This is more like CAT refusing to sell road construction equipment to the highway department in the PRC.
The only thing the cancelation of this contract will do is make those within GitHub who are dissatisfied feel better that they have "done something". It actually accomplishes very little, and I would argue nothing at all.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2004/11/21/israel-caterpillar-shoul...
Yes, I am not from US so I have very little understanding of ICE other than a few policy problems on the surface.
Since it would achieve very little, but wouldn't it be better to actually have the contract and has all its profits funded to an organisation against ICE?
After all it is not that ICE in itself that is wrong, it is the policy maker or the government. ( Forgive me if this is not correct )
Funding a political side that abolish ICE, wouldn't that be better?
ICE was less of an issue under the previous administration.
All this energy and effort would be better spent on getting the current admin out. It is how things work in our top down democracy. The problem is that the votes of most Bay Area companies are going toward people who already align with these goals.
TO that end the effort could be better spent on contributing TO organizations that will help advocate for the changes they want. That might be money or time or technical talent...
For what it's worth, getting the Republicans out is almost certainly what this stunt is about. Maybe not consciously, but the groundwork of propaganda that led to villainization of ICE is certainly oriented around combating Trump and his policies, not actually disbanding ICE. Something like this is a way to help supporters feel engaged, passionate, and committed to the left's immigration policies (or at least attacking the right's), so that they will be more likely to vote and vote favorably in the next election.
Breaking up a contract like this won't directly accomplish any other realistic political goals.
CAT should refuse to do business with organizations that operate concentration camps, including ICE and the CCP.
ICE detention is just plainly that, and that's all. Some conditions are poor because facilities are overflowing, not because they are designed that way. Most migrants are economic in nature, there's no pressing need for them to try to cross, and they know it's illegal - moreover - all of those economic migrants clog up the system to the detriment of actual refugees.
Of course, the migrants can leave any time - there's a policy in place such that they can chose to return home without having any mark on their record with respect to future ability to migrate to the US, and it's processed generally quickly, within several days.
There is really no comparison at all between those detained trying to enter a country, and 'concentration camps' - in terms of motivations, lawfulness, conditions, effects, legal recourse, fallout, etc. - they are in every way different.
The PRC camps in China could be referred to as 'concentration camps' because people are arbitrary detained on the basis of their culture, for any duration, they don't have legal recourse, they cannot leave, there is no judicial oversight, there is no freedom of information or freedom of press, they are not allowed any contact with the outside world, and they are put through some very aggressive 'thought control' programs that in many ways is worse than physical torture or confinement. To boot, the system itself is corrupt and prisoners organs are being sold through irregular channels.
Except politically, of course, which is why terms like that are abused so often.
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/07/01/an-open-letter-to-t...
It then quotes The American Heritage Dictionary's definition of concentration camp as: "A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group which the government has identified as dangerous or undesirable."
Ergo, prisons which only contain people who have been convicted in a trial or agreed to a plea bargain cannot be regarded as concentration camps.
By comparison, the US held Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WWII, and held Filipino civilians in concentration camps ("reconcentrados") during the Philippine–American War. These can be distinguished from prisons as there was no trial for those held.
As I understand it, if the people being held at ICE are asylum seekers, then entry into the US is not illegal (even if they are not granted asylum). The US instead argues that they can be detained until that process is finished, even if that is indefinite.
This certainly sounds a lot closer to the definition of a concentration camp than US prisons containing prisoners who have be convicted in a court process.
In any case, we're talking about people in an organization which argued that the requirement for "safe and sanitary" conditions was so vague that it was okay to refuse toothbrushes, soap or adequate bedding to children.
Are all US juvenile prisons the same way? No. The 'typically under harsh conditions' is yet another distinction between "concentration camp" and "prison".
That said, many US jails and prisons are horrid, inhumane places.
"No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens but its lowest ones." - Nelson Mandela in Long Walk to Freedom.
This is not true.
I looked into it. It seems that crossing the border not at a port of entry is a misdemeanor offense and typically results in "only" a few days in jail.
I was confusing that with the US law which says that the asylum process does not require entry at a designated port of arrival.
> Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title. - https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prel...
Since the people are being held for more than a few days, and not as a result of a judgement or plea bargain done over a misdemeanor offense, then "illegal" in the context seems more like a red herring. It's like saying that most people are illegal drivers, because few have never exceeded the speed limit.
As for the harsh conditions, I completely agree they should be improved. But that would require funding that the Democrats refuse to provide, and services from other companies that Democrats like these activists are trying to block.
How many prisons are there where the people in detention are free to leave?
That is, isn't your current statement at odds with your previous statement?
Were the Japanese-Americans in the American West during WWII free to leave, and if so, what would happen if they were found in the exclusion zone? That is, do you think those were internment camps?
Not at all. As you've correctly shown, prisons are closer to being concentration camps than ICE detention facilities are. Therefore, if you move the definition far enough to include ICE facilities, you also include prisons.
Again I ask, were Japanese-Americans in the American West held in concentration camps during WWII, or not?
Many of the Japanese-Americans who were there have long fought to have those facilities (correctly, IMO) recognized as concentration camps, and high-level officials at the time, including Roosevelt, referred to them as concentration camps. Do you disagree with them?
Were the Japanese-Americans in the American West during WWII free to leave those facilities, and if so, what would happen if they were found in the exclusion zone?
What does it have to do with ICE detention facilities?
I pointed out that your own statements contradict your own conclusion, in that at least some prisons in the US 1) contain only people who have gone through the court system are the result of a crime, and not merely waiting for a hearing, 2) are not in harsh conditions.
I also pointed out that to many Japanese-Americans held in concentration camps in the American West during WWII, that to them "concentration camp" is a very important term.
Do you agree that those Japanese-Americans were in concentration camps?
If you agree, then why are the ICE detention facilities not concentration camps?
If you disagree, then why weren't they concentration camps, and why did high-level US officials at the time regard them as concentration camps in internal use, while officially avoided that term?
- The Intercept published a report by the DHS Office of Inspector General revealing that 1,224 sexual abuse complaints while in immigration custody were filed between January 2010 and June 2017.
-As part of the 2018 Trump administration's zero tolerance policy, nearly 3,000 minors were separated from their parents, or the adults accompanying them
- From 2012 to early 2018, ICE wrongfully arrested and detained 1,488 U.S. citizens, including many who spent months or years in immigration detention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_E...
As for protests "doing something" they absolutely do in this case,as github is only valuable for Microsoft so long as they acquire and grow a base of developers to use it. The brand already excludes several foreign nations, likely as part of a policy by Redmond to court the present administration. Their failure to maintain an ICE contract without an exodus of developers would slowly turn their newly acquired developer website into a 21st century hotmail.
Github isnt the only player in this field, no matter how badly theyd like developers to think this. Gogs, Gitea, and gitlab especially are all equally suited to quickly and effectively fill any gap Github might present. Most have auto-migration features to quickly ferry code away from Github.
Any data on what the rate post-Trump has been? Or during the Bush years? Because it's hard to reason from this alone.
(Not to mention that the rate of complaints is influenced by a whole bunch of factors other than the rate of incidents - for instance taking complaints seriously might make the number of complaints go up relative to ignoring them or retaliating against the complainants, and rewarding people for making complaints would likely increase the false complaint rate. What we care about is the number of actual incidents, but that's really hard to determine with any level of validity)