LiNeXT

RMS has the answer: "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)."

Source for this claim? [Edit: I seem some references in links on that ACLU page referring to "parole" being denied. Is this what you are referring to?]

Shouldn't be an issue then since ICE doesn't operate concentration camps.

This letter does not appear, at all, to endorse the silly use of the term "concentration camp" in reference to U.S. immigration detention facilities. Rather, they seem to have taken issue with one particular broadly written sentence fragment in the museum's statement:

“...unequivocally rejecting efforts to create analogies between the Holocaust and other events, whether historical or contemporary...”

It has to be granted.

Just because someone petitions for asylum doesn't mean they have a valid claim to it. If your position is that anyone claiming asylum should not be detained, how do you propose to differentiate between valid and invalid claims such as to sort out who should and shouldn't be detained?

They don't care quite enough to give up their inflated Bay Area salary or stock options.

The disparity in quality of life, economy, freedom, etc, between the 50 states is not nearly as great as it is between the United States and many Central and South American countries. There is no material reason, economic incentive, or political driver for an unsustainable mass of people to stream into Rhode Island. There are many such reasons for folks to try to enter the United States.

> Asylum seekers may be excused for illegal entry into the US. An asylum seeker can even use a fake passport to get through customs to apply for asylum: see Akinmade v. INS as an example.

This doesn't make the border crossing "explicitly legal," as you claimed, it just means that if you are granted asylum (which, I venture, most applicants are not, since the scope of asylum law is quite narrow), then your illegal entry will be disregarded.

It's software. What you or anyone else does with it is your own responsibility.

> Ever wonder why people drag themselves — never mind their kids — over a desert?

Because life sucks in many parts of the world. Ever wonder how the borderless utopia your ex supports is actually supposed to scale?

> And “shelter” is what people like my ex want to provide.

She wants to provide it, or she wants others to provide it? How many people is she personally willing to host in her home and materially support?

Nice try. Concentration camp is an extremely loaded term and using it in this context serves absolutely no productive purpose.

> crossing the border to claim asylum is explicitly legal

No, it isn't. You can file the application no matter how you entered or what your current status is, but that doesn't post-facto make an illegal entry suddenly legal.

> Especially if you don't even offer an example of one of the "plenty of things" to justify your claim.

I would posit that common sense obviated the need to justify this particular claim. As in, performing your morning dump rituals, for example, isn't a "political" act. Does that really have to be spelled out?

Claiming that everything is political doesn't make it so.

> But having a wing of government acting like the taliban

Source? Citation?

> Supporting ICE is supporting and empowering racism and xenophobia full stop.

No, it isn't.

It's a software sale, not a partnership.

Selling a piece of enterprise software != alignment. It's a sale, nothing more.

There is a vast difference between selling software to your own government for their use and directly, actively, and punitively screwing with an individual a foreign government doesn't like.

What concentration camps?

Yes. Immigration enforcement is a legitimate government function.

This isn't difficult. You claimed that "nothing is apolitical." That's an entirely different statement than grandstanding on this particular issue by invoking "concentration camps."

Plenty of things are apolitical.

ICE aren't "the Nazis" and immigration enforcement isn't the Holocaust.

> Nothing is "apolitical".

Don't change the topic. This is the sweeping assertion I was addressing.

Because being anti-ICE is the current "woke" Silicon Valley hive mind stance to have.

This is how enterprise sales are done.

Don't be silly. Plenty of things are apolitical.

> Funny how this all happened right when the American public would be distracted

The vast majority of the American public wouldn't care about this no matter when it happened.

The United States isn't the UK. That aside, considering the UK's recent surge in knife violence, I'm not sure your assertion that armed police cause criminals to arm themselves can be substantiated.

First of all, there are more ways than just guns for a criminal adversary to kill someone, including knives, hammers, baseball bats, pounding a person's head into the sidewalk using bare hands only, etc. Secondly, a cursory glance at crime statistics ought to dispossess you of the notion that criminals are only armed every "one in a billion" cases. Thirdly, if you really think this only happens "one in a billion" cases, why would you bother standing up an armed response team at all?