GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract • Hacker News Board

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#411

Post by chillwaves » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 1:00 AM UTC

_7bxa wrote: post #395

slykat wrote: post #381

I find it ironic that the same people protesting the contract would also protest a bakery that refuses to sell a product for say a same sex couple (or if you were in the 60s, restaurants that refused to serve blacks). You either have a viewpoint that: 1) a business shouldn't make a moral judgement on its customers and be accessible to all 2) A business can make moral judgements on its customers and choose not to do b…

The difference is not serving black or queer people isn't a moral judgement -- it's just discrimination (there isn't anything inherently wrong with being Black the same way there isn't anything wrong with being queer or Asian or Indian, those things aren't a choice unlike being a Nazi). At best, not serving minorities is a shitty moral judgement. Not serving ICE is a more legitimate moral judgement because ICE has th…

If racists had self awareness, they wouldn't be racists.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#412

Post by zaroth » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 1:01 AM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #157

tenpies wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is an attribution of intent. You see "white nationalism" but: > Making people sleep in cages There was a spike in the number of illegal immigrants in the last few years, facilities were swamped. This was an unfortunate but temporary measure. It would be more irresponsible to just release people into the country without establishing their identity, criminal history, or a suitable guardian (for chil…

How weird that you didn't mention asylum in this entire post, not even once. You keep talking about "illegal immigrants" and "breaking the law", completely ignoring the fact that claiming asylum is legal. Many of these people who were being caged are people who claimed asylum at the border points of entry; they were not illegal immigrants, nor did they try to sneak in. The correct thing to do in this situation of not…

About 20-30,000 people are granted asylum each year, versus about 60,000-100,000 people a month apprehended at the southern border by CBP. The vast majority of “inadmissibles” are not qualified refuges.

> The asylum seeker must prove to the officer that there is a “significant possibility” he or she is eligible for asylum, and must also be subject to a credibility assessment. If the officer makes a positive finding, the asylum seeker is referred to an immigration court where they will have the opportunity to apply for asylum before an immigration judge. If the individual does not meet the credible fear screening standard, he or she can be deported.

That process ideally happens in a few days, but a system to designed to handle 5,000 people a month getting 100,000 requests a month is going to take longer. In the meantime, those applicants cannot simply be released into the interior.

The onus is on Congress to appropriate the necessary funding to allow for expedited and humane treatment and proper facilities for processing the number of people who are crossing. As long as Congress refuses to provide the funds, the agencies are left to enforce the nations immigration laws without the proper resources, staffing, or even possibly basic sanitation, bedding, clothes, etc.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#413

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 1:01 AM UTC

jcims wrote: post #380

mercutio2 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working without documentation, or overstaying a visa, or entering a country without a visa, have historically been misdemeanors in the USA. The current administration has decided to treat them somewhat differently, but that's quite new. Americans don't, typically, describe people who received a parking ticket, or a speeding ticket, as criminals. In the same way, most people have not, historically, referred to people…

They are sort of misdemeanor plus because in addition to legal inconveniences in the US they also lead to deportation. This is something that has been vilified in the case of folks coming up from Mexico of course, but nobody gives a shit if a person that followed all the rules gets deported because of some bad luck with the lottery or their sponsor ditches them or their time is just up. Case in point, I have a young…

> They are sort of misdemeanor plus because in addition to legal inconveniences in the US they also get deported. This is something that has been vilified in the case of folks coming up from Mexico of course, but nobody gives a shit if a person that followed all the rules gets deported after their time is up.

If you are still here to be deported after your time is up, you haven't followed all the rules, since leaving no later than when your time is up is, itself, a requirement of the rules.

On the other hand, while people who are concerned with the recent border crossers being denied the right to apply for asylum, or being held in humane conditions, may not be concerned about those visa overstayers who are not facing either of those problems, the people who are concerned with the leniency for those illegally present who have done nothing seriously wrong beyond immigration violations tend to be just as well inclined to visa overstayers as any other person illegally present; the distinction you suggest is not accurate.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#414

Post by heyoni » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 1:02 AM UTC

tomschlick wrote: post #398

KyeRussell wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

K.

Glad to see reasonable discussion is still alive and well on HN. /s

There are plenty of good rebuttals you’ve conveniently missed. Also, 300k/year was the maximum in 2000.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#415

Post by shaftoe » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 1:03 AM UTC

p1necone wrote: post #377

tomschlick wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why don't the employees at all these other companies object like Github employees? Why do Github employees get a special right to withhold consent for their product to be used in a setting they might object to? Why is ICE the only company that they object to? Why do some causes get their favor and not others? Wokeness and the recent trend of trying to cancel anything that doesn't align within a narrow spectrum of p…

> "narrow spectrum of progressive viewpoints" Oh fuck off, the way the US government is currently treating asylum seekers and immigrants is horrifying. Only within the bubble of American politics could someone brush complaining about it off like that.

These aren't people fleeing genocide. These are people leaving Mexico. And they're being put in hotels and buses.

It's easy to pretend you're fellow Americans are monsters, but they're not.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#416

Post by opnitro » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 1:03 AM UTC

jimbobimbo wrote: post #408

opnitro wrote: post #361

God forbid I have some sort of say in how my labor is used.

Should that baker bake the cake or not?

I mean, we carve out special exceptions for race, gender, sexual orientation, etc... Beyond those special carve outs, laborers should have the freedom to follow their ethics.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#417

Post by netsharc » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 1:04 AM UTC

joshypants wrote: post #16

I don't know if companies realize that contracts with ICE are going to hurt their talent recruitment too, but they do. I recently decided against applying to a role I saw posted for Wayfair because they ignored employee demands to end their ICE contract, and I know I'm not alone.

Sad to see you get downvoted... I guess one would need to send an "anti-job application" to HR to let them know that their policy has turned you off to them (and I guess you'd need to attach your CV to show them what they'll be missing out on...).

It would be the right thing to do, IMO, but I would be scared to do it in case the company does become more attractive (shall we invent the newspeak phrase "more morally compatible"?) for me in the future, but they still have that letter of mine on file...

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#418

Post by heyoni » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 1:04 AM UTC

zarkov99 wrote: post #363

supernova87a wrote: post #348

I question how much an employee should concern him/herself with how a product is used once it's created. You have to let certain control go after a point. Or if your product is open to everyone, you'll have to live with the fact that people may use it in ways you disagree with. Xerox or Canon (or whoever) probably makes copiers that ICE uses to make copies. Lenovo or Apple probably makes hardware that they use also t…

But what will your peers at brunch say if you do not show how virtuous you are?

Human rights is so trendy right now. /s

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#419

Post by KyeRussell » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 1:04 AM UTC

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #396

zarkov99 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what will your peers at brunch say if you do not show how virtuous you are?

Caring for the well-being of imprisoned asylum seekers is not virtue-signalling. It says more about your own morals that you think it is.

Yes. It is quite literally taking action, as opposed to just acting as a "signal". Hell, a valuable Github engineer standing up against an ICE contract would probably do more for 'the cause' than their vote would.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#420

Post by dunstad » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 1:05 AM UTC

slykat wrote: post #387

kaikai wrote: post #362

"I was just doing my job" is not an excuse. It is absolutely not only our right to decide how our work is used in the world, but our duty to make sure we're not enabling human rights violations. I applaud and support tech workers making ethical calls around their work. Unfortunately we may need to put our money where our mouths are and leave employers that refuse to stand by any ethical code, and that's already happe…

But how is Github's product enabling human rights violations? I can understand if Github employees were protesting a product that created human rights violations (for example if Github offered a security service for ICE detention centers that was abusing prisoners). Would you be ok if Github was a restaurant and it had a policy of not serving anyone who is an ICE employee?

Yeah, I would love that actually. ICE runs concentration camps. Not enough people treat them how they deserve.