. The prior policy of letting anyone with children go & handing them a court date heavily incentivized human trafficking of children, because a child was a golden ticket into the USA (and indeed…
One of the issues --which I think has been recently addressed, is that not only political prisoners and people persecuted by a bad government could seek asylum, but other things would qualify --even things which affect Americans, would be grounds for asylum. Obviously many are economic migrants (the congress need to work on seasonal work visas), but that's not grounds for asylum. You even hear of how they get coached for the interview. What keywords to blurt out which trigger a greater consideration.
The idea that one can live outside of politics comes either from naiveté or from tacit support for the existing status quo. The later option is the most common, people just figure that they don't want to put the effort needed to change the system and at the same time want to deny the morality of such decision.
HN is very guilty as of this. The insistence that HN should never discuss politics is morality reprehensible. The people in this community creates many tools and products that could help or hurt a lot of people. As such, we should readily engage in political discussion so that we fully understand the impact we have.
There are many forums for discussing and debating politics. HN can decide not to be one of them; nothing reprehensible about it.
>part of a backlash against the agency’s policy of separating children from their families at the U.S. border. Is that a policy that ICE can simply drop?
HN is very guilty as of this. The insistence that HN should never discuss politics is morality reprehensible. The people in this community creates many tools and products that could help or hurt a lot of people. As such, we should readily engage in political discussion so that we fully understand the impact we have.
There are many forums for discussing and debating politics. HN can decide not to be one of them; nothing reprehensible about it.
We are discussing politics, in every single post here. When people say we shouldn't, they're saying they want things to stay the same.
The idea that one can live outside of politics comes either from naiveté or from tacit support for the existing status quo. The later option is the most common, people just figure that they don't want to put the effort needed to change the system and at the same time want to deny the morality of such decision.
HN is very guilty as of this. The insistence that HN should never discuss politics is morality reprehensible. The people in this community creates many tools and products that could help or hurt a lot of people. As such, we should readily engage in political discussion so that we fully understand the impact we have.
>we should readily engage in political discussion
You must mean political lecturing, because 'discussion' implies more than one side, which means hearing from more than one side, which means not censoring or aggressively punishing voices apart from one side, which means "giving a platform to hate". Where 'hate' is one them magical words that is taken literally and figuratively at the same time, whichever is tactically convenient.
>part of a backlash against the agency’s policy of separating children from their families at the U.S. border. Is that a policy that ICE can simply drop?
Ideally we can move to a more humane system of sending both children and parents right back across the border.
> “Our current engagement with ICE is focused on moving legacy infrastructure such as mail, calendar, messaging and document management to the cloud using Azure.” I don’t understand why this makes it any better. I’m sure there’s a lot of “messaging and document management” needed to run those detainment centers. And besides, what’s going to happen in the future when they do ask to use Cognitive Services in their miss…
These people are asylum seekers. What they are doing is literally not illegal. According to USCIS, asylum seekers must be physically present in the US to apply: To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitar…
The legal way to claim asylum is to do so from official points of entry.
No. The legal way to claim asylum is to do so within a year of entering the country, regardless of whether your entry was official[1].
The US is currently breaking its commitment to the 1951 UN convention on the rights of refugees by not ignoring "irregular entry."