Slashdot Mirror


GitHub, Medium Remove Public ICE Employee Data Repository (obsceneworks.com)

owenferguson shares a report from Obscene Works: Medium.com and GitHub have today quashed the release of a set of data comprising of all the ICE employees who openly list themselves on LinkedIn.com. All the data released was gathered from publicly listed LinkedIn profiles. The data was assembled by Sam Lavigne of http://lav.io/ and was published as a repository on GitHub, and announced via an article on Medium.com.

352 of 707 comments (clear)

  1. Sick that this is posted as a story here by moehoward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Disgusting political pandering. Slashdot, you are better than this.

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    1. Re:Sick that this is posted as a story here by owenferguson · · Score: 1

      I fucking wish they were paying me.

    2. Re:Sick that this is posted as a story here by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      No, they are not.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    3. Re: Sick that this is posted as a story here by rossdee · · Score: 1

      What is Public ICE ?

      is it some part of a skating rink?

      ICE also stands for Internal Combustion Engine
      which would be OK if it was running on Hydrogen

      and theres a new flavour of Mt Dew but I prefer Throwback

    4. Re:Sick that this is posted as a story here by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That's not something only one side is guilty of. I'm sorry, but all the guilt is not on "the other side".

      The criticism of the current government is, indeed, valid, and in recent decades the conservatives have tended to shout about liberal news more that conversely...but it's only relatively, and even that's not an "always true".

      OTOH, it's more frequently true for "true conservatives", because they want to have things stay the way they are. (If you want things to change, you're not a conservative, no matter what label you apply to yourself. I'm moderately conservative, as I want to preserve the good features of the current situation. I'm not a real conservative because there are a number of ways I want things to change.)

      Please note: Conservative is not part of the left-right spectrum. It's something separate. The left-right spectrum is about arguments over social humanitarianism vs. individual control. There's also a argument about centralized control vs. distributed control, but that one's usually conducted via sub-texts rather than explicitly. But note that both the "left" politicians (US definition) and the "right" politicians (again US definition) *act* to favor centralized control, whatever their rhetoric.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re: Sick that this is posted as a story here by bestweasel · · Score: 2

      That's unfair. Look, you should have more compassion; some of them have no option but to take jobs with ICE because they would be unemployable elsewhere.
        Most don't have the transferable skills or intellect for farming - shouting at a field of peas to be quiet and stop resisting rarely improves yields.

    6. Re: Sick that this is posted as a story here by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      Well when WATER gets really really cold....

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    7. Re: Sick that this is posted as a story here by vernonB · · Score: 1

      Most of what you say is so much xenophobic ranting, e.g., the fallacious argument that people fleeing horrific conditions in their home countries are likely to engage in criminal conduct in the US merely because they were willing to violate immigration laws to get here. Absurd. However, perhaps accidentally, you allude to a valid point about race versus class. Racism and xenophobia certainly are rampant, but the even more fundamental division is class. People on the left -- or pseudoleft -- often make the mistake of overemphasizing identity, to the detriment of the class struggle. So say I, your friendly neighborhood Marxist.

    8. Re: Sick that this is posted as a story here by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Leftist? LOL!

  2. ICE employees? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Informative

    Okay, I'll bite. The "article" doesn't even answer the question. What the heck is an ICE employee? A gas-powered employee?

    Answer via Google: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    1. Re:ICE employees? by whargoul · · Score: 2

      ICE is Immigrations and Customs Enforcement

    2. Re:ICE employees? by dwater · · Score: 1

      ICE === in car entertainment

      --
      Max.
    3. Re: ICE employees? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Baybees. Some as old as 17 with stubble on their face.

    4. Re:ICE employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There was once a day when the first assumption for 99% of the audience on slashdot for ICE would have been Intrusion Countermeasures Electronics.

      Spiral the Drain, Spiral the Drain =(

    5. Re:ICE employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's the people kidnapping babies and putting them in baby internment camps.

      Except that's not a thing that's happening. Not by ICE, and not in the US.

      What is happening is that when minors arrive illegally in the US, they're separated from the adults they came with. This is done because children are frequently brought over the border by human traffickers, who want to do unspeakable things to them. Until it can be determined who their parents are, they're kept separate from any adults they arrived with, for their own safety. It's a policy intended to protect children that started under the Obama administration.

    6. Re:ICE employees? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      What the heck is an ICE employee?

      I travel on ICEs regularly, and the service from their employees is excellent:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Fast, comfortable . . . much more room than on a plane . . . no security lines, and power outlets in the first class, so I can get some work done.

      . . . and, yes, my T-Online LTE connection remains stable at speeds of 200 km/h.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    7. Re: ICE employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Boo boo boo! They are following the fucking law! How terrible! Same law your hero Obama followed.
      How much did you worry about brown kids the ? Zero. Disingenuous prat.

      Hate the law? Change it.

      But that is not your issue. You hate Trump.

      Hillary lost. Move on.

      The law's been on the book a long time, the current administration is interpreting it rather differrently than previous administrations.
      They can change their interpretation/policy in a heartbeat.
      Who currently control the llaw-making institutions and are thus capable of changing the law? (But prefer to use kids as a lever for their political purposes)

    8. Re: ICE employees? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      The current administration lost access to the existing family detention center because lawsuits have made it impossible to have them certified.

      http://www.theeagle.com/news/l...

      They literally can not detain the kids with their mothers like it happened for most of Obama's terms.

    9. Re:ICE employees? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's the Alpine Girls from the car show. That explains why slashdot likes it.

    10. Re: ICE employees? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      There are 3 "tender" facilities with babies taken from their mother's arms in south texas and they are preparing to open a 4th facility. Airline attendents are reporting on flights carrying the toddlers away from the area.

      These are not teens. These are babies and todders. the parents will be "fast tracked" back home and the children will be "slow tracked" and *per* the former head of ICE, they may not be sent to their home countries for months or years and by then there may no way to identify their parents.

      I'm going to volunteer tomorrow and start donating for attorneys. It was reported on the news tonight that some of these 3 and 4 year old are being put in court without a lawyer to defend themselves.

      This is nazi 1934 stuff happening. It's evil.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    11. Re: ICE employees? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      I was on the road today. I've already signed up to help at the democratic website.

      I also donated to the puerto rican crisis- where over 5,000 u.s. citizens have died so far and now a new hurricane season is starting.

      And I've been doing volunteer work for the democratic party in Texas (first time in my life-- I was still voting for republicans in 2008.)

      Republicans have left morality and are headed towards authoritarianism and evil behavior.

      Any conservatives like me should leave the party and work to restore sanity to this country. Especially those who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal like me.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    12. Re:ICE employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you don’t want your baby taken from you, don’t sneak across a foreign border with your baby. Because you will get arrested and put in jail. Prisoners in jails don't get to keep their children with them in th jail cell.

    13. Re:ICE employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you don’t want your baby taken from you, don’t sneak across a foreign border with your baby.

      Exactly. What is supposed to happen? We see that they have a kid in tow so we wave them along? What do all those people who are so blissfully enraged about the situation actually think the policy should be?

    14. Re:ICE employees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is done because children are frequently brought over the border by human traffickers

      Prove it.

      The numbers I've seen put it at less than 1%

      These kids have been removed so that their parents can be prosecuted for attempting to enter illegally. They'll be sent home quickly, and then their children will take months to years to be returned.

      This has _nothing_ to do with stopping human trafficking, except as a gig-leaf for those who still don't realise that 'someone' is using human misery as a political distraction.

    15. Re: ICE employees? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Just for the sake of argument, lets say until they have family detention centers back and have enough DNA testing machines and technicians to quickly establish parenthood, you let anyone with a child on their arm through no questions asked (a tracking bracelet is fairly useless for those who don't intend to abide by the law any way, one phone call and someone will come to take it off in seconds).

      What do you think the consequences will be?

    16. Re:ICE employees? by owenferguson · · Score: 1

      Watch out for the black IC chummer.

    17. Re: ICE employees? by dwillden · · Score: 1

      So you rather the kids just be abandoned there on the spot when the parents are arrested? The kids can't go to jail with the courts, not even specially designed and designated family detention centers. The courts blocked that. so what do you propose we do with the kids? Abandon them? Or are you just calling for us to abandon any hope of controlling our borders from an uncontrolled flood of immigrants?

      Who is the Ghoul? someone who wants the children cared for while the parents are handled by the justice system for the crime they committed, or who are processed for their claims of asylum (which takes longer to process than a simple illegal entry prosecution and deportation order). Or you who evidently wants either the kids to be abandoned. Or wants them to go to jail, or just wants to destroy this county by ignoring the borders. That would be you.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    18. Re:ICE employees? by Gabest · · Score: 1

      Raising even more questions. Are they hobby programmers?

    19. Re:ICE employees? by Gabest · · Score: 1

      Do you know every department of every country? I bet you know not a single one from mine.

    20. Re: ICE employees? by jd · · Score: 1

      No, ICE is clearly a solid, not a gas.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    21. Re: ICE employees? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      So you rather the kids just be abandoned there on the spot when the parents are arrested? The kids can't go to jail with the courts

      That's an interesting thought experiment. Suppose border agents adopt this new policy: After detaining any group attempting to improperly cross the border into custody --- search all members of the group, confiscate any goods, weapons, backpacks, etc, Take adults away for detention, and Turn any kids loose on the spot, Or release them back on the Mexico side of the border without holding them and tell them to go home, since they cannot be jailed with family.

    22. Re: ICE employees? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I don't recall making an opinion, I merely stated a fact. They're the ones taking kids away from parents. ... You might want to look in a dictionary to see the difference between the two.

      Someone who works in the ICE IT department clearly does not "take kids away from parents" in any sense found in the dictionary.

    23. Re: ICE employees? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Any adult with kids who doesn't want to be separated should apply for asylum at an entry point. That's the only responsible thing to do.

      Trying to sneak into the US illegally with your kids is so irresponsible and dangerous that I think the adults should lose guardianship anyway, all immigration issues aside. American parents have their kids taken away for less.

    24. Re: ICE employees? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      He may be being obtuse but you're being an idiot. Yes, there is a very real difference.

      One is breaking up a family by removing the children.
      The other is enforcing the law, which unfortunately means the children are left without a carer and must thus be looked after by the state.

      It's a pretty clear and obvious difference to anybody that isn't being obtuse or stupid.

    25. Re:ICE employees? by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      This has _nothing_ to do with stopping human trafficking, except as a gig-leaf for those who still don't realise that 'someone' is using human misery as a political distraction.

      We agree. Liberals and the Democratic party are using these children as a political distraction. They don't really care about illegal immigrants because if they did they would have done something about immigration a decade ago when they controlled the presidency and both houses of congress with a filibuster proof majority.

    26. Re:ICE employees? by Dast · · Score: 1

      In Circuit Emulator, duh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --

      This sig is false.

    27. Re: ICE employees? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Do kids have rights?

      Kids have the natural rights: the same natural rights as any adult has; However,
      when it comes to discretionary rights that you have to decide to use Or can waive
      (As in a right to sign a contract promising to do X) -- a minor is deemed legally to
      not be of sound mind to make a decision or judgement, therefore, a minor cannot
      waive a right, and a minor cannot decide to exercise a right until their competent
      guardian or custodian approves, For example: A minor cannot sign a contract, or
      make a purchase, or dispose of their property on their own. A minor has free speech,
      but requires a guardian to approve them going out in public and exercising it.
      A child citizen has the right to move freely about the country, but their exact travel plan must be
      approved by their custodian and supervision is required of their travel.

      The Constitution doesn't give rights to citizens, but to people in the US, so skip that argument please.

      The Constitution doesn't give anybody rights. The constitution recognizes fundamental rights to the people of the country, AND if you're not from this country and not a legal migrant, then you're not among the People of this Country -- the citizens, and the constitution prohibits the government from interfering with the rights: only thing the constitution doles out are enumerated powers granted to branches of government and officials.

      If the government is taking away a kids parents, then the government assumes an obligation to properly care for those kids

      What do you mean by "care for"? This is not an obligation of the government. The government has a RIGHT to enforce the laws of the land, and that includes removing criminals to protect the public. If the criminal happens to be keeping a kid --- the government is NOT obligated to make up for what the parent did not do or can no longer do -- that is, to replace the parent, regardless of whether the parent is now in prison or unfortunately died violently resisting law enforcement. Helping to get care for the kid is a service that might be available and might be aided by the government if the necessary program or option has been passed into law and sufficient designated funds have been set aside that are allowed to be used for this purpose.

    28. Re: ICE employees? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Fines are a capricious tool which will just be used to punish political enemies over technicalities.

      The solution is e-certify and ID laws.

    29. Re: ICE employees? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      PS. of course MS13 members don't need a tax paying employer.

    30. Re: ICE employees? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Whatever helps you sleep at night. Actually since you're a ghoul you probably don't need sleep. Never mind.

      Another moron who can't tell the difference between parsing the meaning of the words, and presenting a policy opinion.

      I'll give you the spoiler: I didn't tell you my opinion of anything, what I actually said was relating to the meaning of the words used.

      If you're not on the side of honest communication, I really see no benefit in even noticing your opinions. I certainly wouldn't worry about what you think about my opinions when I not only haven't shared them, but when I know you're communicating under false pretenses. It probably doesn't even occur to you the damage you do whatever your perceived cause is when you spew hate at people just based on knowledge that they're interesting in using honest words. It seems to me that if you believe in the moral standing of your cause, you'd actually perceive benefit in honest communication, and you'd view people working hard to keep the language honest as potential allies; unfortunately, you don't perceive honesty as being a natural ally of whatever your moral position is!

    31. Re: ICE employees? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If Trump wasn't such an incompetent moron, he'd have instructed them to charge anybody entering illegally and bringing their children along with child abuse! Instead he went to twitter, "Ugga wugga bugga CRIMINALS wugga bugga ugga FNORD" or some stupid shit.

      If I go and rob a bank, and bring a child with me, nobody is going to complain that the police "separated" us by arresting me. But they're certainly add extra charges relating to it. So that is what a hardliner with even a small fraction of a clue would be doing here. But Trump can't even speak rationally enough to make the most obvious arguments that would assist his position; he just points in their general direction and then starts rambling like Racist Grandpa on Thanksgiving. I'm not saying intelligent people are going to buy it and think these things are the same, but it seems to me to be the honest policy disagreement; hardliners see it as the same, and most people do not. But the way his bungles the messaging, hardliners mostly are trying to stay out of the discussion, and he has no visible allies other than open racists.

      It is a continuing relief that he's such an idiot, and that he's surrounded by Yes People. He'd be doing so much more damage if he was able to actually get his hairbrained[sic] policies enacted. Thankfully he continues to shoot himself in the foot on a daily basis and is incapable of the sort of introspection that would improve his performance.

      And of course they wouldn't be allowed family detention centers, they're not capable of the sort of compassionate analysis that would lead to the sort of facility for that purpose that the courts would allow, and of course he's so busy constantly fighting with Republicans in Congress that he'd never get the funding to do it legal. It would have to be like a summer camp, not a jail, or the courts are going to say "No way, Jose!" And then Captain Squirrelhair would spend the next week shitposting to twitter about the judge, guaranteeing he loses all appeals and can't get much deference do to the lack of doubt about his true intentions. That's the thing about the "benefit of the doubt," it requires the self-control to maintain some doubt by speaking in a diplomatic manner.

    32. Re: ICE employees? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Much of that is correct, but a child can indeed exercise a right that normally requires to be of sound mind; including signing contracts. Your internal model of that part is totally bungled, sorry.

      It is the adults involved who are not allowed to hold the child responsible for the contract; instead, they would have to hold the parents responsible. There are further restrictions that often make the contract totally unenforceable, but it is still a valid contract. And the child can, with or even without the consent of a guardian, go to court to enforce it! That's the real reason businesses try very hard not to sign contracts with children! Most of the time, their contract protections are worthless but the child's are enforceable!

      And while I understand you're parroting popular dogma, according to the Supreme Court of the Unites States the Constitution does grant rights. If the dogma you cited was literally true, then the Constitution would merely catalog a few rights but they'd be of equal standing as all the Common Law rights that already existed at that time; and that is not at all true in any way! It is rather painfully obvious, too, if you actually do analysis instead of just parroting popular talking points from AM radio.

    33. Re: ICE employees? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      There are always a gaggle of morons who think it is "obtuse" to measure the meaning of the words separately from taking sides on some dispute that the words talk about.

      But they're persuasive basically never.

      What I find funny is that you even managed to identify that the words make a significant semantic difference that is relevant to the topic, and yet you still decide it is obtuse to care. That's something, but it sure as hell isn't acute!

    34. Re: ICE employees? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Dude, I voted for republican presidents three times so far. I voted for republican candidates until the republican party told joe biden that they were going to vote "no" to everything whether they agreed with it or not before President Obama even took office.

      Since then, I won't vote for a republican candidate for dog catcher even tho I still have a strong conservative streak. That conservative streak includes valuing the precedents and principles that made this country great including a respect for law, justice, and freedom. Strong support for free speech and freedom of religion.

      The republican party has been taken over by theocratic authoritarians. I won't call them christians because they are nothing like Fred Rogers or Billy Graham. They are greedy, wicked, cruel, not good stewards of the planet. And here's the big thing. One of the biggest things real Christians oppose is lying. Satan is called the lord of lies. Republicans, and President Trump (and his circle), and increasingly their followers lie outrageously, they lie when they know you know it's a lie. They are proud of lying. They are the antithesis of Christians and Christianity.

      We need to oppose then and start a new conservative party. I have friends in other states who have joined new conservative parties. I view realigning myself with the Democratic party as being more productive to stopping this dangerous movement which has hijacked the major conservative party in this country. Sure, democrats are soft headed and illogical at times- but they are not yet evil. They are not actively tearing the country apart.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    35. Re:ICE employees? by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Internal Combustion Engine.

    36. Re: ICE employees? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I don't think you've read the bible. There are numerous sections which say lying is sinful and a passage that says that the enemy of yahweh is the lord of lies.

      When I grew up in this country, christians were against lying. That's changed for many republicans over the last two decades.

      They've been corrupted. The ends justify the means to them.

      Mr. Trump is definitely not a christian. When asked for a single verse from the bible, he couldn't name one. Not one. When asked what he had to repent for, he said he felt no need to repent for anything. Mr. Trump is a 75 year old spoiled brat protected from reality his entire life.

      I'm an atheist and I know many good christians and I know more about the bible than Mr. Trump (and well many christians as I frequently discuss religion and find their knowledge of their own religious dogma to be appalling at times).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  3. I'm as lefty as they get by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    and I'll grant the story, touching on Github as it does, has some potential validity. But what the hell is up with that headline? "Willfully Destroyed"? They didn't destroy anything. They took it off their servers. Probably because there's a lot of emotions running high and they're rightfully worried some nutjob is going to go off half cocked and hurt somebody.

    I'm grateful to Github for nipping this in the bud. Crap like this is exactly the sort of response that our countries current extreme immigration policies are meant to solicit. We're being trolled; probably as a point of distraction from economic issues that otherwise would dominate the mid-term elections (the economy's doing crap with poor wage growth despite full employment). Now is the time to calm the heck down and apply appropriate and legal pressure. Not dox a bunch of poorly paid gov't employees who most likely took the job out of desperation (and yes, I know folks who work in some of the less upstanding law enforcement jobs and believe me, it's not by choice).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They may have taken the jobs out of desperation, but they didn't have to announce the fact on LinkedIn.

      They made the information about themselves public.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would think that sort of thing would be considered doxing. MOST of those platforms frown upon that.

      How about lets say you work somewhere for awhile. But then leave a gap in your resume. Welcome to the circular file buddy. Because as someone who has hired many people that is exactly what I do with gaps that can NOT be explained.

    3. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Troll

      they're rightfully worried some nutjob is going to go off half cocked and hurt somebody.

      A nutjob has already gone off half-cocked and hurt people. He's getting away with it because Republicans in Congress are either too scared or agree with his Nazi policies.

      a bunch of poorly paid gov't employees who most likely took the job out of desperation

      The dockets at Nuremberg were filled with "poorly paid gov't employees who most likely took the job out of desperation". I'm sorry, but "just following orders" is no excuse, and it will not save them from the hangman.

      A reckoning is coming, and history will not look kindly on the guards in the "Tender Age" concentration camps on our Southern border.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Publishing a LinkedIn search may or may not be moral, but it's not "doxxing." Doxxing would be linking it to non public info like phone number, address, ssn, etc for the purposes of encouraging harassment.

    5. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only reckoning is someone breaking your glass jaw. You gotta wonder about someone like you who advocates for euthanasia and abortion and yet cries crocodile tears about the current non issue.

    6. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      They failed to nip it in the bud. It's in the wild now. There are already probably 10's of thousands of copies.

      If I work or worked for ICE and was on the list, I'd move. Especially if I had a family.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    7. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Euthanasia is a choice made by rational adults about their own end.

      Abortion does not result of the loss of a thinking being that can feel distress.

      What is going on now is involuntary confinement of children who can and who have committed no crime.

    8. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      . Probably because there's a lot of emotions running high

      It's actually amazing to me how much emotion there is. It's like the signature of the Trump era: emotion, sometimes irrational.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are not right. Most doxxers defend their actions by saying the information they compiled was publicly accessible. While the data may be publicly available, it is not compiled into an easily searchable database for the purposes of hurting people.

      If you like keeping lists of "undesirablea" so much, just remember... Hitler kept lists too. Yup... Godwin's Law!

    10. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wait... what do you think happens when parents are hauled away to jail in the USA? If next of kin are not available, the same happens. In this case, mom and dad committed a crime and have to be detained until they can be adjudicated. The kids are being cared for in the meantime.

    11. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

      In this case, mom and dad committed a crime and have to be detained until they can be adjudicated.

      Nobody in the US loses their kids over a misdemeanor. If you run a red light, you don't have your kids put in a "Tender Age" prison.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      A reckoning is coming,

      What sort of reckoning do you see coming?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

      It's good that people are seeing Surveillance Valley's real attitude toward free speech. Doesn't matter if you are "right" or "left". If you say something that offends the oligarchy, VC-controlled companies will censor you.

    14. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The monkey who managed to double our countries debt in 8 fu*king years!!

      Sadly, you have no understanding of how the US government works. Spending is controlled by congress, not the president, and congress was controlled by Republicans for 6 out of those 8 years. In fact, despite all their ranting about "tax and spend Democrats", Republicans have controlled congress, and therefore controlled spending, for 20 out of the last 26 years.

    15. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by DaHat · · Score: 2

      Nobody in the US loses their kids over a misdemeanor.

      No? If you are arrested for something and cannot make bail, either because you cannot afford it, or perhaps because you are denied it because you are deemed a flight risk... then yes, you are not going to have physical custody of your kids for a while. In the case of someone who is unlawfully in a country and has residency (and presumably other ties elsewhere), the odds of being a flight risk are increased.

      If you run a red light, you don't have your kids put in a "Tender Age" prison.

      Most runnings of red lights aren't misdemeanors, they are civil infractions. Granted if you blow through the light, while drunk and/or being chased by the cops... then yes, your kids will be taken from you as well.

    16. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that. Per the former head of ICE, there is *no* plan or procedure in place to restore the children to their parents and it is likely the children will not be returned to their home country for "months to years" and when they are returned, there will be no way to link them to their parents.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    17. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Which is why more and more states are trending towards release without bail -- own recognizance -- when possible. States are trying to reform a deliberately cruel system while DC seems to want to perpetuate it.

    18. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because people on the left are known to be violent? Finally the truth is out there.

    19. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Troll

      No? If you are arrested for something and cannot make bail, either because you cannot afford it, or perhaps because you are denied it because you are deemed a flight risk.

      Not for misdemeanors.

      Most runnings of red lights aren't misdemeanors, they are civil infractions.

      Immigration violations are also civil infractions.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      What sort of reckoning do you see coming?

      The kind we should have had after the first Civil War, if we'd only let General Sherman do what needed to be done.

      The fact that the traitors received a general pardon was a travesty. Sherman was right.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by owenferguson · · Score: 1

      huzzah

    22. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The Wind passed over Savannah.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    23. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by rworne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure. This is why my kid had on their history final that Reagan ran up the national debt and turned the US from the #1 creditor to a debtor nation.

      The difference from Obama was the political parties running congress and the executive were swapped. So - the blame got swapped too.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    24. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by fafalone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unless you live in one of the few places that eliminated cash bail for misdemeanors, then you're wrong. You could challenge being held on bail because of childcare obligations, but scheduling that hearing takes a while, first appearance judges don't want to hear it. There's no law that sets misdemeanor bail to zero for parents, nor for people who can't post.

    25. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by dwillden · · Score: 2

      Yes for misdemeanors. If you are arrested. You go to jail and for at least a few hours you are separated from your children. If over a weekend and they can't get ahold of a family member then DCFS (or what ever they are called in your state) will place them in short term foster care.

      In the US as a citizen the court system should have you at least eligible for bail and back out on the street with a court date within a few hours to days tops. But for a time you are in jail and your children are not in there with you.

      For illegal entry it's the same, except that the courts are overwhelmed by the never-ending flood. And if the detainee claims asylum that kicks in an entirely new process with a series of interviews and investigations to validate the claim. That takes time, and while it is going on the children will be separated.

      They tried to keep families together using special detention centers years ago and your beloved liberal courts blocked them. The kids can't go to jail, so they have to be taken care of and this is how it happens. It's how it happened under every president since 1997 when the courts forced the separation. Obama had four times as many children separated in 2013 and 2014 until he initiated his foolish catch and release program that is a total failure. Over 80% of those caught and released with a court date never showed up.

      So yes a misdemeanor will result in your separation.

      A traffic infraction gets you a written citation as you darn well know.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    26. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by bohmt · · Score: 1

      Which one was the asylum seeking visa again?

    27. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Doxing often involves just collecting publicly available information. Most people don't realize how various little bits here and there can be collated and cross-referenced to build up a profile of them, kinda like what Facebook does.

      Just because something is public doesn't mean it can't be used for doxing. Merely collecting it for the purposes of harassment or shaming is enough.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why throw the parents in one cage and the children in a different cage? Why not keep them together?

      Even if you ignore the humanitarian grounds, it surely costs more to provide free childcare that the parents would otherwise have given.

      Let's drop the pretence. This is being done to put pressure on the Democrats and to discourage migrants. It's not a legal requirement or procedural issue, it's a deliberate decision to separate children from their parents for political reasons.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    29. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Wait... what do you think happens when parents are hauled away to jail in the USA? If next of kin are not available, the same happens. In this case, mom and dad committed a crime and have to be detained until they can be adjudicated. The kids are being cared for in the meantime.

      The crime of turning up

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    30. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Refusing to follow orders is also an effective route to the hangman's noose...

      If you were a german in the 1930s or early 40s you'd most likely have followed orders too, regardless of how abhorrent the orders were. The alternative to following orders is that you become the victim of the abhorrent acts.

      Otherwise what alternative do you have? Going on the run isn't any fun, and even if you did manage to escape from germany you might not receive a warm welcome anywhere else. And you'd have no idea how the war would turn out at that point either, if germany was victorious then wherever you fled to would be captured and you'd end up being returned to germany to face whatever punishment they deemed suitable for you as a deserter.

      On the other hand if you do follow orders the germans wont harm you, and if germany loses the war you're far more likely to receive lenient treatment at the hands of the british than you would in germany.

      We have a strong self preservation instinct, and in situations like this you're naturally driven to take the option with the greater chance of survival.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    31. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Nobody in the US loses their kids over a misdemeanor.

      In this case, the kids also committed the same misdemeanor (Improper Entry), as well as the Civil Violation of being Unlawfully present in the US.

      Even a misdemeanor carries a potential prison sentence --- If you go into jail awaiting your hearing or trial and cannot post bond, there's NO WAY that a kid or other family member will be allowed to accompany you while you are being held, And being in detention makes you incompetent to retain physical custody of any child. You can meet up with your kid after you are both released.

    32. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by mysidia · · Score: 1

      There's no law that sets misdemeanor bail to zero for parents, nor for people who can't post.

      Correct.... if a parent is jailed in the US, they absolutely CANNOT bring the child into jail with them (Inmate violent offences such as assault or rape are common between inmates in a Jail/Prison community -- Being held with adults would be a very unsafe environment for a child; the care of the child is going to be transferred to someone else at least so long as the parent is in jail. Assuming the child has not also committed a crime: either another parent or close family member, or they will be placed with a foster care facility.

      In the case of Illegal entry into the US, BOTH the Adults accompany kid AND the kid themself have ALL committed a crime by improperly entering the US that carries a potential prison sentence of up to 6 months on a first offense or 2 years or more upon later offense, AND the additional Civil violation of being unlawfully present in the US, those are two separate violations both of which carry potential prison time and Deportation as consequences, and the Kid committed a crime too, so they can and should also be held in a suitable detention facility.

      Frankly.... they should probably drop the kids off at the Mexican consulate to be returned home at the expense of the Mexican government.

    33. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Why throw the parents in one cage and the children in a different cage? Why not keep them together?

      Because it would make headlines the first time a kid gets killed at the canteen by some other random adult with an improvised weapon.

      All the people in a cage form this thing that is called a "jail/prison community", and, there would be plenty of OTHER adults in the vicinity who are depraved and present a danger to kids.

      Various kinds of inmate-on-inmate fighting, abuse, rape, and violence are extremely common in prison settings, And it's even worse if you mix such other adults with kids who don't even have a chance of physically defending themselves.

    34. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      So, basically, it's just as it has been since 1973

      And that's an excuse for trying to make it even worse?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    35. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Assuming you are a US citizen, run a red light with your family in the car in another country where you arrived in that country without going through a border crossing and you have no valid visa. Do other countries detain the whole family together?

      Serious question, I have no idea how other countries handle that sort of thing. Even worse if your country of citizenship offers you no legal help and doesn't want to assist you in returning home...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    36. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      If we are dropping pretenses, is the policy effective? Are we more likely to have actual immigration reform come through Congress? Are migrants going to stop coming to the US illegally for fear of their family being split apart?

      I'm not saying that splitting up families is good or the right thing to do, but if we are leaving those pretenses behind, is it better for families to be discouraged from making a dangerous and illegal journey in the first place? Is there anything else we can do to force Congress to actually make better laws?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    37. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why throw the parents in one cage and the children in a different cage? Why not keep them together?

      They tried that, but the courts have ruled they cannot house children in the same facilities with adult detainees.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    38. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      False narrative. Previous administration held families together in family detention units. There is no need to split them up. Use the old system. Trump doesn't want that. He wants to force a vote under manufactured duress. It's totally sickening- the drug runners don't cross the border with their family of course. These are not hardened criminals, just people getting out of a failed narcostate. One which Jeff sessions helped create with his idiotic war on drugs (except the ones made by US corporations)

    39. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      While I agree that the kerfuffle over immigration is designed to distract us, it seems to me that it is most likely designed to distract us from the revelations contained in the DOJ Inspector General's report that the FBI was actively involved using its powers to promote one candidate in the 2016 Presidential election and attempting to block the other, going so far as to try to undermine the legitimacy of the winner of the election.


      I strongly dislike Donald Trump, but feared that Hillary would harness the power of the Federal government to suppress opposition. The IG report released last week suggests that a Hillary victory would have been worse than I feared.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    40. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by aquacrayfish · · Score: 4, Informative

      Okay, we got *a* shutdown, not shutdowns, under Obama because Ted Cruz and the Tea Party wing pushed for one. The rationale was they wanted to tie the budget to the debt ceiling and they wanted, again, to muck with the ACA. They bragged about getting what they wanted afterwards because of the resulting unilateral cuts.

      So, surprise, Obama didn't want to sign that. I'm not aware of a rational argument on why he would want to. You can argue about whether you like(d) the ACA, whether budget cuts were a good idea, the fallout of our loss on credit rating or furloughed jobs was worth it, or whatever all you like. Obama had no interest in gutting his own health care bill. Duh. I'd also like to think we agree that the concept of the debt ceiling isn't relevant right now how much Congress spends (regardless of where they spend).

    41. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      Oh come now, they're summer camps, not prisons.

    42. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To be fair, Regan pushed reduction in taxes and increases in spending that Congress delivered, although with a slightly different rate of travel than expected. In Obama's case, he Inherited a crisis and dealt with it in pretty much the same way Bush had been dealing with it. So in reality blame and credit is more nuanced and needs context.

    43. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      In Europe we have detention facilities for families. They are secure but also provide conditions suitable for families, at least in theory.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    44. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Are we more likely to have actual immigration reform come through Congress?

      A better question is if using the lives and mental health of children as a tool to force Democrats to agree to these reforms a reasonable thing to do? Is that how democracy is supposed to work?

      Are migrants going to stop coming to the US illegally for fear of their family being split apart?

      Doubtful, considering what the alternative for many is. But in any case, you are begging the question. Is the number of migrants really such a huge problem, and is stopping them coming the best way to deal with it as opposed to, say, managing immigration better?

      People are always going to migrate. The US was built on migration. There are no short term fixes.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    45. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      Sure. This is why my kid had on their history final that Reagan ran up the national debt and turned the US from the #1 creditor to a debtor nation.

      The difference from Obama was the political parties running congress and the executive were swapped. So - the blame got swapped too.

      Historical fact: Reagan and his Republican wave did run up the debt. Check your history, as in go to various gov sites and see what the historical budgets were and who voted on them. Note that the Senate was controlled by Republicans for 6 out of his 8 years. Dems controlled the house during that time so they aren't entirely clean of the debt runup.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    46. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by swillden · · Score: 1

      And if the detainee claims asylum that kicks in an entirely new process with a series of interviews and investigations to validate the claim. That takes time, and while it is going on the children will be separated.

      Non sequitur. There is no legal requirement to separate families while asylum claims are investigated.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    47. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      "Not for misdemeanors."

      I've seen children placed into the custody of Child Protection Services for truancy.

    48. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by tepples · · Score: 1

      Do they play Concentration at these camps?

    49. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You guys all seem to forget that Reagan ran up the debt because it was the way to end the Cold War. We outspent the USSR on military expansion/upgrades and they broke their fragile command economy trying to keep up, leading to the fall of the Soviet Union.

      So yeah, he spent billions short term to save trillions long term - and liberated Eastern Europe. Compared to our return on the 8 Trillion in increased debt from the Obama years with no real benefit to be shown for it - yeah, totally a bargain.

    50. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      I would argue that democracy is already NOT working on immigration. Nothing has passed Congress since 2005 (REAL ID Act) and those were minor tweaks. The last real immigration reform was in 1996 (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996). I'm not about using kids as leverage for politics, but previous administrations (Obama and Bush) and congresses have done nothing useful to mitigate the problem.

      As far as if this migration is a problem, I would argue it is. The US was built on immigration. Limited and controlled population shifts. The system we have now is everyone from every poor country in the Americas walks over the line and disappears without documentation. Without documentation or control, do we really know what we are getting? Where are these people going to live? What are they going to do to sustain themselves? What are we going to do when they inevitably have kids that are legally citizens of our country now and not citizens of their families' country of origin? Are you going to take in a migrant family? Will you give them a piece of your land and take responsibility for their actions?

      My preferred solution would be to close the borders, discourage migrants from coming illegally, and offer undocumented people in this country already a sweet ass deal. In exchange for them registering, paying taxes, and agreeing to a path to citizenship, they will get authorization to work, a grant of federal land, and a status to participate in the legal economy.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    51. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by Altus · · Score: 4, Informative

      collecting? Its on a god damn list on linked in and they all put themselves on that list.

      https://www.linkedin.com/searc...

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    52. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by Altus · · Score: 1

      https://www.linkedin.com/searc...

      I can't believe linkedin would Dox all these people

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    53. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by comodoro · · Score: 2

      And the benefit from the fall of USSR was...?

    54. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by pots · · Score: 2
      I'm surprised that your kid would have that on a final, so I went looking for an explanation and found this. I'll quote:

      The key vote, 238 to 195, gave Mr. Reagan a third upset victory over the Democratic House majority on fiscal issues. The President won by virtue of the same coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats that brought him victory in May on the budget resolution and in June on the budget reconciliation bill.

      You're right that the blame should not be placed solely on the president, but it doesn't seem as though the blame was swapped. This was a joint effort between the president and congress, with the president championing the cause.

    55. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I would argue that democracy is already NOT working on immigration.

      Mostly because the two sides can't compromise. That's the problem, and the solution.

      The US was built on immigration. Limited and controlled population shifts.

      I'm no history buff but I don't think that's true. In fact as I recall most of the early settlers were asylum seekers fleeing religious persecution.

      Without documentation or control, do we really know what we are getting? Where are these people going to live? What are they going to do to sustain themselves?

      Seems like the most obvious solution is to provide a path for them to get documented and into a system that helps them settle and build new communities and opportunities. Look at it as an investment in people who will become taxpayers and consumers.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    56. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      We're being trolled; probably as a point of distraction from economic issues that otherwise would dominate the mid-term elections .

      Let's see. What could the Democrats possibly want to distract us from? Maybe a report that has uncovered their "deep state" actors and put their obstruction of justice on clear display?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    57. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      So Clinton didn't have a "surplus" in the late 90's. Newt Gingrich did. Thank you for that.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    58. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by rworne · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seriously?

      The game of nuclear brinksmanship pretty much ended. The iron curtain fell as Eastern Bloc puppet states broke away from Soviet control. Millions of people gained freedom. The Berlin Wall fell. The Solidarity Union in Poland. Relations between the US and Russia improved considerably - yeah, relations with Russia now are not all that good, but it is far better than it was in the 1950's - 1980's.

      If people want to lay the blame on Reagan for the debt he rang up bankrupting the USSR, it was worth it.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    59. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Only coming from one side, funny that.....

      No, not at all. I get it from both sides on Facebook.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    60. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by rworne · · Score: 1

      At that time the Republicans were in control of the senate and the Democrats held a large majority in the house. That's why they mention it as an "upset victory".

      The Democrats could have easily put the brakes on Reagan's policies, but they chose not to. This was never mentioned in the study materials.*

      * Just to be fair, I'm not claiming left-wing indoctrination in this class. I'm just pointing out an example. I am fully aware that Reagan was also responsible for the debt run up - it was his policies congress voted to approve, after all.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    61. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      It wasn't just debt but also a virtual destruction of our economy. If you doubt this, go back and look at what the economy did post 1987, when the cracks became apparent in the USSR and then 1989, after the wall fell. This was especially felt in the manufacturing and high tech industries of the time. It also set the ground work for the rise of China's explosive economic growth, although that was going to happen sooner or later. I'm not saying the dissolution of the USSR was a bad thing. I do believe how relations were handled post 1990 might have resulted in a different and safer world, but we allowed the current situation to develop. And now we're stuck with some new expensive problems and dangers that a few different policies could likely have muted greatly. But that's a benefit of hindsight, where you can see where you should have done 'A' even though it would have hurt then to prevent 'B' from occurring. Without the certainty of 'B' the price of 'A' seemed too high.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    62. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Those budget cuts didn't mean anything in the long run because as soon as the Republicans were back in charge deficits became a non-problem again and fiscal restraint went off a cliff with a massive tax cut for the rich and 1 Trillion dollar deficits to follow that aren't caused by recession driven tax receipts.

      The republicans have no claim to fiscal responsibility anymore, it's all about tax cut and spend and destabilizing long term government spending so they can hopefully eventually convince the middle class to wipe out social security and medicare and throw the elderly to the wolves.

    63. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Compared to our return on the 8 Trillion in increased debt from the Obama years with no real benefit to be shown for it - yeah, totally a bargain.

      Let's see - roughly 6T of that was directly related to saving our economy from the crash of 2008, and whose fault was that again? Oh yeah, the Republican led rollback of Democratic originated regulations on the banking industry allowed that to develop. Hmm. The remainder of the deficits were the result of Republican majority Congress, so what, exactly, did Obama do to the debt? What did we get? Obamacare. A half-assed form of universal coverage, but at least they tried, which the Republicans apparently find so abhorrent they're doing everything in their power to sabotage it so it "fails". Why? Because they're incapable of replacing it, as their concept of "healthcare", short version: pay or suffer and die (restated as it's god's will)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    64. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Not for misdemeanors.

      Your response to a list of examples as to why something would be is... "not it isn't?" Truly you have won this conversation.

      Why don't you try citing something, or even an example... rather than "no it isn't!"

      Immigration violations are also civil infractions.

      Some, not all.

      Simply unlawfully entering is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

      However returning after already being removed is not: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

      It could even be argued that two parents attempting to illegally bring their child in are commuting a felony: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

      Notice what I'm doing... providing citations and examples? You should perhaps try a similar thing.

    65. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Do you think we put the kids in the wilderness to wander aimlessly?

      Oh, of course not, no. Don't be silly.

      According to Tumblr, Twitter and half of Slashdot you loose them in the wilderness then hunt them down using jeeps and crossbows.

    66. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by Cederic · · Score: 1

      religious persecution

      Hmm. If you're referring to the deaths in the 30s and 40s of people of Jewish descent then the mere fact I have to refer to them using that term tells you it had fuck all to do with religion.

    67. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by pots · · Score: 1

      As the quote I gave above says: no, the democrats couldn't stop it. I suppose the problem here is treating the parties like single homogeneous groups - it was the Republicans in the House partnering with a minority of right-leaning Democrats who made it happen. Over the protests of the Democratic majority.

      I guess what you're saying is, "If the Democrats had been a uniform group who all agreed on everything, then they could have stopped this easily." But the Democrats are not uniform even now, and they certainly weren't in 1981 - not long after the Southern Strategy and while they still had many strongly right-wing members.

    68. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Some guilty of a misdemeanor might spend several days in jail though, so not that different. Besides, these kids are not in "prison", it's the whole reason they're being separated. Nor are they locked in "cages", The photos showing chainlink enclosures were either from Obama's era, or the ones that were staged by demonstrators. They're in shelters. I'm sure it's scary for the kids to be separated from their parents, but then ostensibly so has their entire journey. (More so probably for the ones who arent' actually traveling with their parents but were used as legal shields). Congress needs to change the laws rather than keep forcing the executive branch to either enforce it or ignore it. Congress were the ones who wrote this in the first place.
      I'll add that illegally entering a country is not equivalent to running a red light. A country cannot have an uncontrolled, porous border, you can't check for infectious diseases or criminal elements when everyone just jumps a fence, to the tune of 35,000 a month. And it's rude AF to the people who have gone through the legal channels to do it the right way, even if it does need an overhaul.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    69. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by rworne · · Score: 1

      They are pretty uniform right now.

      If the republicans (or Trump) wants it, then it's a "NO" and they vote pretty much as a single bloc.

      And in all fairness, the Republicans did pretty much the same thing when Obama was in office.

      Things were not that way 20-30+ years ago, when compromise could be found between moderates on both sides.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    70. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Nor are they locked in "cages", The photos showing chainlink enclosures were either from Obama's era, or the ones that were staged by demonstrators.

      You silly sonofabitch. These images were provided by the Trump administration. These are current, and they're not staged, you fucking knob.

      https://www.thecut.com/2018/06...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    71. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      No they aren't. They are misdemeanors.

      This is very simple to resolve:

      A. Don't enter my figgin' sovereign nation illegally.

      B. Change the law.

    72. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by HiThere · · Score: 1

      They solve that problem by locking the kids in cages to minimize the need for childcare.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    73. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      BZZZZT

      Staged:
      https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18...
      Obama era:
      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      wrong and wrong, you fucking dork.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    74. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      This is very simple to resolve:

      A. Don't enter my figgin' sovereign nation illegally.

      B. Change the law.

      Here's an easier way to resolve the immediate problem:

      A: Don't kidnap children and then lose them in the system

      B. See A. You're done.

      We have children who are being taken away from their parents at the border and then sent 2000 miles away without due process and without notifying parents.

      https://www.nbcnewyork.com/new...

      This is some Nazi shit right here, and you can argue all day long about sovereignty, but Nazi Germany was also a sovereign country. So fuck you.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    75. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Why throw the parents in one cage and the children in a different cage? Why not keep them together?

      Because the USSC handed down a ruling that prevented holding parents and children together. It's the law. You know the thing that sets behavior in a country run under the rule of law instead the rule of man (with a pen and a phone).

      Even if you ignore the humanitarian grounds, it surely costs more to provide free childcare that the parents would otherwise have given.

      Agree. So congress should pass a law fixing the problem. Securing the border is the first part. Changing immigration law to open access for non asylum seekers who are not terrorist or criminals is another, but you can't do the second part until you do the first part.

      Let's drop the pretence. This is being done to put pressure on the Democrats and to discourage migrants. It's not a legal requirement or procedural issue, it's a deliberate decision to separate children from their parents for political reasons.

      Yes let's stop the pretense. The previous administration separated children from their parents also, until Obama illegally instituted catch and release (a program with a 80% failure to appear rate.) It is absolutely a legal requirement unless the DHS ignores a Supreme Court ruling. But I guess we just ignore laws we don't like.

      Making an issue of it is a deliberate decision to force the administration either ignore the law or look bad by infusing the issue with emotional terms like 'concentration camp' when most of these children never had it so good. Let's not forget that 11,000 of these children are unaccompanied minors. Children whose parents sent them over the border without them.

    76. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      The one you get by appearing at a port of entry or US Embassy or consulate overseas. You fill out paperwork and when your asylum is approved you enter the US.

      Of course something like 95% of these people don't qualify for asylum, which is why they're trying to sneak in.

    77. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Current images provided by the Trump administration:

      https://www.vox.com/policy-and...

      These are not images from the Obama administration. These are from right now.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    78. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I'm no history buff but I don't think that's true. In fact as I recall most of the early settlers were asylum seekers fleeing religious persecution.

      I think I know the guys you're talking about. Are they the ones that insisted on imposing their Abrahamic religion - a kinda tortured version that was used to justify misogynist and racist behavior - on those already here, started imposing their own laws on everyone, and then got murderous and rapey and genocidal with the people who already lived here?

      Because if so, it's no wonder the Trumpies are scared of immigrants!

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    79. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      What is going on now is involuntary confinement of children who can and who have committed no crime.

      And your solution to this is...what, exactly? There are relatively few other options and all have significant consequences.

      1. Put the kids in jail with the parents. I think all would agree this is no more -- and possibly much less -- humane than the current policy.
      2. Don't incarcerate the parents in the first place. This neuters immigration enforcement to the point where it's utterly ineffective, basically enabling the status quo which has existed since Pres. Clinton enacted the policy. He and his successor chose not to put much effort into enforcing it, however, so it was a political stunt designed to kick the can down the road. Which is where we are today, with an immigration problem and still no solution.

      If you have another suggestion please put it forward. It takes nothing to bitch about not liking a current policy. It takes brains to also suggest a workable alternative that is objectively better than what you're complaining about. Any "better" solution must somehow stem the tide of illegal immigration, not afflicting families any more than necessary, and not put undue burdens on citizens and legal immigrants. Floor's yours. I'm eager to hear your solution.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    80. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Non sequitur. There is no legal requirement to separate families while asylum claims are investigated.

      You're being purposefully disingenuous. Yes, there is no legal requirement to separate families. However, when someone comes into the country uninvited (i.e. crosses the border illegally), you have two choices:

      1. Start their asylum case and release them into the country awaiting the outcome.
      2. Start their asylum case and detain them awaiting the outcome.

      Option 1 has been tried and is a dismal failure by any possible measure. More than 80% of those "catch and release" cases never returned to court to finish their asylum hearings. The most obvious motive is they knew their asylum case had no merit and did not wish to be deported. The end result is millions of illegals in the country with no way to deport them and no incentive for them to stop coming.

      Option 2 is what's being pursued at this time following the failure of Option 1. If you have a better option that somehow doesn't enable illegal immigration, doesn't require incarceration, doesn't require separating children from parents, and doesn't put an undue burden on citizen and legal immigrant taxpayers, put it forward for consideration. If you don't, be quiet and accept we're pursuing the least-damaging option (to citizens and legal residents as the law is designed to protect) out of two possible non-optimal options.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    81. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      In Europe we have detention facilities for families.

      We had that in the USA as well. Liberals said it was inhumane and got them shut down. Now we're reaping the "unintended" consequences.

      I get the feeling they really don't want to do anything about illegal immigration and instead prefer to present themselves as the saviors of the underclass. When that underclass is given amnesty and the ability to vote, who do you think they'll vote for?

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    82. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      A better question is if using the lives and mental health of children as a tool to force Democrats to agree to these reforms a reasonable thing to do? Is that how democracy is supposed to work?

      First, correct the common misconception we are a democracy. We are not. We are a Constitutional republic.

      Second, the way it's supposed to work is the law is made by Congress, signed by the President, and enforced by Federal agencies. That is exactly what is being done right now. The reason this is making headlines is every president since 1997 has ignored the law, preferring to kick the can down the road to someone else.

      If you don't like the law there is a mechanism for changing it. All you have to do is get enough citizens to think like you and pressure their representatives in Congress to change it and the President to sign it. So far no one has been able to achieve this, most likely because there aren't a lot of "good" options to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Nobody wants illegals in the country but they also don't want to stop the flow of cheap labor (Republicans) and love appearing as the savior of the underclass (Democrats). Thus nothing gets done.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    83. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      I have no idea how other countries handle that sort of thing.

      You're arrested, detained, and deported. The US is the only country doing all this hand-wringing.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    84. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You are incorrect on that as well:

      the five largest investment banks at the core of the crisis (including Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers) were not subject to the CRA or other depository banking regulations, and they did not originate mortgages

      (From wikipedia, because it was easiest)

      Thus, the CRA wasn't in play for these investment banks, nor were they regulated. Yet they were the root cause of the recession.

      You can read more about it - yes, there was a housing bubble, it wasn't caused by government policy, and the GSEs (Fannie and Freddie) weren't drivers with their directives. When you can offload your risk for cash to loan more, there's no incentive to strengthen your requirements, because your base risk is still low. Someone else took the risk off your hands that you had. If you recall, several of those investment banks wound up being guilty of repackaging low-quality mortgage loans as high quality investments. All of that lead to an environment where lower quality loans being less costly and risky to originators and thus more and more were written and passed into the system. That increase in demand caused, you guessed it, increased prices. Thus the bubble grew and grew and finally popped at the slightest poke.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    85. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by sjames · · Score: 1

      But your kids don't go to a detention center and when you get out, they know where your kids are and you are reunited..

    86. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by swillden · · Score: 1

      So, since option 1 doesn't have the results you like, you tear children from their parents and consider that an improvement?

      It. Is. Not. You don't fix a problem by going full-on Third Reich.

      You replied to my other post where I described the right ways to fix it. Please re-read that one.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    87. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by fafalone · · Score: 1

      That's ridiculous. Small children acting under an adults instruction cannot be held criminally or civilly liable for their actions.

    88. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Extremists are known to be violent.

      Like the alt right guy who drove his car into a crowd of random people in Virginia.

      Right now, right wing extremists outnumber left wing extremists in the u.s. by 10:1. But that still leaves a couple million left wing extremists.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    89. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      Any ICE employee who doesn't resign is responsible.

      I think this will be found to be a crime of some kind.

      Im also concerned there will also be payback towards american children for years to come. This orange haired asshole is putting our kids and grandkids at risk.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    90. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      You don't fix a problem by going full-on Third Reich.

      By the power of Godwin's Law and the rules of Hysterial Hyperbole, you have now lost the argument.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    91. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Figures that a racist would hide behind anonymity.

    92. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      So we're both right and wrong, as both situations happened and have photographs to prove it.

      Vox's photograph appears to show adults or older children in that cage area, I don't see young children. And what should they do in any case, roam around free? Walk out of the building and just enter the country anyway? If it were US citizens sneaking over to Mexico or Panama or Ecuador, they'd be in a rusted, muddy, rat infested jail cell.
      Of course, this isn't enough for Fox..I mean, Vox, who piously claim, " Rather than prove the administration’s point, the images of the McAllen facility only serve to further illustrate the "horrific" nature of its practices, (really? "horrific"? that's "horrific?") showing kids held in metal enclosures sprawled atop mattresses laid on a concrete floor, with little around them except flimsy space blankets."
      They're large open areas with chainlink walls instead of drywall. So what? They also called it dark. Looks very well lit to me.
      This is no worse than what Americans get when they have to huddle in a football stadium after a major hurricane or tornado.
      It's likely not that cold there and space blankets are fairly effective at reflecting back body heat, maybe they're short on army blankets..
      We can't stick everyone in a Red Roof Inn.
      The later pictures look like any normal day care facility, far better than what they're accustomed to.
      And naturally the children have IDs to scan, so they can keep track of what resources and meals are given out and to whom, as well as their location, name, etc.

      Further, those conditions were the same, or worse under Obama, as the other photographs I linked to prove. No one screamed about them then.

      Separating children from their genuine parents is one thing; that's awful and I'm not addressing that here; but complaining about the physical conditions is selective outrage for political purposes.
      It's like the Puerto Rico/Maria hurricane BS narrative all over again. Oh, and everyone's favorite major, Carmen Yulin Cruz, is now under FBI investigation for - guess what?.. obstructing critical supplies during the crisis.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    93. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Maybe you are young or weren't paying attention?

      What happened any time the Republicans tried to do something about it like they did in the 1990s? Oh, you're racist... and so on. Remember the shutdown where Obama made it painful as he put it? Closing off national parks, something never done before? They were vicious, and a big part of the reason Hillary lost. She's a very nasty person. The left continue to advocate kidnappings of our citizens children, killing our law enforcement officers, vandalism, etc. Even beating up kids of people they don't like at schools. Support the left and you support this and deserve to be put down like the mad dogs they are. They are mad dogs, history shows us that. Don't think that just because you are on the left that it will save you. They will kill you too. All you have to do is disagree with them about something. Che Guarva's friends found that out. So did people that supported Castro. They are not cool, they're cold blooded killers.

      Did you know that Obama didn't pass a single budget? The last one passed was the one GW Bush passed with the bailout in it. The Democrats made sure no new budget was passed so they could lump higher and higher debt like crazy. Thing is - where the hell are those trillions? He didn't put it into the economy, infrastructure, military or anything else to actually benefit the United States. Now most of his presidential records are missing. Someone made off with trillions. Even as he gave billions to the terrorists in Iran, rescuing them from a demise that they faced.

    94. Re:I'm as lefty as they get by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      Have you never heard the saying, "liberals don't think, they feel"?

      My impression is that there's a very vocal minority that hates Trump and a mostly silent majority that appreciates what he's doing for American citizens.

    95. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What do the polls say?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    96. Re: I'm as lefty as they get by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The USSR was failing long before Reagan. Take it from someone who actually lived in it.

  4. Slashdot editors will be surprised by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    When they start being audited by the IRS.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  5. And if it were an ANTIFA supporter database ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lets create a database of all people on facebook who made a post supportive of the pro-violence wing of antifa. Would there be a different reaction to its deletion?

    1. Re:And if it were an ANTIFA supporter database ? by x0ra · · Score: 3, Funny

      No need to look them up on Facebook, just list all the student in gender studies, heck, just list all the student in any liberal arts curriculum...

    2. Re:And if it were an ANTIFA supporter database ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mao did that. And Pol Pot.

    3. Re: And if it were an ANTIFA supporter database ? by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      It would be a very small database. Antifa is 99% astroturf.

      Even among impressionable young students, few indeed want to join a gang of brown shirt thugs that attacks anyone critical of bourgeois cultural imperialism.

    4. Re:And if it were an ANTIFA supporter database ? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would be just as bad. As is the list of "SJWs".

      Lists of people you dislike are almost always a bad idea.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re: And if it were an ANTIFA supporter database ? by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      It would be a very small database. Antifa is 99% astroturf.

      Even among impressionable young students, few indeed want to join a gang of brown shirt thugs that attacks anyone critical of bourgeois cultural imperialism.

      You haven't seen Germany, I guess. Every single bus stop and similar place is plastered with propaganda stickers, and there's a lot of people behind them.

      An angry mob with red-white-black flags, hands raised. Hmm, where have we seen this before?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    6. Re:And if it were an ANTIFA supporter database ? by drnb · · Score: 2

      Someone legally compiled *publicly available* information. Started a small project to make said publicly available information accessible.

      Someone did the same thing for doctors that provided abortions. How did that turn out?

    7. Re:And if it were an ANTIFA supporter database ? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      ANTIFA have caused 3% of injuries that white supremacist groups did in the past year, two years, and even less if we look further back

      That's interesting. Where is the analysis published, I'd like to read that.

    8. Re:And if it were an ANTIFA supporter database ? by dristoph · · Score: 1

      *someone who has never heard of KeyWiki, where my name can be found on a list and where I have friends with full pages dedicated to profiling them and their political activities*

  6. Re:I don't get it. by whargoul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would anyone want this information?

    The only reason for a list like this is to encourage harassment of these individuals just for working somewhere that asshole doesn't agree with.

  7. Re:I don't get it. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Without enforcers, the policy makers would be powerless. Without foot soldiers, there would be no war.

  8. What a creep by piojo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What a creep.

    I find it helpful to remember that as much as internet companies use data to spy on and exploit their users, we can at times reverse the story, and leverage those very same online platforms as a means to investigate or even undermine entrenched power structures.

    This is some serious confusion, or just a severe "us against the world" mindset. Yes, internet companies sometimes spy on their customers. No, the people in his stalker notebook do not spy on ISP customers. No, the spying ISPs engage in is not the same as encouraging stalking.

    I've seen a certain (few) progressives justify bad behavior as "sticking it to the man", "speaking truth to power", or "punching up". Invariably, this was an excuse to be rude or make accusations about a person who wasn't in a position to defend themselves. This data dump goes beyond rudeness.

    --
    A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    1. Re:What a creep by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No one forced them to make a Linkedin account. This is just data that anyone can get from Linkedin or an appropriate Google search. Work for an entity that's being heinous? Don't brag about it online.

    2. Re: What a creep by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Absolutely. Can't wait for some Christian fundie to publish a comprehensive list of abortion doctors. With a wink and a "now I'm not telling you what to do with your guns" preface.

    3. Re: What a creep by evil_aaronm · · Score: 4, Informative
      Isn't that pretty much what Trump did during the campaign with this:

      “Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment,” Trump said to boos from the crowd.
      “By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks,” he then added.
      “Though the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.”

    4. Re:What a creep by piojo · · Score: 2

      By (few) you mean every Antifa supporter, all the trolls harassing prop 8 donors including Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich, and all the college students who threaten violence if a speaker they disagree with comes to their college. Yeah, just a "few" progressives.

      Indeed there are a lot of bad apples. But aren't there even more people who stand for progressive ideals but don't make accusations, don't call for people to get fired, and don't encourage violence? These people don't make the news, and denouncing the whole group is nearly the same sin I'm criticizing. Some, not all.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    5. Re:What a creep by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Punching nazis isn't something progressives do. It is something patriotic Americans do.

    6. Re: What a creep by GrimSavant · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh, you do realize that the "Christian fundies" have been tracking abortion doctors already, right? Here's a story about them using license plate tracking. And there have already been multiple assassination attempts (and successful assassinations) on abortion doctors previously, so the violent innuendo has already been breached.

      I'm not going to speak to the efficacy or wisdom of doxxing ICE agents, but you seem to be behind the times on the willingness and capability of the radical right wing to resort to political violence. It's going to get extremely ugly very quickly if both sides start regularly using violence for political ends.

    7. Re: What a creep by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I think the tone of c6gunner's post makes it pretty evident that he recalls quite well such events as this.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    8. Re:What a creep by dristoph · · Score: 1

      Surely you're just as indignant about the existence of KeyWiki, where my name is on a list and where some of my friends have full pages dedicated to profiling them.

    9. Re:What a creep by piojo · · Score: 1

      Surely you're just as indignant about the existence of KeyWiki, where my name is on a list and where some of my friends have full pages dedicated to profiling them.

      The short answer is yes, it is bad for society to publish "shit lists". The longer answer is that this doesn't totally apply to public figures (and in fact our laws place public figures in a different category than regular Joes). And while publishing photos and addresses is chilling or downright dangerous, we must have places to discuss public figures for the benefit of democracy. Moreover, I hadn't heard of that site, so I can't form a firm opinion yet.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
  9. They also probably weren't expecting threats by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    for doing a job. I don't think there's many that would argue that we don't want and need some level of border security (there's a few extreme libertarians who do). If we're going to have that then _somebody_ is going to enforce that security.

    We can argue that they should quit their jobs if they're asked to do something immoral, but a lot of them _aren't_ doing anything immoral. I'm going to Godwin this thread right now, not every German helped kill jews. There's boarder patrol agents who help people they find in the desert.

    I understand wanting to do something to help Mexican and South American immigrants. But if that's our goal then there's a _lot_ more to do than immigration. We can start by legalizing drugs. The drug war fuels their violence. We can also stop meddling in their politics. "Banana Republic" has a sinister meaning and our CIA has helped run death squads in South America. Start voting for the kinds of politicians who oppose torture and unnecessary military build up. Drop food instead of Bombs, it's cheaper and more humane.

    There's a lot we can do to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. But that said, we don't necessarily _want_ to do that. We're addicted to their cheap, cheap labor. Always have been.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree that we should end the drug war.

      It has gone worse than Prohibition.

      If we want to stop immigration, we simply need a national employment database and fine the hell out of any employer employing people not approved to work.

      But many of the people losing their children are not coming here simply for work. They are facing being murdered in their home country.

      And Sessions is quoting the bible while ignoring Jesus and all the tales relating to being a good samaritan, kind to strangers, etc. And he's using the same verse used to justify slavery and many other heinous crimes.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    2. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by monkease · · Score: 4, Informative

      Funny you should mention Godwin...

      He weighed in.

    3. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So now it's America's obligation to fix *all* the world's problems?

      Here's an idea: you sponsor as many of these kids as you want and feed them and clothe them.

      DO NOT demand taxpayer dollars to fund your bleeding heart concerns.

    4. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was born within walking distance to a concentration camp in which people were raped and tortured to death, those people had received training from the US, and that dictatorship was supported by the US.

      The US has had a hand in a lot of the world's problems, doing a little to make up for the millions that have suffered and died under US imperialism is not too much to ask.

      I pay more taxes than most americans, too. But it's not about money, it's about being decent human beings.

    5. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      We can start by legalizing drugs. The drug war fuels their violence

      Yeah. I see a lot of problems with drug use, but I'm with you on this one. Specifically, legalize the sale and transportation of drugs.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Teun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't seem to appreciate the difference between a common criminal and someone who attempts to give his children a better life by going to the USofA.
      The first tries to make a life at the expense of others, the latter tries to find a paying job and a safe place to live.

      Trump's administration can, awaiting their deportation, keep the families together, absolutely no need to separate them at this difficult time.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    7. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by bohmt · · Score: 2

      America is at fault for the state of Latin America. You know, overthrowing governments, arming rebels, being a huge market for drugs.

    8. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by dwillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They both have broken the Law. Even someone who is innocent but is accused of and arrested for breaking a law will be separated from their children for at least a short time while their case is being processed.

      The difference is that in the normal operation of the criminal justice system, the system isn't overwhelmed on a daily basis with a never ending flood and criminal cases process quicker, The arrestee is booked, sits a few hours (maybe a weekend) and then is arraigned and usually a bail amount is set and they can be bailed out to a future court date.

      If the border crosser has just crossed illegally it should be nearly that quick assuming we have enough judges to handle all the cases. But when the crosser claims asylum that throws a big wrench into the situation. Now there are a series of interviews and investigations of their claims that have to be processed and this takes time. Meanwhile thousands more enter the system every day.

      It's a matter of logistics and scale. Not even our biggest cities have to handle this size of load every single day, seven days a week.

      So what do we now do with the children. the 9th circuit ruled years ago they couldn't go to jail with their parents. Not even special family detention centers that were designed to be as non-jail like as possible and still do the job. So the parents are separated from their children. The parents go to jail for either criminal processing and deportation or asylum claim review. Meanwhile the children are handed over to HHS by the thousands, they have 20 days to find and place the children with relatives or other trusted responsible adults known to the parents or into foster care.

      No it's not pleasant, no it's not ideal. But the courts have prevented keeping the families together. The Obama Catch and release program is a failure with over 80% of those caught and released failing to show up for their court dates. (Catch and release was they were caught, briefly processed and released into the US with a court date). It's a viable system to deal with the logistics of such large scale detention and arrests.

      And ICE is required by law to separate the children from their parents, the courts blocked an attempt to do otherwise.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    9. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. They are following the legal process of claiming asylum from danger. Even if their case is not accepted, they are not breaking the law.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by radarskiy · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can't apply for asylum in your country of origin. You first have to enter US territory, which may be an embassy in a third country or the US proper. Valid immigration status is not a prerequisite for applying for asylum. You may apply for asylum to an immigration judge during removal proceedings.

    11. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by danbert8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do they have an asylum case? Do they know what the classifications and definitions of asylum are? Or were they told "just say asylum when you get there"? These asylum seekers not only don't have a case or evidence, they are often illiterate. They come across the border, not at a designated crossing, don't voluntarily seek legal officials, and have no prepared case for asylum. They just either know when they come in that asylum claims will allow them to stay longer or they get legal council that tells them asylum is their only option for legally staying.

      Did they flee a country that sucks? Yes. Is their case special and meeting the three criteria for asylum (from Wikipedia)? First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their home country.[3] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. Third, an applicant must establish that the government is either involved in the persecution, or unable to control the conduct of private actors.

      If someone comes across the border illegally, doesn't immediately seek legal means of declaring asylum, and doesn't have a prepared case for the three criteria, then how are they asylum seekers? Sounds to me like they are using legal language to ride the legal bureaucracy as long as they can because the USA has a reputation for a broken immigration system that is overwhelmed with people. Throwing children into the mix adds to the complication and the difficulty in caring for the people caught.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    12. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are breaking the law if they enter the US before obtaining asylum.

      As far as I understand the situation, that statement is false thanks to certain international treaties the US is a signatory to.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No, it's more like someone trying to give their children a better life by robbing a convenience store.

      Way to go not understanding the point. In other news you're also robbing a convenience store. You have a job don't you? How dare you take that opportunity from someone else you criminal.

      when they know the consequences have been the same for the past 20 years.

      You have to be a special kind of retard to think the consequences have been the same crossing *ANY* administration. Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean enforcement, consequences, application etc have not changed. There's a reason we didn't criticise it the past 20 years, and none of that had to do with people not coming over.

    14. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. They are following the legal process of claiming asylum from danger. Even if their case is not accepted, they are not breaking the law.

      But the asylum seekers are not the ones being arrested. There is a huge backlog of folks seeking asylum, so many are told they need to wait. But instead of doing that, they go try to cross the border between the ports of entry, illegally. That's when they get arrested.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    15. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Plus, they're not eligible for welfare anyway.

      That's false. As soon as people seeking asylum in the United States are accepted as refugees they are eligible for public assistance just like any other person, including cash welfare, food assistance, and health coverage. Source.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    16. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by magzteel · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You don't seem to appreciate the difference between a common criminal and someone who attempts to give his children a better life by going to the USofA.

      Either way, it is not the fault of the child. I'm sure the child of a common criminal is just as upset as the child of an illegal alien. In both their situation was an avoidable result of their parent's actions.

      This program has been going on for years. The homeland secretary explained the circumstances under which separation can happen and for how long. The only reason this is a big story now is because Trump.

    17. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Informative

      > They both have broken the Law.

      Seeking asylum is not against the law. And yet, if you come to the US-Mexico boarder seeking asylum, you will be arrested and your children, if any, will be confiscated.

      And I say "confiscated" because there is a nonzero chance that separation will be permanent.

      > No it's not pleasant, no it's not ideal.

      It's un-American, it's illegal, it's racist, and it's completely unnecessary. It's throwing gasoline on what is already a dumpster fire of a humanitarian crisis.
      =Smidge=

    18. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If they are truly seeking asylum they should be showing up at the guarded entry point and declaring they are seeking asylum where they will be walked into the air conditioned processing center , not sneaking though the back yard and hiding in the shed.

    19. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      Sadly,

      You're wrong. Sympathetically and emotionally involved but pragmatically and tragically wrong.

      Money represents a consumable resource, a resource that it takes effort to make more of. Therefore, any use of that money needs a high level of justification to use, because you have taken it by force from another person.

      We can do a lot of things that cost a lot less to put pressure on the Mexican government to develop into a true economy, but we avoid that responsibility either out of greed (cheap labor) or sentimental blindness (humanitarian immigration).

      If we close the border the bourgeoisie of Mexico will have to face rising pressure from their populace. A populace that will be getting more work done and have more of a reason to develop an internal economy. Currently their most reasonable decision is to cross the border and take advantage of a system conceived by different people under different circumstances.

      I do believe that we, as fellow humans and good neighbors should work with Mexico to help them build a self sufficient government. However, we cannot do that by continuing to pore dollars into their economy.

      Look at the outcome of economies where we pore dollars rather than knowledge. Africa has a population problem that is accellerating, but their internal economic growth is relatively stunted. Mexico is a shell of a country.

      Make border crossing more difficult, make working here impossible without credentials. Force the slavers in Mexico and the US to face the true cost of the systems they have wrought.

      We, as people, will continue on. We can give knowledge, training, and trade agreements to our peers in Mexico. They can take advantage of those low cost resources and have an outstanding growth cycle. Then they will have the time and resources to recognize what they want from a government. They can get the things that they want while maintaining their bonds with their extended family.

      If the economy grows fast enough, many from the US will go to Mexico to incubate their ideas. (Right now 90% of US->Mexico immigration are boomers trying make their retirement dollars go further.)

    20. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by TFloore · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree that we should end the drug war. It has gone worse than Prohibition.

      Prohibition was, at least nominally, a moral stance that alcohol was bad and should be totally banned. The War on Drugs (also called "The War on (Some) Drugs" if you are trying to smear the pharmaceutical industry) was a law enforcement and social control program, really. You can make the argument that it, like criminalization of maurijuana, was to allow the government to lock up black people easier. There's a great conspiracy theory that maurijuana is illegal because FBI Director Hoover wanted to lock up the Black Panthers, and they weren't otherwise actually breaking laws that he could pin on them (not to say they were innocent, just the drug dealing was a lot easier to prove and convict). There's also a great conspiracy theory that maurijuana is illegal because Dow Chemical's new miracle nylon ropes couldn't compete against hemp ropes, so they got maurijuana (and hemp) made illegal.

      If we want to stop immigration, we simply need a national employment database and fine the hell out of any employer employing people not approved to work.

      Look up the E-Verify system. Employers can already verify citizenship/immigration status, but it is not currently required, and businesses don't want to do it, because it loses them access to cheap labor. It will especially impact small farms, and lots of agricultural and meat processing facilities. Also lawn services, construction, and plenty of other businesses where people work hard physical labor, usually outside. You know, the kind of jobs that most Americans want their kids to get good educations so they won't have to do, but that still need to be done.

      But many of the people losing their children are not coming here simply for work. They are facing being murdered in their home country.

      This is where I show I don't fit well into either Democrat or Republican columns. Coming to America for a better life, or a life where you can live the way you want with less government control, is a big part of how this country grew over the last 200 years. I'm a big believer in that. And that's what we have our normal legal immigration laws to cover. We also have the asylum immigration laws, and I don't know as much about that as I feel I should, but I've never agreed that "There is a high violent crime rate in my home country" is a good enough reason for an asylum claim. Government persecution, yes, organized crime, maybe, my spouse beats me, no, I don't think that should qualify. Bear in mind, I've always considered "asylum" to really be more about "political asylum" which is obvious in my thinking there, isn't it? Can you tell I don't acutally know the law there?

      And Sessions is quoting the bible while ignoring Jesus and all the tales relating to being a good samaritan, kind to strangers, etc. And he's using the same verse used to justify slavery and many other heinous crimes.

      If you look at the history for Paul's letters to the Romans, he wrote several of them while IN JAIL. You know, being imprisoned for breaking the law. He was a big believer in obeying a government's laws that represented the will of God, but not so much a government that did not represent God's will.

      There's a saying that goes with this... "The Devil quotes scripture too". Simply finding a line in the Bible that seems to support your position is not enough to claim the moral high ground. You still have to make the case that what you are doing is right, and I don't think they've done that successfully yet. Half the Trump administration isn't even trying to do that, because they don't think what they are doing *is* right. They *may* believe it is the least bad of several very bad options, but that is not at all the same statement as "is good and right".

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
    21. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cry me a fucking river over spending money helping immigrants. We back 3/4 of the world's dictactors, we're bombing 8 countries (I think, I've lost count at this point). We spend more money on a military than many of the world's other major powers combined.

      If it's about the money, we've got a lot more high priorities to cut.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    22. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by swillden · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They both have broken the Law.

      The law is immoral and wrong -- and most of the people in question are seeking asylum which means they haven't actually broken it. Previous administrations (plural -- this is not just about Obama) recognized this and were careful to err on the side of believing asylum seekers until they had their claims evaluated, rather than assuming they were lying and processing them as criminals.

      The Obama Catch and release program is a failure with over 80% of those caught and released failing to show up for their court dates.

      There are many, many other options, including detaining families together, as previous administrations going back to at least Reagan did, or using ankle bracelets or other methods of monitoring. And, no, ICE is not required to separate them, because ICE is not required to treat them as criminals. That decision is totally on Trump and Sessions, no matter how much they claim otherwise.

      Also, your argument ignores the fact that the United States in large part actually created the violent and dangerous Central American conditions that are pushing most of these people to seek refuge here. That doesn't mean we owe them all a place, but it does mean that we should acknowledge our debt at least by giving their claims a fair hearing, and not treating them like criminals, or worse.

      If you really want to stop illegal immigration, it's actually very easy, and doesn't require any of these human rights abuses. In just two steps, we could fix it:

      1. Enact heavy penalties for any American caught employing illegal immigrants, including criminal penalties for those who do it knowingly and repeatedly. This would choke off the economic incentive for illegal immigration. If you want to make it really effective, establish a policy of offering permanent residency to any illegal immigrant who rats out their employer.

      2. Stop the war on drugs. Drug abuse should be handled primarily as a medical issue. Divert all DEA funding (and funding given to state and local police for the drug war) to the establishment of treatment centers and supporting infrastructure. Decriminalization should also be considered, but its not as important as simply stepping back from the utterly ineffective and counter-productive enforcement we've been attempting.

      It would take a few years, and things in Central and South America would briefly get worse, but ending the war on drugs would destroy the violent gangs which are making parts of those regions hellish by removing their lifeblood: our drug money.

      But for some reason there's a big part of this nation that refuses to see that the solution to this set of problems is to fix our own internal brokenness, rather beating down brown people.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    23. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The difference is that in the normal operation of the criminal justice system, the system isn't overwhelmed on a daily basis with a never ending flood and criminal cases process quicker, ... If the border crosser has just crossed illegally it should be nearly that quick assuming we have enough judges to handle all the cases. But when the crosser claims asylum that throws a big wrench into the situation. Now there are a series of interviews and investigations of their claims that have to be processed and this takes time. Meanwhile thousands more enter the system every day.

      And yet, only 2000 (for sake of this argument) children have been separated in 6 months. So is it thousands a day? Or a thousand a month? Or something less?

      The Obama Catch and release program is a failure with over 80% of those caught and released failing to show up for their court dates. (Catch and release was they were caught, briefly processed and released into the US with a court date). It's a viable system to deal with the logistics of such large scale detention and arrests.

      As far as the failure to show up for court, you have the numbers backwards. About 75% did show up. Only 25% failed. That's still a large number, but at least complain about the right things.

      And ICE is required by law to separate the children from their parents, the courts blocked an attempt to do otherwise.

      Is it? So they were breaking the law for the last 30 years? Perhaps all of them should go to jail?

      You can't argue that one person breaks the letter of the law and must go to jail and be separated from their family and then another that systematically breaks the law, according to you daily, doesn't go to jail.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    24. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Oh please, I'd rather send the "job creators" to those camps and let the Mexicans in. They are mostly honest, hard working people.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    25. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      People said the same thing about asylum seekers coming from Syria and Libya to EU countries. They somehow expected them to have carefully prepared an asylum case as they fled from chemical warfare, airstrikes, ISIS and countless other threats.

      There is no prefect solution. You manage the situation to prevent local problems due to too many migrants, and you work to fix the things that are causing migration. The former provides some immediate relief, the latter takes years but is the only real fix.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Fleeing from chemical warfare, airstrikes, and ISIS makes you a refugee, not someone claiming asylum. Refugees have a different legal framework. Asylum is a specific legal case for people who are specifically targeted by a foreign government or entity because of a protected status.

      I agree that the real fix is to fix the immigration system and migration status quo. The status quo had been for migrants come into the USA illegally. You'll probably have a better life and face no consequences! That's a recipe for masses coming across the border unregulated which is what we have today. Trumps policy is, if you come into the country illegally, we'll take your kids and you might never see them again. It's a horrible thing to do, but it definitely does discourage migration...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    27. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      If we want to stop immigration, we simply need a national employment database and fine the hell out of any employer employing people not approved to work.

      We have one, it is called e-verify. The laws mandating its use vary by industry and state.

    28. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "But many of the people losing their children are not coming here simply for work. They are facing being murdered in their home country."

      That is the story we are being told anyway. Just like you were told that the most solidly left and consistent candidate with a history of actually fighting during the civil rights movement and staunch defender of the women and social issues Bernie Sanders wasn't a real democrat and all his supporters were uneducated white men.

      I don't like Trump, I agree this is not good. But don't pretend that this would be okay if somebody else were making the decision and they have been, at will, since 2008. The idea that the only option was to cave and fund a literal wall or allow this is false. Congress could have passed a bill to repeal these policies which give presidents the authority to separate children and allow people into our nation without verification within an hour. There is no requirement for a bill to actually be thousands of pages of obfuscation for unrelated matters you know and it is damning that while there hasn't been zero tolerance this power has been applied thousands of times since 2008 without one peep to people.

    29. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Doubt that at a border crossing they are not allowed to turn around, the ones arrested are intentionally breaking the law. Obviously it would be best to abandon the asylum nonsense entirely, if Europe wants to show how superior it is by offering asylum to Latinos, the USA should not stand in the way

    30. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      So you're going to just go right ahead and ignore that Congress wrote a law to do this because there was such a large problem with human trafficking? Why? Because Rachel Maddow fake cried on TV?

      How do you know that the adults you're separating them from are their parents?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    31. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      The process to seek asylum is to show up at a port of entry to the closest country and ask for it. A) Mexico would be closer than the US. B) They aren't showing up at a port of entry. They're sneaking across the border.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    32. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      If we want to stop immigration, we simply need a national employment database and fine the hell out of any employer employing people not approved to work.

      Why would we ever want to stop immigration? The market can decide whether or not this is a good place for the n+1th person to give their ambitions a shot.

      (

      Immigration is Yet Another one of those weird issues where I think the self-labeled "right" and "left" are on opposite sides from their claimed ideals.

      The right wing should be demanding that we either open the borders or have the path to citizenship be easy, fast, and cheap. "Get out of the way, gummint."

      The left wing should be arguing that there are more important values than freedom, and therefore the labor supply should be centrally micromanaged to optimize whatever those values are, instead of leaving it to the free market. "This may be unpleasant, but it's for your own good."

      )

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    33. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Republicans control all branches of government. All sitting Democrats have sponsored a bill to stop this. No Republicans are interested. Conclusion: Republicans want this. And they want it, because they believe that their voters want this.

      This is something that a significant amount of Americans want. They are happy about it.

      The Democrats bill "stops this" by casting catch-and-release into law. The Democrats are trying to use THINK OF THE CHILDREN to force open borders.

      The Republicans also have bills that will fix this. It includes more judges and returning families to their country of origin intact if they can't be processed in the time allotted. What's your beef with that?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    34. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by brianerst · · Score: 1

      We have a national employment database. It's called e-Verify. It's been illegal to hire undocumented workers since the 1986 Immigration Act and e-Verify has been around since 1996.

      The issue is that it's not mandatory to use e-Verify (although some mainly southern states do require it), so only about 50% of employees are screened. Attempts to make it mandatory have repeatedly failed, largely due to Democratic refusal (there are some small business Republicans who are against it too).

      Mandatory e-Verify has been in every Trump budget and he brings it up routinely, as do a bunch of Republicans. Democrats and libertarians are largely against it, albeit for different reasons. Immigration advocates are against e-Verify "unless it includes some kind of help for the unauthorized workers who are already here".

      I'm not taking any position pro or con its use or the motivations of its supporters or detractors.

    35. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your mental gymnastics are impressive.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-children/exclusive-trump-administration-considering-separating-women-children-at-mexico-border-idUSKBN16A2ES

      Please note the date of that article and tell me again how this is an old law and not a recent policy change enacted by this administration?

    36. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The separation of minor children from their parents automatically at the border, particularly for those claiming asylum was started with an order by Jeff Sessions during the Trump administration.

      If this had been going on forever like you claim there would be a million kids in detention, not the 10,000 that were captured in the last few months under the Trump Administration since Sessions issued his order. You aren't entitled to your own facts on this and neither is fox news, this is a policy of this administration. Trump doesn't get to blame anyone but himself for this. He could choose to handle asylum seekers like in the past where they were allowed into the country until their cases were adjudicated, like any other civilized nation. Instead he CHOOSES to treat them like animals and put them in dog cages with no human contact.

      The policy is absurd and Trump's being rightly criticized for it.

    37. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      > ItÃ(TM)s a political stunt. Schumer himself admitted that the Democrats are blocking a legislative fix in order to Ãoekeep the focus on TrumpÃ

      The reason being it's entirely within Trump's power to end the practice right now, without any legislation. Any attempt to create legislation to fix this is merely a political stunt by the GOP to make it look like they're trying, when no effort should be needed in the first place.

      The ball is 100% in Tump's court, so yes let's keep the focus on him and why he's not doing what is entirely within his power to do.
      =Smidge=

    38. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      So.. the US is to blame for the corruption in South America, am I understanding clearly that this is your position?

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    39. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      > That is under debate.

      No, it isn't. If you think it is then you're not a real American by any definition that's had in the last century.

      > That is provably incorrect. In fact, the entire reason for it is the consent decree Reno v Flores. The rule was codified in 1988

      Smell like a bullshit talking point

      > It didn't take long for someone to throw that card. You know they have no valid argument now.

      Sometimes it actually is racist, though. When you combine the rhetoric with the policies that crack down on both illegal and legal immigration (but only for very specific demographics) a very clear pattern emerges.

      > If the "migrants" show up at a proper crossing point and request asylum there this problem is eliminated.

      They are literally being arrested before they get that far. You show up at the boarder control checkpoint, ask for asylum and if you don't have the right paperwork you get arrested for entering the country illegally, because just walking onto the building property is technically entering the country.

      Do you really think they're picking these people up in the middle of a field as they crawl under a fence somewhere?
      =Smidge=

    40. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      > If you come to an official border crossing point, you will all remain together.

      Incorrect.

      =Smidge=

    41. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      > So when someone is seeking asylum they can just swim across a river and jump a fence anywhere along the border or are there more appropriate buildings made for this located at specific points of entry?

      While that's not at all what's actually happening (people are being arrested at the boarder control facilities) it is in fact irrelevant to international law how an asylum seeker enters a country they hope to seek refuge in. If it is necessary to escape danger by swimming across a river or jumping a fence because there might be someone waiting for you just outside the official boarder crossing, that does not in any way invalidate your right to seek asylum.

      But again, that's not what's happening... people are being arrested at the boarder control facilities, not in the middle of nowhere.
      =Smidge=

    42. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      You have to cross the border to claim asylum. What made up process are you imaging exists where you can claim asylum outside the US? No nation on earth allows you to claim asylum from outside the borders. NONE

      Nope, you're wrong. You go to the border at a port of entry and present yourself as an asylum seeker. That's the correct process, the legal one, and the one that will keep your family together. But the lines have gotten really long, and yes, they wait outside the border. Those arrested are trying to break the line, even when being told not to do that.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    43. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      While all your points are true, what you describe is an easily-gamed system. Anyone crossing the border automatically says they're claiming asylum whether they have grounds or not. According to you, they're set free in the USA and given a date for a court hearing to determine the legitimacy of their claim. More than 80% never show up for that hearing. The most probable reason for not showing up is they know their asylum claim has no merit but still wish to reside in the USA illegally. They are, therefore, de facto illegals the moment they crossed the border since they did so under false pretenses.

      The whole situation defies any kind of win-win scenario. Leaving the "asylum loophole" open merely invites abuse of it to the detriment of citizens and legal immigrants. Closing it means actual asylum seekers are penalized.

      There are defined criteria for asylum. These criteria are not secrets to those crossing the border. I'd wager the overwhelming majority of those crossing the border claiming asylum know full well they have no claim to asylum. That they lie to exploit a weakness in our compassion is despicable opportunism. They are the ones creating this lose-lose situation, not US immigration policy. The optimal solution would be to make it impossible for people to lie when crossing the border but that is impossible. So now we end up where we are: families are separated and legal asylum seekers are jeopardized all because a bunch of people don't wish to go through the legal immigration process. They prefer to skip to the head of the line, a slap in the face to anyone who truly wishes to legally immigrate.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    44. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      So only educated and literate people are allowed to claim asylum now?

    45. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      "Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name, Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" So what you're saying , it's time to send Lady Liberty back to France

    46. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by Strider- · · Score: 1

      The only way to eliminate so-called "illegal immigration" is to bring the other countries up to a development level where people have hope that their children will be better off. You don't see many Canadians sneaking into the US. No matter what you do at the border, no matter what laws and systems you put in place, people will still come even on the most faint hope that they will be better off.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    47. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      The law is immoral and wrong

      Then change the law. This is a republic of laws, after all. There is a legal method to change immigration law and it should be used instead of "legalizing" the violation of said law.

      So all you need to do is get enough people to agree with your "this is immoral and wrong" idea and get the law changed to something more to your liking. If you are unable to do so then your idea does not succeed, as the law exists to express the will of the majority of the people through a representative republic. If you end up with a law you don't like it doesn't give you or anyone else the right to violate it. You either get majority agreement with your idea and it becomes law, or you don't and you live with a law you don't like, or you find another country with a different set of laws more in line with your views. Those are your options; you don't get to make up others just because you want to.

      Do not conflate immoral and illegal. There are many things which are illegal but moral. There are many thing which are immoral but legal. Our legal system is not intended to reflect moral values but legal ones. Disasters happen when you attempt to use the legal system to enforce a moral principle solely on the grounds it is moral (i.e. Prohibition).

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    48. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      They are if they don't present themselves at a port of entry or a US embassy in a foreign country.

      Under US law they are not allowed to just cross the border. There is a place for them to report and a process fro them to get in. They choose to ignore it because they know there chances for them to actually get legal asylum are pretty slim. For example if they are from Mexico and only want to enter because they are poor they have 0% chance of getting in for the next 60 years or so.

      I think that sucks. But the right answer is to change the law. Write your congress person and tell them that you're sick of the Democrats using immigration and kids as political leverage. They can fix the problem tomorrow by fixing the law. They didn't bother to do it when they had the presidency and both houses of congress, and a filibuster proof majority. They were more interested in giving the insurance companies a wet dream over healthcare.

    49. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Lord_Jeremy · · Score: 1

      But the asylum seekers are not the ones being arrested.

      Read the reporting, yes they are.

      In violation of US immigration law, Customs & Border Patrol is refusing to accept asylum requests from people at ports of entry. Therefore, many people are trying to cross the border first and then request asylum when they are picked up (asylum seekers often seek out immigration officers so they can request asylum), which is also their right under US law. To close off this avenue of seeking asylum, the DoJ has decided to prosecute all illegal crossings as criminal cases as opposed to civil cases. The result of losing your case is the same, removal from the US. However charging all border crossers as criminals automatically makes them ineligible for asylum.

      Finally, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has announced that immigration courts will no longer accept a lot of criteria that were previously considered valid for seeking asylum. For example, credible threats of domestic violence or abuse. It really seems like there is a culture of "we hate immigrants" that has been brewing in the government agencies that are charged with enforcing (and respecting) immigration law. It's not hard to look at ICE officers as inhumane when images or videos leak out of the child detention centers revealing some of them being insensitive or joking about crying children. It's also easy for me to view Jeff Sessions, Steven Miller and other architects of this policy as racist xenophobes because they seem to be willing to do almost anything to stop immigrants from coming into the country, legally or otherwise. In my view, there are much larger domestic problems to tackle than immigration, but these xenophobes really see even legal migration of non-white people as a scary thing that must be stopped.

    50. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Lord_Jeremy · · Score: 1

      I should've included a citation in my original reply. Here's one now: Watch the U.S. Turn Away Asylum Seekers at the Border

    51. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by magzteel · · Score: 1

      The separation of minor children from their parents automatically at the border, particularly for those claiming asylum was started with an order by Jeff Sessions during the Trump administration.

      If this had been going on forever like you claim there would be a million kids in detention, not the 10,000 that were captured in the last few months under the Trump Administration since Sessions issued his order. You aren't entitled to your own facts on this and neither is fox news, this is a policy of this administration. Trump doesn't get to blame anyone but himself for this. He could choose to handle asylum seekers like in the past where they were allowed into the country until their cases were adjudicated, like any other civilized nation. Instead he CHOOSES to treat them like animals and put them in dog cages with no human contact.

      The policy is absurd and Trump's being rightly criticized for it.

      Stick to the point, which was that the legal system separates children from incarcerated parents. What has changed is the number of incarcerations due to border violations. The previous administration did the same when it incarcerated parents. What else could they do? You can't incarcerate the kids too.

      As for "dog cages with no human contact", that's nonsense. You know it's nonsense, but you like to spout it anyway.

    52. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The theory about Hoover is wrong, because marijuana became illegal under federal law a lot earlier than the Black Panthers even existed.

      OTOH, if you were to say that's why they started pushing enforcement of an existing law, you might have a point.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    53. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1
      Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees stipulates that

      The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence

      So merely entering the country illegally is not a justification to arrest an asylum seeker. This is justified in the introduction by saying that

      subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum.

      To my understanding, the US implemented this by interpreting "without delay" as "within a one year period".

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    54. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      It sure helps their case... Ignorance of the law is not an excuse and immigration seekers don't have a right to counsel. If they don't understand our laws, we have no obligation to explain to them our laws for their benefit.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    55. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by sjames · · Score: 1

      They get visitation and their children aren't also incarcerated.

    56. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by swillden · · Score: 1

      The law is immoral and wrong

      Then change the law. This is a republic of laws, after all.

      In general, I agree. Leaving bad law on the books for selective enforcement gives way too much power to those who make the selective enforcement decitions. But there are times when civil disobedience -- even on the part of the executive branch of the government -- is the only moral thing to do.

      Do not conflate immoral and illegal.

      I'm not conflating them at all.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    57. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      Thanks but we're already taking in millions of Syrian refugees thanks to Assad and Putin and we still have lots of refugees from the USA's almighty fuck-ups* in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      If you want fewer refugees from the South, you'd do better to look at the results of the 40 year war on drugs, your country's appetite for illegal drugs and support for right-wing repressive governments.

      * There is still uncertainty whether these were almighty fuck-ups or deliberate policy.

    58. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by flygeek · · Score: 1

      This is entirely about politics. It's about who gets a vote count benefit from being perceived as being compassionate to Hispanics attempting to enter the U.S, thus garnering support from the legal citizen portion of the Hispanic population. If Hispanics didn't tend to vote Democratic, the Democrats would be the ones campaigning to build a wall and the Republicans would be running government-sponsored shuttle buses between the border and the farms that would employ most unskilled laborer migrants.

    59. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      Also, asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. They are following the legal process of claiming asylum from danger. Even if their case is not accepted, they are not breaking the law.

      Illegal immigrants are not asylum seekers.

      Seeking asylum requires presenting yourself at a legal port of entry, and requesting asylum. Anyone sneaking across the border is an illegal immigrant. Claiming they are seeking asylum after being caught, does not change the fact that they broke US law when they violated the border.

      I take issue with how these people are treated after being apprehended, but the vast majority were caught in the act of violating the US border.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    60. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      But there are times when civil disobedience -- even on the part of the executive branch of the government -- is the only moral thing to do.

      Civil disobedience is a civic right which I support but that's not what is going on. What is going on -- and which you state you and I are in agreement on -- is selective enforcement of laws for political reasons. I agree with you that's a very bad thing. As you state, it gives far too much power to whoever makes the selective enforcement decisions.

      I will ask the pointed question: what is your solution to the problem? You don't like the current policy so how would you do it differently?

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    61. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      By the way, analysis of the executive order he signed today shows that it basically does nothing.
      It's a distraction.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    62. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      All laws are selectively enforced.

      If police officers gave tickets for every violation, the public wouldn't stand for it. Police officers have said for years they could write everyone a ticket within 15 minutes of following them.

      Laws have historically tempered by fairness, human decency, and kindness.

      Sessions and Miller decided to enforce this law in a heinous way that recalls the concentration camps of pre-world war 2 germany.

      It's evil. We shouldn't allow them to do it.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    63. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by vernonB · · Score: 1

      Here's a solution: open borders. That would stop people from violating our immigration rules by entering surreptitiously.

    64. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      One doesn't choose to be a German. But one does choose or not choose to be an ICE employee.

      And let's be clear: right now, everyone working at ICE is complicit, even if they're not directly involved in those deportations, because they maintain the system and the infrastructure that enables those who do. In a similar vein, a secretary in SS was also complicit in the crimes that organization carried out.

      If all these people resigned en masse in an explicit refusal to enforce these laws, the laws would be changed - and then they could be back and implement them without moral qualms.

    65. Re: They also probably weren't expecting threats by JakeBurn · · Score: 1

      I used to report on the happenings in our district court and heard this fallacious argument literally every day, sometimes more than once a day. A defense attorney would argue that the crime should be ignored because the person committing the crime had children, the person committing the crime was only doing it to feed their children, etc. I can't remember a single time in eight years that the judge allowed that as an excuse because it isn't an acceptable excuse unless you're willing to believe that not a single other, legal option was available.

      In this case its even worse because you're indirectly claiming that the entire nation of Mexico is corrupt and without opportunity. These people have already displayed the ability to earn enough money to travel thousands of miles. They have already displayed the tenacity required to move towards and accomplish a goal. For these arguments to be valid there must not be anywhere inside of Mexico that is safe or has jobs. My mother in law's parents are legal immigrants but my wife's extended family still lives in Mexico. They aren't criminals, they aren't homeless and they have no desire to leave. Therefore I must assume that this entire uproar is yet another political attempt to derail conversations in our nation away from something that the people doing the derailing don't want to talk about.

    66. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by monkease · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he said it wasn't as catchy, and it in a not-so-subtle racist way ascribes evil motive to an entire class of powerless and defenseless people.

    67. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by Cederic · · Score: 1

      it in a not-so-subtle racist way ascribes evil motive to an entire class of powerless and defenseless people

      Well, he was wrong then. It would be the powerful people seeking to change demographics that have the evil motive, not the migrants they're using to achieve that end.

      The Stalin comparison still holds.

    68. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by monkease · · Score: 1

      I just don't get it.

      This Stalin-Illuminatus figure(s) that wants to turn America less white by importing thousands of Catholics who all buy into the basic tenants of the dominant economic system, and who trend socially conservative... is that Step 1?

      Step 2: ???

      Step 3: Profit!!

      But also, do you see how the fear of changing demographics is, like, totally obviously literally dictionary-definition racist?

    69. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by Cederic · · Score: 1

      But also, do you see how the fear of changing demographics is, like, totally obviously literally dictionary-definition racist?

      For one thing, it's not dictionary definition racism.
      For another, who said anything about fear.

      Do you support genocide? Just that current projections show that anglo-saxon people are heading towards extinction.

    70. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by monkease · · Score: 1

      .................."genocide" != "not enough white people fucking other white people"

      and while we're here, "America" != "a bastion of the Anglo-Saxon race"

      and also, because even though I think you know this, just in case you don't: when your talking points match Stormfront's, you're being racist.

    71. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by Cederic · · Score: 1

      when your talking points match Stormfront's, you're being racist

      Everybody uses the word 'the', so stop being a fucking idiot.

      What exactly are you suggesting I've said that's racist? Or are you throwing the word around like a fucking idiot.

    72. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by monkease · · Score: 1

      False equivalency much?

      Don't pretend to be all offended about somebody noticing you're racist while you're claiming there's some moral imperative to keep a particular racial majority in the US. Like, if you're going to be a white nationalist don't be a whiny, pedantic, pearl-clutching bitch about it.

    73. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm not even American so it's grasping pathetically to suggest I'm any sort of American nationalist.

      Your insistence that objectivity is some extremist position would be comical if it wasn't so stupid. I think you need professional help.

    74. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by monkease · · Score: 1

      Did you or did you not equate immigration with Anglo-Saxon genocide.

      Also, I didn't say you were an American nationalist. I said you're a whiny, pedantic white nationalist.

    75. Re:They also probably weren't expecting threats by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Well, you got pedantic right anyway.

      I have to be, fuckwits on the internet keep trying to pretend they know what I'm thinking, portray me according to their own biases, reveal their own bigotry.

      It's the pedantry that gives me the energy to keep telling you why you fit that description.

  10. Does Mexico Not Let the Kids In? by Kunedog · · Score: 1

    As I understand US law, if two citizens leave the country and have a kid, then that kid is also a legal US citizen, and may return to the country with them. Is Mexican law regarding this different? Are they not allowing the parents to bring their kid back to their country with them?

    1. Re:Does Mexico Not Let the Kids In? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Typically the children have dual citizenship. The U.S. gives citizenship by blood. Mexican law is different.

      That has *nothing* to do with this situation.

      The children, babies, and toddlers are being taken and held separately. The parents are being "fast tracked" and returned to their home countries quickly. The children are not "fast tracked" and so processing their cases take months to years. There is no ICE policy or procedure for providing solid documentation of whose child is whose and whose parent is whose. When the children are returned to their home countries, there will be no way to positively identify the parents of some of the children (short of maybe a DNA test).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  11. Re: Do not take your children overseas right now by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

    You're being ridiculous. Please cut it out.

  12. Re: I don't get it. by c6gunner · · Score: 1, Funny

    Totally; they should be sending the kids and parents to prison together. Serves those little bastards right for being born to a family of criminals!

    Glad to find another enlightened individuals such as yourself on Slashdot.

  13. Re: I don't get it. by c6gunner · · Score: 2

    Calling this "heinous action" is the most recent version of calling anyone to the right of Stalin a Nazi.

  14. Re: I don't get it. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Without hoologans at demonstrations, there would be nobody to tear gas, load into busses, and haul to jail.

  15. Re: I don't get it. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Process them in a refugee camp which keeps families together (as most of the world does it) or place them with host families. Not rocket science -- current policy is deliberately abusive.

  16. I've been hre longer than you by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Slashdot, you are better than this.

    No, we're not. This site is about weird racist memes, goatse and penis bird. There may nothing beneath us.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:I've been hre longer than you by owenferguson · · Score: 1

      true. citation: my sig

    2. Re:I've been hre longer than you by owenferguson · · Score: 1

      lol my sig is on my other 6 digit account,,,

  17. Re: WTF are you doing Slashdot? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    They are being edgy little rebels.

  18. Re: Didn't take MS to start fucking up github by Reverend+Green · · Score: 5, Informative

    GitHub's decline started long before the Microsoft acquisition. When they forced out the founder and declared meritocracy, and by extension merit, unwelcome.

    Venture capital turns everything it touches into evil shit. Not just evil, not just shitty - evil & shitty.

  19. Re: I don't get it. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Until the demonstrations shut down the country. Time for a French style general strike. Mass flight cancellations, buses/public transit don't move, teachers stay home, roads don't get fixed... get people mad enough and they will organise. All it takes is about 10% of the population to grind things to a screeching halt. The public doesn't even know how much power it has if they organise...

  20. Re:I don't get it. by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

    Why would anyone want this information?

    The only reason for a list like this is to encourage harassment of these individuals just for working somewhere that asshole doesn't agree with.

    That's been the way of the left for quite some time. Examples include Antifa goons beating up people they disagree about and trolls harassing people who simply donated money to a side they disagree with. All the things the left accuses others of are what they do day in and day out.

    Citation:

    https://www.catholicnewsagency...

  21. Re: I don't get it. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

    They're doing real damage to those kids. There's no way Jesus would be okay with this.

  22. Re: Do not take your children overseas right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The parents could always, you know, not violate US immigration law. I know, crazy idea!

  23. Relevant news by lolococo · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Relevant news by owenferguson · · Score: 1

      thankyou

  24. Re: I don't get it. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Place the entire families with host families, or keep them together in a refugee camp. Also, applying for asylum isn't a crime, it's a right under international law.

  25. Re:Github? Really? by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, to me its deletion from GitHub is pretty obvious--it's not a program or data for a program, of course it ought to go--and I'm a bit disgusted by the double-standards of a lot of the people here. Would the people here be as offended if the list deleted was, say, "LGBT employees of Google"? How about "Non-White Health Care Workers in Random City"? These kinds of lists are a problem because they invite harassment of the people on the list--and it's disturbing to see people thinking it's somehow okay to do this when it's the 'right' people getting harassed, because that basically means that you will have to be careful about expressing any ideas which might risk you at some point (now or in the future) finding yourself on one of those lists...and that won't protect you against being included by accident or because somebody wanting revenge or a petty power play.

  26. Re: I don't get it. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Of course not. Jesus is pissed that he's being prosecuted and that his kids are off with a foster family. Too fucking bad, Jesus. Should have thought of that before jumping the fence.

  27. Re: I don't get it. by DaHat · · Score: 2

    There's no way Jesus would be okay with this.

    I'm not a religious person... and I'm guessing you aren't either. The difference, is I'm not trying to use my out of date and incomplete understanding of other peoples religions to try to guilt trip them into things which I want.

    Your facts are wrong though, you may want to look up, remember:

    Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's

    I do, I did pay some attention in CCD. Unlike say... Islam, most of the original teachings of Christianity are not based around political ideas, instead recognizing the authority of a secular government.

  28. Re: I don't get it. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." But what is Caesar's? I don't think that Jesus would have argued that a good/just government should have unlimited authority. Paying taxes is one thing, having children stolen is another.

  29. Re: I don't get it. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Yeah, cunts like you always play the "empathy" card when they run out of arguments to make. No, you don't have any more empathy than I do; you are, however, significantly bereft of intelligence and honesty.

    When you've had the time to do some more mental gymnastics and figure out an argument for why someone who commits the crime of theft can be imprisoned without their kids, but someone who breaks immigration law cannot, you let me know. I'm sure it will be quite entertaining.

  30. Re: I don't get it. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Did you even start, junior?

  31. Time for some 1980's security by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Communists and Marxists are using the open internet to gather information on the US federal government.
    Stop putting information out online.
    Got a resume? Print it and hand it in to the approved gov person for that promotion, side ways promotion. Nothing digital, online.
    Be aware of strange new cctv, random people with a camera near any federal building.
    Talking about 1st A, been a tourist. Doing a 1s A protests outside your building? That "first amendment audit" on gov workers, mil, contractors for hours?
    Get quality facial recognition on anyone near any federal building. Always.
    Dont use any electronic communications devices near a federal building. Remove the battery from any gov/private cell phone. Carry an extra cell phone thats powered, never used and is totally empty. Photograph any person of interest with that. Wait for the FOIA request on that device :)
    Communists are running complex data gathering on all of the US gov. Electronic, faces, cars, internet.
    Searching the internet for every fragment of .gov and .mil data.

    Understand how the GCHQ, the SAS, UK mil, Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch operated in Ireland. North and south and in the USA.
    They did not have information found out by lawyers, media, activists, Communists, politicians.
    How? By been secret. Stop publishing information. Use front companies and locations to run investigations from. Dont use a cell phone. Dont use the internet. When some 1st A audit finds a gov/mil front company, building used as a field office, don't send gov/mil staff out with names on badges to confirm what agency works in the building.
    1st A can run their own counter surveillance with both long range audio, networking and with a network of other cameras. Say nothing, do nothing.
    Set up bait offices and bait staff. See what 1st A audit shows up first with a very limited internal release of information ;)
    Use private security and local city police to do field investigations. Never confirm who is at any location to some random stranger outside with a camera.
    Dont allow any building manager to list who works in the building to any strangers with a camera outside.
    When using a gov or private camera to photograph a protester, 1st A person, use a cell phone, camera just for that task. No other messages, text, data, images on the device used for that interaction.
    Never use a gov cell phone, your own cell phone. It will be part of a FOIA request. Make sure it has nothing extra on it.
    FOIA requests will be used on that device and protester can gather all kinds of data on that device by requesting it as it was used as part of an offical investigation.
    Stop just giving gov data away with every FOIA request. The FOIA image is that of the protestor and the gov device has no other data on it.
    After the FOIA request stop using that camera. One camera, one encounter, one FOIA. No extra data on any police device that can be requested.

    Use vehicle registration plates as bait. Drive a set of unmanned cars, vans in and out of a gov building. Uniforms and actors to ensure its a quality production outside the sally port. Track who then enters the same vehicle registration into all kinds of databases. Who goes building a database. Is someone in the gov helping look up gov workers and contractors? Find them. Is someone in the private sector helping protesters on their own databases? Find them.
    Find who is doing the lookups and who is requesting the data searches on gov workers, mil, police. From gov records, on private databases.
    Make sure you know who you are working with and who is getting hired. Hire on merit. Make sure the person getting hired is fit for law enforcement work, can pass gov/mil security tests.
    Track all communications by disgruntled workers. They will pass information on to protesters, 1st A auditors, media, lawyers, faith groups, cults while working

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Time for some 1980's security by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Everytime I read your posts I feel like a noob.

      What about Chinese employees in my office, any way to identify the ones I need to concern myself with (serious question)?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    2. Re:Time for some 1980's security by Cederic · · Score: 1

      How? By been secret. Stop publishing information. Use front companies and locations to run investigations from. Dont use a cell phone. Dont use the internet.

      Fuck that. People working for a legitimate government agency, following the law, obeying the constitution, earning their living in a non-sensitive role should not have to hide.

      These guys work for customs and immigrations. They're not international spies, they aren't decrypting Russian diplomatic messages, they aren't hacking Chinese satellites. They check your bag at the border and arrest people breaking US border laws.

      Step one isn't maximum operational security, it's arresting any cunt stupid enough to conspire to harass, assault or murder one of these people.

  32. Re:Manufactured outrage by redmid17 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most of those are actually false (1,4,6) or at best distorted. This is not surprising as Breitbart is an awful source of any news and Steve Bannon basically helped dictate this immigration policy.

    1. He's enforcing the most draconian option. They claim the kids are unaccompanied but by prosecuting the adults criminally instead of civilly -- they obviously have that right -- they can isolate both the parents and the kids. This is even happening to people trying to claim asylum at ports of entry.
    2. Many do. The vast majority arrive with an adult. The trafickers posing as a family account for .61% of kids.
    3. Many, if not all, of these children have been apart from their parents for more than 20 days. Even a cursory google shows this is heinously out of context.
    4. This is just unmitigated bullshit. It's child abuse (per pediatricians AND psychiatrists) and nothing DHS says has been independently verified. Either way being separated from family and put in a detention center is certainly not GOOD treatment
    5. People are generally not jailed for misdemeanors. Children certainly aren't seized and they get preference in their bail hearing if they are the sole caregiver.
    6. This is just unmitigated bullshit. He kept families together.
    7. Ignoring the fact that DHS has started turning people away from ports of entry, yes they are actively being turned away and sometimes seized. This is, once again, easily findable via basic google. Some actual sources WITH SOURCES!
    https://www.texasmonthly.com/p...
    https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19...
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

    Even if you don't like NYT or NPR, there are other outlets that report it as well, even websites like Snopes and politifact. Basically that was a shit post for covering an awful practice and an even bigger shit post because it was so laughably bad and fake,.

  33. Antifa and neonazis are idiot cosplayers by drnb · · Score: 1

    I found a whole bunch of those violent anti-fascist assholes. They're under white marble crosses all over Europe.

    No you did not. Because the allied soldier under white crosses did not believe in beating up people over words. When the Nazis marched in Illinois in the 1970s the WW2 vets opposed them with words not violence.

    It is only the comic book caricature of WW2 soldiers that antifa likens themselves to as they indulge in their own little soldierly fantasies. The immature entitled kid in black north face clothing and balaclava is far far different than the real soldiers who destroyed real fascists. Similar story for the other side of the same idiotic delusions, the neonazi wearing an armband and speaking insulting words is nothing like the real fascists. Both the violent wing of antifa and the neonazis are all posers, little more than asshole cosplayers both.

    Now the peaceful wing of antifa, that is an entirely different story. That is where one might find actual WW2 vets.

    Speaking as someone who had the privilege to grow up around family who were actual WW2 combat vets, and who had teachers who were actual WW2 combat vets.

  34. Re:Manufactured outrage by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No.. you are either mistaken or lying.

    1) Trump is only enforcing the law : Nope, it's a new policy. And it's a decision by Miller, Sessions, and Trump to do so. Presidents Bush and Obama saw no need to enforce the law this way.

    2) Many children arrive unaccompanied
    We are talking about babies and toddlers being taken from their parents-- we have audio of them crying for their parents.

    3) Children can only be separated for 20 days
    No. per former ICE head on the news tonight at 9pm, there is no procedure in place to return the children. The Parents will be "fast tracked" back to their home countries and the toddlers and babies will be returned months to *years* later. And there is no documentation being taken to tie the parents to the children. And there are already documented cases where the child has been missing longer than 20 days.

    4) Their conditions are actually pretty good, better than most poor American children get, and better than where they came from.
    Living in tents in near 100 degree temperatures is not "pretty" good. That's the conditions which male toddlers and children are being kept under. Babies and females we barely know about-- reporters are not being allowed in the facllities. The government (which lies constantly) is the only source saying the conditions are good.

    5) We separate citizen children from their parents, when we put parents in jail
    Not for minor crimes.

    6) Obama did it
    Obama's not president and at the least did not do it on this scale (if it did it at all- you are going to provide a cite for that because all I find when I google that is right wing sites.)

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  35. Re:Manufactured outrage by redmid17 · · Score: 1

    Surely you can try harder than this, bot

  36. Re: Do not take your children overseas right now by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Since you are so confident... by all means-- please take your kids overseas on trips.

    I'm sure no one will be upset and your children will be completely safe.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  37. Over a dozen republicans opposed now. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

    And multiple Republican governors have withdrawn their national guards.

    Republicans control the presidency, house, and senate. They could fix this tomorrow.

    Meanwhile children are being put in cages and crying.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  38. Re:Manufactured outrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Breitbart had a good summary of the situation(*).

    In short, it's manufactured outrage intended to gin up exactly this sort of reaction in people.

    After "Breitbart" I'll just assume everything you have to say establishes the fact you're a fuckwit.

    1) Trump is only enforcing the law

    One can do a lot of damage to society by "only" enforcing the law so I will chalk this up as unfalsifiable gibberish due to the lack of specific substantive argument supporting course of action taken by administration.

    2) Many children arrive unaccompanied

    What the heck does this have to do with separating accompanied children other than a crummy attempt at deflection?

    3) Children can only be separated for 20 days

    The average time is 51 days and there is no upper limit for outliers.
    Am I to believe locking up children under threat of violence for even 20 days with strangers against their will is acceptable behavior? If you think so then I think you're a fuckwit.

    4) Their conditions are actually pretty good, better than most poor American children get, and better than where they came from.

    To say most poor American children are better off separated from their parents and locked up in cages with strangers is just a reflection of how warped and out of touch with reality you truly are.

    5) We separate citizen children from their parents, when we put parents in jail

    Kids are not separated from their parents when their parents commit Misdemeanors. You're really a fuckwit.

    The administration is only doing what it is doing to send a message. Everyone including yourself knows it. Don't pretend there is another reason and don't pretend the normal standard of what is best for the child is being followed.

    6) Obama did it

    No previous president has done what Trump is doing. Obama explicitly focused on jailing "bad dudes" not EVERYONE without qualification (e.g. zero tolerance). What is happening now is NEW.

  39. Why is this newsworthy? by Oceanplexian · · Score: 1

    I am ashamed of Slashdot for posting this. Scraping LinkedIn is not newsworthy. It's not an achievement or technically complex. Most people on this site could accomplish this inside a day or two. The only thing this accomplishes is the insinuation that people should take this information and use it to harass government employees, which is not only unethical but potentially criminal.

    1. Re:Why is this newsworthy? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I don't mind Slashdot posting that this has happened. I think it is newsworthy.

      Linking to the database itself is more interesting. At a surface level I shrug because I have no interest and I'm not going to contact anybody listed within it. I understand though your concern regarding how others might use it.

      Information wants to be free, and this information was already on the internet. Right now it's really just a big juicy honeypot waiting to snare silly people.

  40. So, scraping is supposed to be OK by jtara · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They scraped content from LinkedIn (or used an API?) to compile a directory, almost certainly in violation of TOS.

    How was that OK?

    Microsoft owns LinkedIn. Microsoft owns Github. Put two and two together. They are enforcing their TOS, and happen to have the ability to do so in this case without having to convince another site to take down the illegally-obtained material.

    1. Re:So, scraping is supposed to be OK by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, there is a recent (ongoing) lawsuit on that very topic.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  41. Re: I don't get it. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

    I was referencing Jeff Sessions who recently used old testament passages to justify caging those kids. He's going to have some splaining to do when he meets his maker.

  42. Re: I don't get it. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    By "maker", you mean Mr. Scratch?

  43. They also WERE expecting threats by aepervius · · Score: 1

    There are quite a few jobs where you expect threats. Immigration enforcement , people evicting others, debt collector and I pass many others. There are many jobs which may need to be done, but for which people affected by those job may not necessarily like the enforcer. Personally I don't see the usefulness of threatening ICE official, but then again I am legal resident on where I live so I am biased.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  44. Heil to the chimp by Mats+Svensson · · Score: 1

    Anther day in GAR
    (Greater American Reich)

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dg...

  45. Re:Didn't take MS to start fucking up github by owenferguson · · Score: 1

    It was on Github because it included both data, and code for making some use of the data. That said, pure data with no code is still a valid repository and has uses such as AI training that make it a proper fit in a repository environment, if you are serious about that sort of thing. This is actually a better model for making leaks like wikileaks, where they have a closed source web interface to the data, and pure data dumps (like Ashley Madison) where the end user has to figure out how to mount the data in a parseable manner.

  46. Re:And now you validated that ass-hat.... by owenferguson · · Score: 1

    "I stopped coming to /. years ago" Clearly.

  47. Re:Manufactured outrage by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    you are either mistaken or lying

    Lying. Lots of russians hanging out here, for historical reasons.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  48. Re:Hey Doxxing, fun ... by owenferguson · · Score: 1

    this guy gets it

  49. Re: I don't get it. by novakyu · · Score: 1

    The point is Jesus never answered obviously political questions in any kind of straightforward manner. If you are actually interested in what Jesus would say/do, actually read the Bible, without reading into it your own views and biases.

  50. Re:Didn't take MS to start fucking up github by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you've been paying attention to what's been going on over there since they decided their "In Meritocracy We Trust" parody of the oval office carpet in the CEO's office was offensive and had to be removed you'd know the place has let the lunatics run the asylum for years already. The only surprise here is that they decided to remove this particular doxxing case as it conforms really well to their particular bent so some semblance sanity may actually be returning to the madhouse.

    The far left lunatics they've let run the company have removed projects and banned people on purely political grounds, made it very easy to add extremely broad codes of conduct with a focus on "If someone claims they've felt slighted the guilty one must be punished reality and plain sense be damned" types and implemented loads of asinine "diversity" policies like restricting certain positions based on race and putting an end to mentoring new hires because of how their diversity drive has lead to to many cases of minorities and women being mentored by white men.

    --
    "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
  51. I'm not surprised by DrXym · · Score: 1

    GitHub et al don't want to get involved in an something which is most likely going to end up in doxxing and other attacks.

    1. Re:I'm not surprised by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I suppose github should also host porn and warez because 'free speech'

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:I'm not surprised by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Some people would think so and get all worked up about if they didn't.

  52. Tsss by ruurd · · Score: 1

    Well... that didn't take long.

    --
    ruurd
  53. Re:Manufactured outrage by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    "Even the Devil can quote Scripture to suit his purposes."

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  54. Re: Manufactured news debunked by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Nearly as much as you'll find in RT on an average day.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  55. Re: I don't get it. by dargaud · · Score: 2

    I've lived in France on and off for decades and let me tell you that those 10% with the power to grind everything to a halt are always the same ones: truck drivers (the worst of all), train conductors (currently in their 3rd month of strike with no end in sight, this over trifles), students (and screw the others who just want to pass their exams), airplanes (always at the time of vacations), etc... All the others don't matter, only those get their voices heard by pissing in everybody's broth.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  56. Re: I don't get it. by GrimSavant · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The big one Sessions referenced was Romans 13:1-7, which is a New Testament Pauline epistle. It argues for submitting to governing authorities.

    Generally, if government officials are using that passage to defend themselves or justify their actions they tend to be in a bad way. It was used as one of the scriptural bases for the Divine Right of Kings, opposition to the American Revolution, and by pro-slavery forces to justify adherence to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. More recently it has been used as a support by the apartheid government of South Africa.

    When Romans 13:1-7 is cited while ignoring the next couple of passages (Romans 13:8-10) it's pretty obvious that it is being used for dubious ends, as that goes:

    8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

    I'm not a biblical scholar, nor am I a well-versed adherent to the Pauline epistles, but I do have a hard time seeing any love in this.

  57. Yeah, don't dox random civil servants by rjthomas61 · · Score: 1

    They're not all la migra

    --
    Take off, every Hoser
    1. Re:Yeah, don't dox random civil servants by johnsie · · Score: 2

      The posted their private info on a public directory, it's their own fault. People need to learn who to use the Internet better.

  58. Re: I don't get it. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

    Right, it goes without saying. Whenever a Christian has to go back to the Old Testament to justify anything it means he's doing something that Jesus would not be cool with.

  59. Re: Didn't take MS to start fucking up github by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

    And yet at the same time, we are brainwashed that the "free market picks what is the best for everyone".

  60. Re:I don't get it. by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

    If by harassment you mean friends of these people telling them "what you are doing is wrong", then I am all for it. Also, I really don't understand what is the problem here. These people put something publicly online in social media, and now they are complaining that somebody remembers what they wrote?

  61. Re: Didn't take MS to start fucking up github by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    “We removed the project because it violates our community guidelines ... we have policies against use of GitHub for doxxing and harassment, and violating a third party’s privacy.”

    - A GitHub spokesperson

  62. Re:Do not take your children overseas right now by halivar · · Score: 2

    I will endeavor not to smuggle my child across another nation's border illegally. Thanks for the tip.

  63. Re: I don't get it. by houghi · · Score: 1

    Please note that 3rd month on a strike does not mean no trains during that period for 3 months. https://en.oui.sncf/en/train/s...

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  64. Re: I don't get it. by jonnythan · · Score: 1

    This policy is new as of April 2018.

    Ask yourself: do you know what they did before the Trump administration implemented this policy? Do you care?

  65. Re: I don't get it. by dargaud · · Score: 1

    Well, kind of. I tried to take a train to Paris and the day to day schedule was a nightmare. And the prices were way up since they adopted the same shitty pricing techniques as the airline companies (more demand => higher prices, but since there's less than half the trains running => less supply => higher prices). Eventually gave up so it might as well have been a complete strike.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  66. The Streisand effect by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    Two more clowns who are about to learn about the Streisand effect the hard way.

  67. Re:I don't get it. by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Why would anyone want this information?

    The only reason for a list like this is to encourage harassment of these individuals just for working somewhere that asshole doesn't agree with.

    Yep, exactly.

    We used to settle political disagreements with boring old voting and stuff. No more!

  68. One more time by TVmisGuided · · Score: 2

    For those who may have missed the memo:

    There is not, and never has been, any such thing as "privacy" on the Internet.

    If you make your profile public anywhere, someone unexpected WILL read it..and use the information that you post in a way that you probably won't like.

    We now return to our regularly-scheduled flamethrowing, already in progress...

    --
    All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
  69. Good by dnaumov · · Score: 1

    Willfully identifying feds for the purpose of a crime is a FELONY. No, the fact that the data was on LinkedIn does not matter.

    1. Re:Good by owenferguson · · Score: 1

      So every ICE agent who posted their ID to LinkedIn should be arrested? I'm down with that.

    2. Re:Good by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting they posted their details on LinkedIn to facilitate a crime? That sounds unlikely to me.

      I'm sure you were just trying to make a joke. It wasn't funny.

    3. Re:Good by owenferguson · · Score: 1

      I am suggesting exactly that. ICE is committing war crimes. These people all listed themselves as war crime practitioners on LinkedIn in hope of finding work doing war crimes for other, private contractors.

    4. Re:Good by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Which of the Geneva conventions are they contravening? Rulings from the ICC they're ignoring? UN charters they're breaching?

      'War crime' is a very strong accusation. Do you have actual evidence or are you just talking shit?

  70. Re:They also probably weren't expecting drugs by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    No, we should legalize at least the most used drugs, thus undermining the high profits of contraband.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  71. Find the link(s) by execthis · · Score: 1

    Wait until a link is found between MS-13 or cartels and people doing these kinds of acts and then there will be reason enough to declare martial law.

  72. Re:here is where the fact break down by Train0987 · · Score: 1

    It's amazing that the same people who tell us that Trump is the next Hitler are now openly advocating for him to ignore laws. What a stupid time to be alive.

  73. Re: I don't get it. by Train0987 · · Score: 1

    Waiting until after you've been caught illegally entering the country to claim asylum. Asylum seekers are supposed to file Form I-589 immediately upon entering. Letting them claim asylum after being caught is only creating a loophole that will be abused by every illegal immigrant and open the floodgates to further overwhelm the system.

  74. Re: I don't get it. by Train0987 · · Score: 1

    Whoops, first sentence should read: "Waiting until after you've been caught illegally entering the country to claim asylum is a crime."

  75. Re: I don't get it. by Train0987 · · Score: 1

    "This policy is new as of April 2018."

    No it is not. The law has been on the books for over a decade and has been enforced for several years prior to Trump.

  76. GitHub wants no part in doxxing ICE employees by gotan · · Score: 1

    That "data repository" is simply mass doxxing of ICE employees. It has absolutely no legitimate use, at best it is intended to intimidate the ICE-employees. Whoever sees that as a legitimate way to influence (immigration) policy is obviously unwilling to play by democratic rules.

    --
    "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
  77. Re: I don't get it. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Open the floodgates! We're at full employment -- why are you a coward?

  78. Re: Manufactured news debunked by redmid17 · · Score: 1

    A russian propaganda site? Well done

  79. Biblical Context. Are you a Christian? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    The Biblical passage that the administration via Sessions is referring to has been used to justify, among other things:

    1. slavery
    2. German Christian churches submitting to the will of the Third Reich
    3. Japanese internment camps
    4. segregation
    5. banning interracial marriage
    6. anti-gay-rights legislation

    Regarding the immigrants

    Exodus 22:21: Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.

    Leviticus 19:33: When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them.
    Leviticus 19:34: But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

    Deuteronomy 27:19: Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless, or the widow.

    Jeremiah 22:3: This is what the Lord says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

    Malachi 3:5: âoeSo I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,â says the Lord Almighty.

    Hebrews 13:1-2: Keep on loving one another as brothers and sisters. Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.

    ---

    Would Billy Graham support this? No.
    Would Fred Rogers support this? No. Heck No.
    Would Jesus support this? I can't see how he possibly could.

    If you are a christian... open your eyes.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  80. Re:Manufactured outrage by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    [7) Asylum seekers not breaking the law are not separated from their children.] 7) Irrelevant.

    It's quite relevant: the state takes over from parents who expose their kids to unusual risks and illegal behavior. That's a principle we apply to citizens, and it is certainly also a principle that applies to people who expose their kids to the risk of illegal migration into the US.

  81. Re: I don't get it. by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    "You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt." - Exodus 23:9

    "And if a stranger sojourns in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger that sojourns with you shall be like your natives, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." - Leviticus 19:33-34

  82. Antifa by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Who's Antifa's astroturf? Some jewish organization? Some legit orgs are jump started by a small astroturf they don't always stay that way.

    WTF is it with all this bashing of a small organization who's mission is to stop Nazis or any rebranded resurgence? It is as if we had more attack on them than we did for the Neo-Nazis -- skipping criticism which is rather tired and old by this point but it is far more important to go after Nazi fanboys. Beating the shit out of Nazis is not ideally civilized but it is not the same as just about anything else; besides, they are the exception for the whole planet (FYI, war is not civilized.) One would think a tiny little known group like Antifa would be praised and people signing up like crazy when they got on the national scene protesting our recent Nazi fanboy resurgence. Especially SJW who are desperate for some meaning in their lives-- they should have a far better outlet for their righteousness... maybe they'll actually DO SOMETHING; but probably not because they really don't do anything but blab online which is why they are addicted to unfulfilling platitudes which are best suited for P.C. policing.

    I question the motives or intelligence of people who jump on the bandwagon to attack the anti-Nazi crowd.

    For every open Nazi fanatic there are 100s of like minded people who are not as extreme but agree with a lot of it.... just like in Germany (and quite a few in the USA at the time.) That is why you can go from fringe minority to movement size suddenly when the majority of the group decides to take action as a group... not necessarily ever following the extreme elements which always do tend to stand out. It's a silent majority of the subgroup; the so-called fanatics are never very silent, only appeased to keep their profile down.

    It's an issue for all issue organizations-- look at the political parties-- they are always trying to keep a handle on their internal factions and keep them from bringing down the group or taking over too much of the group and fracturing the base. Before Obama, we had border-line fanatics who jumped the fence once a black man was in and Faux News got big on race baiting them (if you didn't see it, stop reading) and then with Trump's less subtle manipulation they felt safe to come out in the open and surprised people by how much they've grown in number and boldness. This was just those border-line fanatics that had flipped from being silent. It is proper for people to be concerned about further progression; especially around the less fanatic fascists who can rally the larger group: their real base, who will tolerate them just like any party does with it's fringes. Some are seriously wondering if this IS Trump and Trump is at minimum trying to troll concerned people (he does seem to take pleasure in tormenting people who care about things; not really understanding this himself.) You can debate this all you like, but he's clearly sending out signals to them, either he doesn't know how to be subtle, doesn't care, or wants to enjoy trolling people he mocks for caring about something greater than themselves (which totally fits his psych profile.)

    1. Re:Antifa by drnb · · Score: 1

      WTF is it with all this bashing of a small organization who's mission is to stop Nazis or any rebranded resurgence? It is as if we had more attack on them than we did for the Neo-Nazis

      One, its only bashing the pro violence wing of antifa. The peaceful protest wing is doing good work. Two, The neonazis are not acting out of their violent rhetoric, they are shouting ugly words not punching people in the face. And in that rare instance where a neonazi does punch someone in the face he deserves to be in jail just like the antifa member who punches someone in the face over ideology. Punching someone over words or symbols is not self defense, despite what both pro violence antifa and neonazis think.

      The pro violence wing of antifa deserves criticism because they are emulating the 1920s nazi brownshirts. Because they talk anti fascist but act as fascists.

      One would think a tiny little known group like Antifa would be praised and people signing up like crazy when they got on the national scene protesting our recent Nazi fanboy resurgence.

      The peaceful wing that does good work gets overshadowed by the violent wing that riots and punches people in the face for their idiotic armbands and words.

      Especially SJW who are desperate for some meaning in their lives

      Seeking meaning for their lives through violent acts, where have we heard that before? Violence to achieve a political goal, where have we hear that before? 1920s Italy, 1930s Germany.

    2. Re:Antifa by Cederic · · Score: 1

      WTF is it with all this bashing of a small organization who's mission is to stop Nazis or any rebranded resurgence?

      Oh, which one is that? I thought we were talking about the people that organise violent attacks on people giving talks at universities, or use bike locks to assault peaceful protesters.

      It is as if we had more attack on them than we did for the Neo-Nazis

      No, it's as though people dislike violent bullies that refuse to engage in discourse and label anybody they want to assault a neo-nazi to try and justify their illegal violence.

      it is far more important to go after Nazi fanboys

      No, it's equally important to oppose those that would impose their politics on us with violence whatever their politics happen to be.

      One would think a tiny little known group like Antifa would be praised

      Only if you're in the habit of praising groups US Homeland Security have designated a terrorist organisation.

      when they got on the national scene

      Little known but on the national scene? Come on, at least make your propaganda consistent within the same fucking paragraph.

      our recent Nazi fanboy resurgence

      So resurgent that people had to make up a whole new label because they couldn't actually find any nazis.

      I question the motives or intelligence of people who jump on the bandwagon to attack the anti-Nazi crowd.

      You don't need to question my motives. I write against Antifa because I see them using the same tactics the Nazi party used in 30s Germany and I don't like, support or accept that.

      As for my intelligence, I'm feeling smug about that when I read your nonsense.

      For every open Nazi fanatic there are 100s of like minded people who are not as extreme but agree with a lot of it

      Oh? Which studies demonstrate this?

      It's an issue for all issue organizations

      As an issue organisation, Antifa must thus have this issue too. Well, to be fair and even handed, could you provide a study for that as well?

      they felt safe to come out in the open and surprised people by how much they've grown in number and boldness

      This I'll accept. I'm bloody surprise how small in number they are, given the violence against them, given the institutional racism shown by universities in America, given the media coverage.

      Shit, you may be right. Perhaps they're much larger than the visible minority, and just scared to stand up for their own rights and freedoms because of the constant and persistent marginalisation and violence shown against them by the education system, the media and Antifa.

      You should worry. Keep oppressing people because of their skin colour or political views and they'll start to band together and respond. Then the shit hits the fan.

  83. "Tender Age" prison by Zorro · · Score: 1

    That is called the Public School System.

  84. Linkedin has blocked the method of getting data by SysEngineer · · Score: 1

    The repo is still available at https://gitlab.com/marge_innov.... But Linkedin has blocked the URL for the search and all the data has disappeared from the internet. The government using BLS and census bureau tracks and monitors almost everything. I think it is good for people to monitor the government.

    WHEN INJUSTICE IS LAW
    REVOLUTION IS NECESSARY

  85. Re:That sounds insulting by drnb · · Score: 1

    Soldiers that went to fight bearing arms did not at some point believe their violent acts had meaning, and expected the diplomacy and propaganda to do all the work while they marched to the meat grinder? You're insulting their reason.

    The pro-violence antifa member is actually a fascist himself. The idea that violence to achieve a political goal is justified is a core tenant of fascism. The pro-violence antifa member is not like the allied soldier who destroyed fascism. He is like the 1920s brownshirt who believed society is sick and must be changed, that things are so grave socially that violence is justified. The men who became the allied soldiers picked up arms when the fascists moved from words to physical violence, and when the fascists were subdued and went back to words these same allied soldiers responded only with words (ex. Illinois, 1970s).

    These pro-violence antifa members insult the memory of real allied soldiers as they engage in their little soldierly fantasies and dare compare themselves to the real soldiers. Soldierly fantasies being another fascist characteristic.

  86. Re: I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's amazing how "angry old white guy" gets transmitted with just words.

    This administration made a deliberate choice to handle asylum seekers and illegal immigrants as a criminal matter, specifically so they could separate children from their parents as a deterrent. Your false comparisons might let you sleep better at night, but the rest of us don't believe the ends justifies the means - particularly when border crossings have shown a distinct downward trend since 2009.

  87. Re:Manufactured outrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    6. This is just unmitigated bullshit. He kept families together.

    And here is photographic evidence that proves that you are either lying or completely misinformed. You really need to quit watching MSNBC and CNN exclusively.

    It's getting old to say that they really are the definition of fake news and they are actively lying to the population to spread their left-leaning, political agenda.

  88. Same as doctors who perform abortions openly by drnb · · Score: 1

    They may have taken the jobs out of desperation, but they didn't have to announce the fact on LinkedIn. They made the information about themselves public.

    Using your logic, the doctors who provide abortion openly also deserve to be compiled into a list and have that list publicly posted.

  89. Re:Strong National Borders by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Actually, there's a lot of outrage. Not separating families is a primary driver for bail reform and elimination of cash bail (i.e. releasing most people accused of crimes without bail) in states that are doing so.

  90. Re: I don't get it. by Train0987 · · Score: 1

    Our social services cannot handle the volume of people coming here seeking free stuff. You cannot have both open borders and a welfare state, you must choose one or the other.

    Why do you call people names just for disagreeing with you? Do you think that helps your argument?

  91. Re: by Cederic · · Score: 1

    The people that run US concentration camps

    Interesting. Where are these, and who is being tortured, gassed to death, medically experimented on, executed without trial and/or forced to make munitions to support a war?

    Someone should publicise this shit.

  92. Re: I don't get it. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Sure they can -- don't offer anyone without citizenship most social services.

  93. Sometimes I'm an incoherent mess by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I wish I wasn't slightly inebriated when I wrote that. Maybe I wouldn't have left out so many words.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  94. Re: I don't get it. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Hurr durr lack of empathy.

  95. Re:Manufactured outrage by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    Aaand there's the "troll" mod anyway, because somebody can't deal with facts that temper emotional appeal.

    Here's another fact: in some of these cases, they're not even the children and parents. They've been paired up because the smuggling rings are aware that having children generally got you through the system because it played on these exact sympathies. Those people are essentially human trafficking.

    Facts aside, it is sad that children are pulled from their parents, but almost no one is putting any blame for the parents for putting their kids in this situation in the first place as they break another country's laws. If they went legally to the right ingress points and declared they were looking for asylum, they'd be treated better.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  96. Re:Manufactured outrage by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

    So what percent of criminals should the government actually prosecute? Since you don't like 100% you must have some other number in mind. Is it 10%? 5%? 0%?.

    I elect my government representatives to enforce 100% of the laws. If members of the legislature don't like the laws let them change them. The best way to get a bad law changes is to enforce it. If you ignore it it gets selectively enforced and becomes a weapon of the government against the people.

    When 100,000 illegal immigrants invade your country in less than a year you are under invasion. Most countries would have called out the military by now. The legislature would have declared war on the country from whom the invaders are coming.

    Personally I think are immigration laws suck. But I also think the Congress, who is responsible for passing laws, are the ones who need to fix them.

  97. Re:Github? Really? by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

    While I don't necessarily disagree with many of the above comments .... nobody is highlighting the FACT that "the project was ONLY collating into one location information which these people had ALREADY MADE PUBLIC THEMSELVES on LinkedIN".

    So in that sense it is ABSOLUTELY NOT "doxing" anybody.

    Having said that, I would ABSOLUTELY class this project as "questionable in both intent and value" and "not really a loss that it was kicked out, other than discussions of principles".

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  98. Re: Manufactured outrage by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    The OP said "1+1=5" and I said, "No, 1+1=2" and you said, "But what about the cost of tea in china?"

    It's really not possible to have a discussion with someone who is trolling or lying as trump and his supporters do constantly. Even his new Executive Order is really not going to fix anything and is (surprise!) another lie.

    And this whole thing was probably an attempt to move the subject off of Mueller since Cohen and Manafort were nailed. Cohen has dirt going back decades and he's sounding increasingly surprised and irritated that Mr. Trump is hanging Cohen out to dry.

    But meantime, a couple thousand kids might not ever see their parents again in their lives. Including a 9 month old baby.

    This is immoral and evil.

    And someone else did a much better job (and sourced) job of correcting the liar I was responding to to begin with.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  99. Re: I don't get it. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    We have more freedom in the US. A 'general strike' would trigger a 'general strike-back' and the clowns with the picket signs would discover what a minority they are. It would be very disappointing for it to come to that, but that's how the deal would go.

    It's not going to happen, though.

  100. Re: I don't get it. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    You're proposing using violence against strikers? You sound like the kind of boss that sometimes ended up "having himself an accident," back in the good old days of union organizing...

  101. Re:Manufactured outrage by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    These people are beyond reasoning. Don't bother. Just make mental notes of who's justifying concentration camps for children around you, and make their lives difficult in any legal way you have.

  102. Re: I don't get it. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    I am explaining reality.

    Thugs don't eliminate reality by murdering people who point it out.

    It is interesting how you wax nostalgic for a past of gangster organizers killing those they oppose.

    No, the idea of a 'strike back' does not come from some bosses' scheme. It would just be ordinary people taking the street back from a minority of organized thugs.

  103. Re: I don't get it. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    The organizers only started using "gangster" tactics after the bosses sicced actual gangsters (Pinkertons) on their men.