We have seen many stories like this. Some doubt the authenticity, but what is evident is that these things are happening again and again with impunity. Perhaps you don't think the situation is bad enough, or the details are exaggerated.
However, the fact that a man can be pulled of the street despite having legal status should be alarming. You don't need to care about the Irishman, but you should care about justice.
> The reality is the federal gov has been aggressive in its enforcement for decades. ICE took a break during the Obama and Biden years for some reason.
ICE was created in 2002 (24 years ago). "The Obama and Biden years" make up a full half of ICE's existence.
> he reality is the federal gov has been aggressive in its enforcement for decades.
Sure there has been enforcement, but nothing that comes even close to what we're seeing today (except for Trump 1.0 when CBP were separating parents and children and putting them in cages; today we have that plus a whole lot more including murdering citizen observers). ICE should never have been created (more of the fallout of the Americans surrendering so much of their civil liberties while panicked about 9/11), but at least it was a regular accountable law enforcement org and not a paramilitary terrorizing American cities (which technically makes it a domestic terrorism org).
> ICE should never have been created (more of the fallout of the Americans surrendering so much of their civil liberties while panicked about 9/11)
ICE was created by stripping some non-enforcement functions out of INS (those became functions of Citizenship and Immigration Services), all of the lack of civil liberties that was found in ICE when it got that name and was put under DHS were already present when it was INS.
The idea that the name change was the point of origin of the problem is a story created in the last couple years by peopel who never paid attention to immigration policy before Trump's first term looking for a convenient excuse that is both systemic (rather than tied to a particular recent administration) and old enough to provide an excuse to make it unnecessary to discuss why certain problems persisted during the Biden Administration between the two Trump terms, but also recent enough to support a narrative that despite being systemic, it is a fairly new systemic change and reverting returns to a known good state that is recent enough that it is not out of touch with modern needs.
The problem is that, if you've paid any attention to immigration policy prior to Trump's first term (especially if it was both before and after the creation of ICE), its pretty hard to either consider the creation of ICE a significant sea change or the prior state a known good state.
The real sea change in the style of enforcement was Trump 1, and it was only partially unwound under Biden as a political decision that preserving a tough border image would avoid an electoral cost by appealing to swing voters with whom Trump's demagoguery on immigration had resonance but who were skeptical of some of his other policies, not because of some inherent structural change created when INS was reorganized into ICE that made ICE inherently and uniquely and incurably bad. But though the sea change was later than the "ICE is only 23 years old, and we can just go back" narrative suggests, the state before the sea change, much further back than the creation of ICE, also wasn't great.
Note that I support disbanding ICE and radically restructuring immigration enforcement alongside restructuring the immigration laws; but not because ICE was only created in 2003 and we had something workable before that, but because the system was broken well before 2003, and only avoided becoming a total shitshow up until Trump 1 because of how prior Administrations used (and in some cases exceeded) the broad discretion given them within the system to prevent that, not because the system was well-designed, well-structured, or resilient. And even then, it worked pretty badly, but in ways that the people not intended to be subject to it could (and did!) mostly ignore.
This is the same guy that forced XBOX to increase profit margins to 30% and therefore destroyed any hope that Xbox would be a legitimate choice for gamers going forward.
This is the same guy that shoved AI down the throats of millions of Windows users that forced me to just turn off Windows updates and add bazzite in dual boot.
I remember a long time ago I was talking to an executive that worked at a startup that was eventually acquired by Cisco. After the acquisition, the executive team got coaches to train them to be "inspirational" leaders. One thing that was common was adding a quote from say Marcus Arelius in the signature of their emails to make them sound wiser.
We need to stop this hero worship. Microsoft built a moat, and capitalized on it. They used their connections to block others from coming into the fray.
I don't care what their theory of success is, their definition is cancerous; a malignant one.
Interesting. So Steve Ballmer saved Xbox from the RROD, and then went on to appoint a dude who would go on to make Ballmer even richer. And the new guy then goes on to destroy Xbox once again.
I wonder what this will look like in 20 years from now.
He temporarily increased MS share price tenfold, at the cost of jeapordizing the long term viability of the company.
In 10 years we may well look back at Nadela as the "the man who killed Microsoft" or at least "the man who destroyed Microsoft's position as a top 10 tech firm", and shareholders wont be too happy.
When WSL/WSL2 was released and there was a big open source push I actually thought they were righting the ship, then this AI stuff came along (and Win11 UX departure and "Free" OS & ads everywhere) and realized it's the same old MS.
I laugh because if this guy had any foresight, he wouldn't have to beg users to love AI, it would sell itself.
I wonder about that, and decided that Azure is infrastructure first, and software second. MS is destroying/has destroyed their ability to write software, but are still maintaining infrastructure.
But I wonder how many people will be using Azure once the market moves away from windows software. I don't think they have any edge other than windows tie-ins (e.g. Azure ID)
> I'm no MS lover, but this is the same guy that increased the MS share price tenfold.
How does that improve things for customers? This ridiculous affinity for increasing the stock price at the expense of all else is why so many tech products are degrading. Google, MS, Apple, etc.
Pretty much all tech stock has 10xed over the past decade. However, the fact that this is being used to justify anything is a problem. The financialized economy has become so powerful that it can treat the real economy with impunity.
If there are no consequences to prioritizing shareholder value at the expense of product utility or ecosystem value, then we are going to get less value from the products that we purchase over time.
This is why the economy doesn't work anymore. We've been swimming in toxic waters for so long that we think it is completely normal to prioritize shareholder value at the expense of everything else; greed is good.
The only thing the elites and rich care about are what people think of them, they do not care about the health of people or how society is dealing with inequality; no they just want you to think that they are smart and worthy of respect.
Hence why they spend so much time on vanity.
Please don't give it to them. They are not special. They are not unique. The vast majority of people on this Earth can do an equivalent job if you gave them the same amount of resources (in this case a monopoly worth trillions).
This was never going anywhere and if the Indian government thought it could get away with effectively installing spyware, then they were just self indulgent.
Bugging communication devices has long been a government / law enforcement tactic, mostly enabled by telcos via ITU, which since its inception has been a willing collaborator.
I really just don't want this. I've been a Windows user for many years, and I'd be fine if everything still looked like Windows 10 with just security updates. I don't want more features. At all. Why can't they do what MacOS does? Add nothing new, and just change up the look every now and then?
Since the 13 they’ve all been so incremental. I’m left wondering what’s changed most times.
This is the first cycle I’m not upgrading. I pay for my wife and kid phones and as we all have 15s that feel brand new, I’m looking forward to a few years of “sim only” bills.
The notification summaries are good comic relief (only reason I haven’t turned it off), besides that it’s just gimmicks like image generation that never follows my prompt. Very meh.
Your commitment to quality is skin deep.