I for one, do not support Chef and will never use their product as Ansible is better anyways.
What does this have at all to do with made up stories?
What does it have to do with this Topic? I belive the developer watched to much MSM to believe their lies and that ICE is bad and treating people bad but not realizing the previous admin deported more people, and had much worse conditions. </rant>
Another note: There is a difference between anonymous and unnamed. Most reporters know and verify their sources. They just do not name them to the public.
As for the "outrage under previous administrations", previous administrations weren't perceived to be actively malicious towards immigrants.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-has-deported-fewer-im...
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449665-trump-dep...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportat...
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trumps-deportation-numbe...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/biden-immigration-...
Being late to recognize a problem is not a reason to ignore it.
If the previous administration's allies had called any attention to the issue, maybe their current calls would be taken seriously rather than as a continuous knee-jerk reaction to every action of the current President.
These people are discounted now so that bad-faith arguments can be made.
Beyond that, it may come as a surprise humans don't act in perfectly logical ways and all of us on some level exhibit small hypocrisies on a daily basis.
This administrations rhetoric is bombastic and often times xenophobic. That rhetoric creates a different perception and generates mistrust.
Imagine you had two co-workers. One was incredibly clumsy, and constantly, accidentally, stepped on people's foot. They always apologized, and generally tried to make it right, but every day, someone's foot was stepped on.
Another co-worker walks around talking about how they're going to punch every one in the face. They punch a lot of people in the face, more often than not people who don't deserve it.
By the numbers, the first co-worker is harming far more people.
But the second one is the guy who gets fired.
Which is irrelevant; the anger at ICE isn't over the number of people deported (or even particularly about deportation, specifically.)
Other than disproving this administration’s defenders’ talking point that opposition to this administration’s policy is about opposition to the enforcement of immigration laws, I'm not sure what pointing out that the Obama administration deported more people in the early years of his administration than Trump has in a comparable time frame.
There's also more than a few people talking about removing the entire organization, and decriminalizing illegal border crossing (open borders) and not enforcing immigration laws. Pretending that high profile politicians are not promoting this is kind of silly.
Shutting down the legal border crossings to legal asylum seekers was not an Obama policy. Even if all the other treatment of detained persons crossing other than at designated border crossings were a continuation of Obama policies (which it's not), that alone would change the entire equation because the population targeted had changed because people who never would have crossed anywhere but at a designated crossing for the purpose for applying for asylum are now subjected to it.
OTOH, family separation was an outcome that the Obama administration chose to avoid by not detaining families with children after the court orders that forced that as the outcome of detention
> There's also more than a few people talking about removing the entire organization
Not the function of border enforcement, just the current agency given the function, parceling the function out elsewhere as a way of destroying broken organizational culture.
> and decriminalizing illegal border crossing (open borders)
Using civil enforcement (including deportation, which is a civil, not criminal, sanction) for illegal border crossing, as is done for most immigration violations (most of which are not criminal) is not “open borders”.
> and not enforcing immigration laws.
No one is talking about not enforcing border laws as a desired end state. Some people are talking about changing laws, but that is a different thing.
> Pretending that high profile politicians are not promoting this is kind of silly.
No, your description is (more than kind of) silly, and more the point simply a regurgitation of false and misleadig talking points used repeatedly against anyone criticizing the current administration on immigration.
In previous administrations, people in violation of immigration law were given a court date and released. The new policy is to hold the people in detention until their court date.
I understand that this sounds like a reasonable response for an administration that wants to take a hard line against illegal immigration, and I can understand why right-wing folks would support it. After all, if someone has broken the law, shouldn't they be detained until we figure out who they are and what they're doing?
Here's the problem: If you have to detain people until their hearings, that means you have to house/feed/cloth/etc them. The administration has done a poor job of this and people have died in detention. That's bad policy. If your funding doesn't match your policy, you shouldn't implement that policy knowing it will be underfunded and cause harm to humans.
Also, because parents are being detained, the children with the parents have to go somewhere, so they're being sent to detention camps for children. This is why you're hearing about "kids in cages" more now than in previous administrations. It's a bad consequence of bad policy.
Keep in mind that detaining kids is not new. It's just that in previous administrations, it was a last resort that only happened if a parent was actually a threat that needed detention, and if there was no other family arrangements that could be made to care for the kids. The reason to minimize this type of detention is the enormous psychological harm it does for young children to be ripped from their parents. Due to policy change, this is now common.
If you accept the premise that detaining people pending immigration cases is a sensible policy, at best the policy change caused massive unintentional collateral damage to children of migrants. You could even go so far as to blame Democrats for not funding massive detention centers, which is what the right is doing, but this doesn't have credibility for me. We all know you can't scale up and then be surprised when the servers shut down because you can't pay the bill. In this case, outrage is appropriate, because the administration intentionally put people in harm's way.
If instead you think it's all political theatrics, then you'd believe that the underfunded detention facilities and stripping children from families aren't actually failures, but rather are by design. In this line of reasoning, if enough migrants die in detention and they gain a reputation for being death camps, and if enough children are put through hell of being separated from family, then it will have a deterrent effect on future migration. This may "work" in a technical sense of discouraging the activity, but it's evil. If that's the argument for doing it, we might as well be intellectually honest and just start executing anyone we catch crossing the border. Trump wouldn't be the first leader to put heads on pikes. If we're intentionally harming humans on display as a deterrence policy, it's understandable why that's causing outrage as well.
In previous administrations, there wasn't outrage because this detention and separation policy wasn't in effect.
That policy change is the whole reason people are upset. It's no surprise that ICE and CBP, who carry out the policy, have developed an even worse reputation than usual. It's also not surprising that it's bad for business to work with evil organizations, once the public is aware.
Also, to preempt the obvious rebuttal: Yes, I realize that this policy change was due to public outrage over illegal immigration that put Trump in office. No, I don't think inhumane policies are a reasonable response to Trump's mandate to address illegal immigration.
edit: If you're going to downvote my understanding of this, consider leaving a comment explaining why. I'm pretty sure I've got the facts right.