Big Tech slams Trump on plan to deport kids

Who started this ?

There's so many reversals here it's hard to be sure who's on which side.

Seems like the problem is with the 10 states' attorneys general. Why don't the 'business leaders' criticise them for their racist inhumanity ?

"Microsoft president Brad Smith penned a blog post warning that "these changes would not only negatively impact thousands of hardworking people across the United States, but will be a step backwards for our entire nation."

CEO Satya Nadella wrote on his LinkedIn page: "We care deeply about the DREAMers who work at Microsoft and fully support them. We will always stand for diversity and economic opportunity for everyone. It is core to who we are at Microsoft and I believe it is core to what America is.""

Bah!

When asked for a quote, Ken Paxton said "glug"!

What will the next president do?

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

The Federalist No. 62 James Madison (Publius)

The executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws that the legislative branch passes.

Can't properly tax the rich or corporations, but you can deport kids. What a hate filled shallow country you've become. A lot like us in the UK.

Personally I'm all for sending the DREAMers back, because it's the logical extension of Trump's "policies" and it will help more people to see how indescribably vile the man really is. It'd also be a big boost for the Mexican economy, and a big hit to America's, thus doing some long-overdue levelling between the two

But "800,000 children born in the US to illegal parents" are surely protected by the 14th amendment. They're citizens, end of story.

Then and now...

Sure, America was founded on immigrants. But the whole 'immigrant definition' has changed over the years. The Internet was also once a place where cyberbullying and online harassment meant something a "little" different than merely sharing your disagreement with someone else. Yet according to some people these days merely stating that "I think you're wrong" is parallel to online harassment. Others even take this a whole lot further by spreading plain out lies and halt-truths about heated subjects, and when they get called out for that they immediately switch to a victim role. Now all of a sudden they get attacked because of who they are, obviously not for what they were saying.

In my opinion this also applies here.

Sure, deporting children sounds horrific, I totally agree with that. But it's also a fact that plenty of people will easily use children as a means to further their own goals.

Would you, in your right mind, knowingly and willingly conceive children even if you know up front that you might not be able to support them because your status in the country you're in is uncertain? Would anyone in their right mind do that? Yet that is what you're often dealing with here...

People who have a foreigner status, who know that their stay is temporary at best and definitely not permanent yet still chose themselves to get children. Should that be a reason for a pardon and let the whole family stay? There are plenty of people who use this as a means to enforce a legal status. And once you give in you can rest assured that you'll get plenty more.

Despicable to deport children? Sure, I myself am also uneasy about the whole thing. But what does that tell us about people who willingly and knowingly take on the responsibility to raise children even though they can clearly know up front that they won't be able to support them?

That is the question most people are unwilling to ask themselves.

It's not fair towards the children, but it's not the government you should be blaming but their parents.

"immigrant children born in the United States"

Um, no. The phrase should be "illegal immigrant children smuggled into the United States by their illegal immigrant parents."

"Our economy would lose $460.3bn from the national GDP"

Don't suppose they ever thought Mexico might like that GDP back - thieving racist bastards.

Texas storm recovery

Isn't that going to be terribly expensive if all the construction is being done by New England craftsmen when you have got rid of all the immigrant labor?

1. 'his plan to remove legal protections from immigrant children born in the United States.'

and

2. 'that threaten the future of young undocumented immigrants brought to America as children'

are two different things.

Children born on US soil are US Nationals, depending on the country of origin of the parents, the child may have dual nationality, if the parents are deported the child may accompany them but is free to return to the US at any time.

Children brought to the US are not US Nationals.

There are legal methods for non-US Nationals to be allowed to live, work and be naturalised in the US, why would anybody use the legal methods if all you have to do is slip over the border and keep your head down for a while.

All illegal immigrants (whatever their age) should be deported on the day they are caught, to do otherwise encourages others to try their luck.

DACA bad. MAGA good.

Ignore the hate coming from the political left who assume everything President Trump does is racist. The man does not have a racist bone in his body. Look at the diversity of the people he is working with and for in Texas right now. He is a compassionate man who loves everyone.

President Trump is against *illegal immigration*, nothing more, nothing less. He doesn't care about a person's ethnicity, he cares about whether they are in the country legally or if they have committed the *crime* of crossing the border without permission.

Why does Big Tech have an opinion? Simple: they want cheap labor. Anyone who is employed in the United States (including *legal* immigrants) is opposed to loose enforcement of immigration law which allows Big Tech (and others) to have a cheap supply of what is basically slave labor instead of hiring American citizens at American wages.

Big Tech slams Trump on plan to enforce US immigration law properly because Obama wouldn't...

...makes for a far more accurate but less click-friendly headline, doesn't it?

We're going to lose all this money BILLIONS in GDP. OMG so you're not going to hire new people to those positions when your workers are deported. That's a bold move leaving that important position empty and losing all that money. These liberal companies spout such bullshit its unbelievable like the Social Security won't be made up by their replacements or the taxes. Liberals here in the US sure love to lie or tell huge half truths, sure that money would go missing if no one else got hired but I seriously doubt that'll happen if it'll cost these tech companies money. Though they will be empty positions for a while since companies hire asshole companies to go over applications/resumes for them and those companies take their sweet time. If these companies actually need these positions so much as they claim then they'll fill them within the month but I think they're full of shit myself and just want to make a statement to make Trump look bad but he just donated in his own cash a million to hurricane victims and the networks are making it look like he's up to something but this is normal behavior for him by just looking at his past. I love how companies just think they can get into politics and they won't lose one conservative customer even though a few companies can now say they lost a lot of business for running their stupid yaps about something they should just STFU about.

Such caring CEO's

and here I thought CEO's only cared about maximizing profits for their shareholders, I didn't realize what swell, caring folks they really were. I had foolishly assumed they supported DACA to increase the labour pool and drive down wages to justify their $89M USD annual compensation. Thanks to the author for correcting my misguidance here.