Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses United States News Technology

Google Workers Demand Company Not Work With Border Agencies (bloomberg.com) 302

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
Some Google employees have called on the company to publicly promise not to work with U.S. immigration authorities, which they said are abusing human rights. From a report: U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently said it was looking for proposals from companies to supply it with cloud-computing services. Google is a leading cloud provider. Activists and politicians have accused the agency of human rights abuses along the border with Mexico. The agency has separated children from their families, and is detaining migrants for indefinite periods of time. The Google workers, who said Wednesday they have a petition with 70 employee signatures, want the company to commit to not bidding on the contract, as well as to refuse to work on projects for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Office of Refugee Resettlement.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Workers Demand Company Not Work With Border Agencies More

Google Workers Demand Company Not Work With Border Agencies

Comments Filter:

  • Exactly what rights do illegal immigrants have? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ITRambo ( 1467509 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @03:46PM (#59087170)
    When people illegally enter the US, and are caught, what rights do they have? The rights they have by law need to be respected. Is the current issue that so many are coming to the US that there is not enough room to house them until processing? That needs to be fixed, quickly. If the law is being followed, then everything else is political maneuvering.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by penandpaper ( 2463226 )

      Illegals have more rights than actual citizens. If a citizen is arrested with a kid they will be separated *gasp*.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:Exactly what rights do illegal immigrants have? (Score:4, Informative)

          by penandpaper ( 2463226 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @04:23PM (#59087276) Journal

          > will either be placed in foster care or they'll be kept with other members of the family.

          You mean, what is being described as child separation on the border? Children placed in the custody of health and human services. And if no other members of the family they will be separated.

          Wow. You sure showed me.

          >a non-citizen doesn't commit a real criminal offense

          They committed a crime by entering the country illegally. So an illegal can break the law and should not face repercussion. Got it. Can citizens do that?

          >ICE has picked facilities to place the children in that it knows full well engage in torture.

          Are there any other facilities available? No. All of them are full. All I could find about your "torture" was an ACLU lawsuit that claimed this has been happening since Obama. But the investigation was dismissed as baseless. I don't know if it was baseless or not and is rather besides the point that you even demonstrate.

          If an American has a child and commits a crime, they will be separated. Perhaps, I should have been clear. People that scream "child separation and concentration camps" want the "deferred action" treatment. IOW, ignore the law. IOW, it's ok to break that law.

          • It's not a crime for someone seeking asylum to enter by crossing the border at any point. Quit swallowing the propaganda that confuses refugees with immigrants.

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by penandpaper ( 2463226 )

              >It's not a crime for someone seeking asylum to enter by crossing the border at any point.

              It is a crime. They must apply for asylum at a port of entry not "at any point". That is the law. Unless you are saying they are above the law.

              > swallowing the propaganda

              Get informed before you call factual information "propaganda".

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by sedwards8675309 ( 3492587 )
                Can you, not like, you know, read? The law is clear. "...whether or not at a designated port of arrival..." (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance w

                • >Can you, not like, you know, read?

                  Oh boy. Treating legalese as "like just read a book bro".

                  The law gives discretion to the government via the Secretary of Homeland Security and particularly the Attorney General.
                  8USC 1325:

                  "Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers,"

                  If immigration officers say "go to ports of entry". Then that means "Any alien" must go through port of entry and any entry not through ports of entry

                  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                    by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 )
                    Applying this article to asylum seekers would be a violation of Article 31 of the UN 1951 Refugee Convention, which was subsumed in the 1967 Refugee Protocol that the US ratified in 1968. But then again the US shits on international affairs so often that this violation wouldn't surprise me.

                    • Re:Exactly what rights do illegal immigrants have? (Score:5, Interesting)

                      by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @08:30PM (#59088018)

                      Applying this article to asylum seekers would be a violation of Article 31 of the UN 1951 Refugee Convention, which was subsumed in the 1967 Refugee Protocol that the US ratified in 1968. But then again the US shits on international affairs so often that this violation wouldn't surprise me.

                      That convention [unhcr.org] applies to "refugees [...] coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" Not to people seeking better economic conditions so they can find jobs which pay more than in their home country. That's the entire reason there's a backlog in the detention centers. We're not just deporting them, we're questioning each of them at length to determine if they are fleeing because they feel their life or freedom was threatened, or if they're simply economic refugees.

                      In fact, the very act of these people fleeing their home country makes things worse in the country they leave. By attempting to flee, they've demonstrated they're the type of person willing to take action to improve their economic circumstances. That's exactly the type of people you need to participate in politics or lead a revolution which changes or overthrows the government and/or policies which are causing the poor economic conditions in their home country. If you make it easier for these people to leave than to institute the necessary changes in their home country, then their home country will never change for the better. Remember, the ultimate solution here isn't for first world nations to accept everyone fleeing the developing world. It's for the developing world to develop so that they enjoy the same benefits and lifestyle we in first world nations enjoy.

                • They can apply anywhere. This is orthogonal from border crossing. So you can cross the border illegally, apply for asylum, and be booted out or detained while your application is processing because regardless of the asylum claim the border crossing was illegal.

                • That doesn't change the FACT that 90% of asylum cases that actually go to trial result in the claim of asylum being denied. These "refugees" are gaming the system by saying the magic word "asylum" and then disappearing into the US pending trial. They never report for their trial because they know it's highly unlikely they'll be allowed to stay if they go through the due process afforded to them under US law. If you are a legit refugee, hell yeah, you can stay -- but that status carries a pretty high evid

                  • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                    by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 )
                    The later decision can't have any bearing on the previous treatment of the claimants. It's basically the same principle as the one saying that people awaiting criminal trial should not be treated as guilty in advance.

                    They never report for their trial

                    92 percent of individuals who filed asylum claims attended their court hearings between fiscal years 2013 and 2017 [humanrightsfirst.org]

                    Asylum seekers released from detention to pursue their claims attend immigration court hearings nearly 100 percent of the time [humanrightsfirst.org]

                    • Re:Exactly what rights do illegal immigrants have? (Score:5, Insightful)

                      by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @08:20PM (#59088002)

                      Your links are old and focus on edge cases with a high percentage of positive outcomes for very specific populations (not surprising given the sources). DHS reported in June of this year -- two months ago -- that out of a sample of 7,000 people, 90% of recent asylum seekers received orders of removal in absentia [nationalreview.com] -- meaning they didn't show up to their hearings. This is because the Flores loophole requires them if traveling with a minor to be released after 21 days. 90% of these folks never show up for their hearing when they're released. So yeah, a huge problem is people traveling with a kid who say the word asylum, disappear into the US after 21 days, and never show up for their hearing. Your link even complains about how unfair removal in absentia is, and gives recommendations on how to slant it more in favor of the illegals.

                      Again -- legit asylum is possible under the law, as it should be. It is likely those people in the high-percentage cases cherry picked by the links you posted were credible asylum candidates because they actually SHOWED UP. But they represent a tiny minority of the people actually crossing the border. Of course any legit asylum seeker would absolutely WANT to show up in court and tell their story, don't you think?

                      That's the problem -- we can't even have an honest discussion about what's happening at the border because the facts get in the way of a good, heartstring-pulling story. And we can't have that the year before an election, right?

                    • Re: (Score:3)

                      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      Imagine you were fleeing for your life. Didn't have much time to gather evidence or documentation to support your asylum claim. Criminals or the government who are threatening to murder you tend not to leave much evidence of their crimes if they can help it anyway.

                      Do you think you are likely to get a fair hearing where it is genuinely determined if you were at risk or not? What basis would you have the court use to determine this?

                    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
              • go look up the treaties. Where ever they enter _is_ the point of entry from a legal stand point.

                That's the part that Fox News always likes to leave out. Technically correct is NOT the best kind of correct. It's a lie by omission.

                Also, if I may digress, let's not forget these refugees are fleeing violence _we_ caused. It's like lighting a house on fire and shooting the parents and kids when they flee.
          • The law is clear. "...whether or not at a designated port of arrival..." I am sorry that reality does not comport with your belief systems and political philosophy. If you cross the border with the intention of applying for refugee status, then it is not an illegal crossing. You just have to head for the nearest facility for processing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by LordWabbit2 ( 2440804 )
              Then why didn't they apply for refugee status before illegally crossing the border? The reality is that most of the people crossing are not eligible for refugee status, and they know it. Why would they risk their own lives and those of their children in such a way otherwise? I don't blame them for wanting a better life, but does that mean America must now accept ANYONE who feels like coming to America regardless of whether they are refugees or not? The fact is these children were forced to accompany the

              • Re:Exactly what rights do illegal immigrants have? (Score:4, Informative)

                by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @07:12PM (#59087732)

                Then why didn't they apply for refugee status before illegally crossing the border?

                You have to be physically present in a country to apply for asylum. That's how it works pretty much anywhere. Since the international community has recognized in the 1950s that satisfying the usual entry technicalities may be impossible for many people fleeing from danger, a universal principle applicable to all asylum claimants has been adopted that asylum seekers are expressly not to be penalized for actions that would be otherwise illegal, as long as they're related solely to getting onto the soil of the country where they're applying for asylum. Said article literally says

                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.

                All participating countries have enshrined these principles into their local legislation differently, but for US purposes, legislators have apparently concluded that "without delay" means "within one year". They've also apparently enshrined the "coming directly" principle in form of the concept of a "safe third country", which is a status that has been denied to Mexico until now.

                but does that mean America must now accept ANYONE who feels like coming to America regardless of whether they are refugees or not

                Nobody says you *have* to *accept* them. You just can't have them undergo an asylum determination procedure that would violate international law. Apparently the US is in habit of doing that quite often, though.

              • little niceties like that aren't on your mind. And as several other posters have already pointed out they don't need to be.

                Also, these people are literally fleeing violence _we_ caused. Meanwhile while you support Donald Trump putting the screws on actual violence fleeing refugees fleeing violence caused by _your_ government Trump's administration (with the help of right wing Democrats and the GOP) just passed a resolution making it easier to bring in Indian tech workers on top of several resolutions in
          • The problem is the lack of tracking going on. HHS has admitted, in testimony on the record to a senate sub-committee, that it lost track of 1475 immigrant children [snopes.com]. When the legal system separates a child from a parent for committing a crime they don't lose track of them or worse, deport the parent back to their home country without their child that they came here with. THAT is the problem people are up in arms about. If it was a temporary separation that was well tracked, well managed, and resulted in

        • On several occasions ICE has picked facilities to place the children in that it knows full well engage in torture.

          Prove it. Prove that ICE knowingly paces children in facilities it knows full well engage in toture. You can't, it's a lie.

          For your claim to be true would require EVERY ICE agent to be complicit, either personally torturing children themslves, or overlooking when their co-worker engages in it.

          Let me guess, the "torture" these children endure is thelihts staying on at night, so the guards can protect them from predators among the detainee population...

        • I have no idea why this was modded as Flamebait. US law enforcement goes to great lengths to avoid separating parents and children for minor crimes, at least in wealthy suburbs. I've seen the police make an arrest and wait hours before taking somebody into custody so that they can stay with the kids until the grandparents come. Even if the children are separated and taken into custody, they are released into the care of family members almost immediately. We don't use separate as "deterrence" for minor c

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        The hopefuls are not (in theory) being arrested since they have the legal right to present themselves at the border and request asylum. They are not being held awaiting a criminal trial. They are (in theory) awaiting an immigration status hearing and are not accused of any crime.

        The equivalent for a citizen would be taking your kid with you to the DMV to renew your licence and having your child taken away as a result.

        As others have pointed out, even if a citizen IS arrested and ends up awaiting a criminal

        • "The hopefuls" -- Is that what we're going with now?

          • "The hopefuls" -- Is that what we're going with now?

            Man, they just want to live here. The answer might be no, sorry, please try again later, but they are regular people that just want to live here.

      • Illegals have more rights than actual citizens. If a citizen is arrested with a kid they will be separated *gasp*.

        Except that's not what's going on. Legal asylum seekers are being separated from their kids.

        • Let's assume that the legal asylum seeker came through a port of entry and that their entry was lawful. Everything is peachy.

          How do you know a child is a related to the claimant and not kidnapped?
          How do you know that the claimant is not abusing, trafficking, or using that child as a shield to bypass border law?

          Before the child separation agreement from the courts came in from the 90's (98?), children were kept with their families/claimants. Guess what happened. It was abused by criminals that took advantage

          • Let's assume that the legal asylum seeker came through a port of entry and that their entry was lawful. Everything is peachy. How do you know a child is a related to the claimant and not kidnapped?

            How do you know the guy entering the country on a visa is not a mass murderer?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by eepok ( 545733 )

        That's BS. Illegal immigrants have the rights guaranteed by the Constitution not explicitly reserved only for citizens. Citizenship grants additional rights and privileges.

        You just don't like that there are protections for illegal immigrants due to HUMAN rights. Which they should have. Because they're human.

      • For what I wish was the last time (Score:4, Informative)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @07:20PM (#59087772)
        they're not illegals if they're seeking asylum. International law that _we_signed_and_made_law_ gives them the right to apply for asylum here and here's the important part: it doesn't matter how they got into the country.

        We can deny them asylum and ship them back where they came from, but until we do that (in full accordance with the law) we must treat them fairly and humanely. We cannot separate them from their children like criminals because they are not criminals.

        And never mind that most of these refugees are fleeing violence that we caused. Seriously, look up the origins of MS-13 and go watch some videos from Beau of the Fifth Column on YouTube...

        If you disagree get the US out of the treaties. Of course at the rate we're going you're gonna wish we stayed in when you're stuck fleeing the country yourself. You do realize this is EXACTLY how the Nazis got started, right? Again, look it up. Their concentration camps started out housing refugees. It took 20 years before they were shoving people into ovens. Better hope you and your family are "pure" enough to pass the test, and that you're not lumped in with the degenerates for some arbitrary reason.

        So to summarize:

        1. The only criminals here are in the current administration who are ignoring treaties we signed that have the constitutionally mandated force of law.

        2. We are literally following a path laid out by Nazis that has every possibility to end in a genocide.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Cederic ( 9623 )

          2. We are literally following a path laid out by Nazis that has every possibility to end in a genocide.

          I don't recall the Nazis enforcing hard borders with other countries to prevent immigration.

          Can you cite examples of this?

          You do realize this is EXACTLY how the Nazis got started, right? Again, look it up. Their concentration camps started out housing refugees.

          There's a pretty fucking massive difference between "These sub-humans are homeless because we've stolen their property, we need to put them somewhere" and "These people are claiming to be refugees. Lets hold them somewhere secure while we investigate and ascertain whether they have a valid claim or are merely criminals, in which case we will deport them."

          This is not how the Nazis got sta

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 )

      maybe the simple fix is to revoke EVERY tax exemption and deduction for any company that defies federal laws. Its amazing how these mega corps will fold when their money is threatened. Instead of 5 billion in taxes, now you owe 192 billion. Here's your bill.... "uhhh.... wait! here is everything you wanted. Also here is their porn history, their toilet routine, and their browser history too." Yea.... just revoke their tax shelters. If not, then I will have a new found respect. But my money is on an 'inc

  • THANX BUT NO THANX!!! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FB36 ( 5564038 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @03:58PM (#59087202)

    IMHO, non-management employees/workers of a company have absolutely no right to tell their company what to do!!!

    If they claim their company is doing anything illegal, then they should take their complaints to law enforcement etc!!!
    If they claim USA government is doing human right abuses, then take your complaints to UN etc!!!
    If they just do not like any business of their company, then they can just resign!!!

    Not to mention, trying to prevent a USA company from doing business w/ USA government is very anti-patriotic!!!

  • So they want Google to refuse to contract with the government to do...stuff.

    So what? This prevents nothing. Some other company will step in and fill the need.

    You've done nothing but deny the company you're working for a good contract. There's no social justice to be had from this action.

    Now if every cloud server provider did this simultaneously then that would have an effect. Otherwise this is just an empty action that does absolutely nothing.

    • Nah. You'd have someone come along, rent a bunch of Google Cloud or AWS and setup the stuff for the government, anyway. Contracting with a subcontractor to contract to the cloud provider is where it would end up. No chance would it ever not get done. It just wouldn't be done "by Google" or whoever, instead would be done "by Universal Systems Corp (using Google Cloud)".

  • Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @04:08PM (#59087224)

    >"which they said are abusing human rights."

    That is absolute nonsense. The border control is not en-mass abusing anyone's "human rights". People trying to illegally enter the country and caught are being sheltered, fed, cared for, and protected. At at NO CHARGE to the detainees. No, it is not 3-star hotel accommodations, but it is not "concentration camps" either. Some arrive starving, dying of thirst, or hurt through absolutely no fault of the USA. They elected to make the trip, take extreme risks, and [in most cases] break the law. But there ARE people abusing those trying illegal entry- Mexican mules, drug gangs, and those involved in sex slavery.

    >"The agency has separated children from their families"

    Then change the law. It has been on the books for decades. It is not the "fault" of ICE, nor border control, nor the current administration. If you are, for example, arrested AS A US CITIZEN in a car for any reason and have minors with you, YOU WILL BE SEPARATED FROM YOUR CHILDREN.

    >"and is detaining migrants for indefinite periods of time."

    Not "migrants", we are talking about illegal, undocumented immigrants, almost all seeking economic opportunity. They are detained until they can be processed. The more the system is overwhelmed, the longer that time might be (and the more it costs, too). If we were better at PREVENTING illegal entry, then this wouldn't be a problem. But that is blocked. If we want to spend more money to make bigger facilities and hire more people to process them, that is an option too- but it has been blocked many times (and it is not by the party many people think it is).

    • Re: Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kenh ( 9056 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @04:23PM (#59087274) Homepage Journal

      Pretty sure detainees can opt to be retuned home/return to Mexico, but they prefer to stay in the 'concentration camps' - why?

      Wanting a better life is not a reason to be granted asylum, that is why 90% of asylum seekers are deported (once a judge hears their case).

      • Re: Nonsense (Score:4, Interesting)

        by greenwow ( 3635575 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @05:38PM (#59087516)

        Not only do they prefer to stay, they decided to make a long, dangerous, and illegal journey in order to get into them.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Vancorps ( 746090 )

        You are wrong [syr.edu] and should be ashamed of yourself for drinking such obvious koolaid.

        Notice on the graph the jump in denials when Trump started to interfere with Obama's policies. You'll see a sharp rise and then when the administration cut off AID to countries like El Salvador you see the spike increase even faster. It is a problem he created. Many prefer to stay in the camps because they will quite frankly die if they get deported. Owner of the last company I worked for had a legal housekeeper from Guatema

  • But they are OK helping China? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lessthan0 ( 176618 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @04:32PM (#59087304)

    Who is abusing more human rights? U.S. Border Patrol or China?

    Project Dragonfly is what they should demand the company publicly promise to stop. Don't help build a George Orwell world.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @04:44PM (#59087350)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • OK (Score:2)

    by dskoll ( 99328 )
    I support the Google workers' position. But only if they quit their jobs if Google does in fact do the things they oppose. Talk is cheap; I would really respect and be impressed by action.

  • Activist employees become former employees. News at 11:00.

    Seriously though, what is it with all these employee activists lately? Getting riled up over stagnant or low wages, working conditions, weak benefits, inadequate paid vacation, workplace safety, harassment, and other things germane to the workplace are legitimate causes to get upset about. I get that. But employees have absolutely no say in who the company does business with. Maybe these idealistic dolts sincerely believe the company's ads about appr

    • Ego
      People think that because they work for google that their opinion carries more weight.
      If that is not egotistical I don't know what is (well I could probably think of an example, but my ego is not big enough to bother).
      All lonely 70 employees can go forth and multiply and will be replaced in about 70 seconds.
      But seriously, only 70? I mean if google had only 120 employees I would say that the company felt that way, but 70, out of thousands?
      So the 70 deluded idiots who suck up mainstream media managed

  • Google workers demand... (Score:5, Funny)

    by enriquevagu ( 1026480 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @05:13PM (#59087440)

    2020: Google workers demand company not work with companies without women in their boards.
    2021: Google workers demand company not work with companies that do not publicly expose their personnel GLBT rate.
    2022: Google workers demand company not work with pro-christian NGOs.
    2023: Google workers demand company not work with non-vegan restaurants.
    2024: Google workers demand company not work with the US Army.

    Oh, no!! Actually, the last one was from last year [slashdot.org]!!

  • Only 70? (Score:4, Informative)

    by LordWabbit2 ( 2440804 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2019 @06:25PM (#59087636)

    70 employee signatures

    So the cafeteria staff, or the guys who do the carpet cleaning, all immigrants themselves. I mean fuck, 70 out of all those employees, did they write the article for slashdot as well? I bet you it was probably 7.

  • Hmm, wasn't there a book in which a dystopian society relied on regulations that were based on emotion? How did that work out for everyone?

    There's a reason we (and every other civilized country) have a legislative process.
    Part of that reason is so we don't change nationwide laws based on who whines the loudest.

  • If "abusing human rights" is the standard, then there would be almost no business for Google. Cherry-picking out one particular villain without applying the implicit principal universally is an act in the demented melange of white guilt, naivete, and unchecked vanity.

    News Flash: The world will not be as idyllic as you THINK Palo Alto is and applying your honed principal of "abusing human rights" globally (as ethics should be imposed if they are truly held) would quickly reduce what is arguably the most impo

Slashdot Top Deals

"If you don't want your dog to have bad breath, do what I do: Pour a little Lavoris in the toilet." -- Comedian Jay Leno

Close