CEO Satya Nadella replies to employee demands for Microsoft to end contract with ICE

[midian182]

What just happened? Microsoft boss Satya Nadella has responded to an open letter co-signed by more than 100 employees protesting the company’s work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The CEO has downplayed the Windows maker’s involvement with the agency, saying its contract only covers email, calendar, and messaging services, while stressing that it plays no part in separating children from their families.

First reported by the New York Times, workers wrote “we believe that Microsoft must take an ethical stand, and put children and families above profits,” in the open letter to Nadella, which called for the cancelation of the $19.4 million ICE contract.

In a January blog post, Microsoft said it worked with ICE to process data on edge devices, utilize deep learning capabilities, and help with facial recognition and identification tech. But both Nadella and vice president of Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform, Jason Zander, claim the contract doesn’t involve AI, Cognitive Services, or facial recognition.

“I want to be clear: Microsoft is not working with the U.S. government on any projects related to separating children from their families at the border. Our current cloud engagement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is supporting legacy mail, calendar, messaging and document management workloads,” wrote Nadella, in a LinkedIn post.

“Like many of you, I am appalled at the abhorrent policy of separating immigrant children from their families at the southern border of the U.S. As both a parent and an immigrant, this issue touches me personally,” he added. “This new policy implemented on the border is simply cruel and abusive, and we are standing for change.”

The CEO never explained why January’s post mentioned Microsoft facial recognition and deep learning services being used by ICE, and it appears that the contract isn’t going to be canceled.

Several top tech executives, including Tim Cook, Elon Musk, and Microsoft president Brad Smith have all condemned the immigration policy.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/75167-ceo-satya-nadella-responds-employee-demands-microsoft-end.html

 

[davislane1]

“Like many of you, I am appalled at the abhorrent policy of separating immigrant children from their families at the southern border of the U.S. As both a parent and an immigrant, this issue touches me personally,” he added. “This new policy implemented on the border is simply cruel and abusive, and we are standing for change.”

Relevant video:

If you support keeping children with families that subject them to the dangers of illegal immigration, you support child abuse.

 

[OutlawCecil]

If you support keeping children with families that subject them to the dangers of illegal immigration, you support child abuse.

I'm guessing you are pro-Trump so let me explain this to you since you likely take your surrounding for granted.

If you live someplace that is corrupt, someplace that violence is normal and work is hard to find, someplace that your kids can't be safe and eat on a daily basis... You would be willing to do what it takes to keep them safe. Yes, that includes sneaking to that safe place even if it means breaking that place's laws to get there. If it's life or death for you, you'd be willing to try. This does not make you a bad person, or a cold-hearted criminal. It means you are a human being. illegal immigration is NOT child abuse, it's giving your child a chance at a real life.

 

[davislane1]

If you live someplace that is corrupt, someplace that violence is normal and work is hard to find, someplace that your kids can't be safe and eat on a daily basis... You would be willing to do what it takes to keep them safe. Yes, that includes sneaking to that safe place even if it means breaking that place's laws to get there. If it's life or death for you, you'd be willing to try. This does not make you a bad person, or a cold-hearted criminal. It means you are a human being. illegal immigration is NOT child abuse, it's giving your child a chance at a real life.

When you give your 12 year old daughter Plan B because you expect her to be raped, you are a horrible human being and a failure as a parent. You can justify this all you like, it doesn't change what's happening. And yes, illegally entering a country makes you a criminal.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Didn't this problem arise because of catch and release laws from Congress? They basically made it very difficult to deport families so it created a moral hazard incentive for illegal immigrants to start bringing kids along. And it encouraged them to send their kids alone to illegally cross the border by themselves.

Gutting of and lax enforcement of immigration laws have created a ton of moral hazards that increase illegal immigration.

 

[OutlawCecil]

When you give your 12 year old daughter Plan B because you expect her to be raped, you are a horrible human being and a failure as a parent. You can justify this all you like, it doesn't change what's happening. And yes, illegally entering a country makes you a criminal.

You have a warped point of view of the situation. You don't give somebody protection from being raped because you want them to be raped. If they get raped, it's horrible, but certainly not the parent's fault. The parents couldn't come for reasons we'll never know, but again, they are sending their poor kid over here in the hopes they make it and can have a better life. This scenario is even off topic since we're talking about when FAMILIES come across and get their kids taken away.

 

[davislane1]

You have a warped point of view of the situation.

Yes or no: There is no justifiable reason for putting a child in a situation where he or she may be raped?

That this is even up for debate is unbelievable.

Moreover, it is absolutely on topic, as demonstrated in the video where the ICE agent discusses WHY they separate children from their families.

 

[OutlawCecil]

Yes or no: There is no justifiable reason for putting a child in a situation where he or she may be raped?

That this is even up for debate is unbelievable.

Again, you live in a country where you think this is unthinkable, but LIFE is always most important. So no, there are good (but hard) reasons. There are videos of people who've escaped North Korea who describe what it took to get away from the dangerous dictatorship there, including being raped. Sometimes decisions aren't easy.

 

[Stark]

Yes or no: There is no justifiable reason for putting a child in a situation where he or she may be raped?

That this is even up for debate is unbelievable.

Again, you live in a country where you think this is unthinkable, but LIFE is always most important. So no, there are good (but hard) reasons. There are videos of people who've escaped North Korea who describe what it took to get away from the dangerous dictatorship there, including being raped. Sometimes decisions aren't easy.

Let it be man KKK is on resurgence with trump. enough said when the tables are turned these are the same people who will give humanitarian ground as argument, but as of now they are giving priority to legal basis above human survival.
you cannot argue with such.

 

[alabama man]

If you support keeping children with families that subject them to the dangers of illegal immigration, you support child abuse.

I'm guessing you are pro-Trump so let me explain this to you since you likely take your surrounding for granted.

If you live someplace that is corrupt, someplace that violence is normal and work is hard to find, someplace that your kids can't be safe and eat on a daily basis... You would be willing to do what it takes to keep them safe. Yes, that includes sneaking to that safe place even if it means breaking that place's laws to get there. If it's life or death for you, you'd be willing to try. This does not make you a bad person, or a cold-hearted criminal. It means you are a human being. illegal immigration is NOT child abuse, it's giving your child a chance at a real life.

Here we sent kids to safety abroad in war, parents stayed and fought. I see nothing wrong with the separation, either they have it so bad that the kid is better off on their own or they don't have real problems. The men should be in the army and women should make equipment for them, then they fight to make the country safe for their kids and go get them back, at least that's how it worked here. You don't just run from your problems.

 

[dirtyferret]

If you support keeping children with families that subject them to the dangers of illegal immigration, you support child abuse.

I'm guessing you are pro-Trump so let me explain this to you since you likely take your surrounding for granted.

If you live someplace that is corrupt, someplace that violence is normal and work is hard to find, someplace that your kids can't be safe and eat on a daily basis... You would be willing to do what it takes to keep them safe. Yes, that includes sneaking to that safe place even if it means breaking that place's laws to get there. If it's life or death for you, you'd be willing to try. This does not make you a bad person, or a cold-hearted criminal. It means you are a human being. illegal immigration is NOT child abuse, it's giving your child a chance at a real life.

Here we sent kids to safety abroad in war, parents stayed and fought. I see nothing wrong with the separation, either they have it so bad that the kid is better off on their own or they don't have real problems. The men should be in the army and women should make equipment for them, then they fight to make the country safe for their kids and go get them back, at least that's how it worked here. You don't just run from your problems.

Your knowledge of geopolitical government is rather limited...

 

[Bluescreendeath]

enough said when the tables are turned these are the same people who will give humanitarian ground as argument, but as of now they are giving priority to legal basis above human survival. you cannot argue with such.

The United States does not have enough resources to take care of the entire undeveloped/developing world. Most of the world lives in poverty, and most of the world would immigrate to the US (legally or illegaly) if they could.

Asylum laws in the US are supposed to be used for people systematically persecuted by an oppressive state actor (eg. people fleeing repressive communist governments, etc). They are not intended to be used for people fleeing random violence of private actors (eg. gang violence) or poverty.

If the United States had limitless resources like in Star Trek, sure we could take everybody in and most of us would gladly welcome everyone. But reality is much different and there is not enough resources to go around. We have plenty of citizens and immigrants who came here legally to take care of. With the outsourcing and automation of lower skilled and manual labor jobs, the creation of an expensive social safety and welfare state, etc, it's impossible to absorb millions of people (primarily unskilled/lower skilled and lesser educated people) with little restrictions like we used to be able to do a century ago. That is why we simply cannot allow millions of people to continue to illegally immigrate into this country.

 

[Evernessince]

If you live someplace that is corrupt, someplace that violence is normal and work is hard to find, someplace that your kids can't be safe and eat on a daily basis... You would be willing to do what it takes to keep them safe. Yes, that includes sneaking to that safe place even if it means breaking that place's laws to get there. If it's life or death for you, you'd be willing to try. This does not make you a bad person, or a cold-hearted criminal. It means you are a human being. illegal immigration is NOT child abuse, it's giving your child a chance at a real life.

When you give your 12 year old daughter Plan B because you expect her to be raped, you are a horrible human being and a failure as a parent. You can justify this all you like, it doesn't change what's happening. And yes, illegally entering a country makes you a criminal.

I wonder what that makes the illegal immigrants who moved to North America to escape British rule....

It's ironic how you do not see that the people you are persecuting are only doing what the founders and generations of Americans have done.

FYI it is not illegal to seek asylum regardless of what the current administration thinks.

enough said when the tables are turned these are the same people who will give humanitarian ground as argument, but as of now they are giving priority to legal basis above human survival. you cannot argue with such.

The United States does not have enough resources to take care of the entire undeveloped/developing world. Most of the world lives in poverty, and most of the world would immigrate to the US (legally or illegaly) if they could.

Asylum laws in the US are supposed to be used for people systematically persecuted by an oppressive state actor (eg. people fleeing repressive communist governments, etc). They are not intended to be used for people fleeing random violence of private actors (eg. gang violence) or poverty.

If the United States had limitless resources like in Star Trek, sure we could take everybody in and most of us would gladly welcome everyone. But reality is much different and there is not enough resources to go around. We have plenty of citizens and immigrants who came here legally to take care of. With the outsourcing and automation of lower skilled and manual labor jobs, the creation of an expensive social safety and welfare state, etc, it's impossible to absorb millions of people (primarily unskilled/lower skilled and lesser educated people) with little restrictions like we used to be able to do a century ago. That is why we simply cannot allow millions of people to continue to illegally immigrate into this country.

The US has had caps on the number of immigrants and refugees it can take. These have been in place for decades. The only way around them is through congressional action.

"For FY 2016, the President set the worldwide refugee ceiling at 85,000"

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works

You are perpetrating a myth that millions of people are coming to America. Our cap isn't even a tenth of a million, let alone how many are actually coming.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

The US has had caps on the number of immigrants and refugees it can take. These have been in place for decades. The only way around them is through congressional action. "For FY 2016, the President set the worldwide refugee ceiling at 85,000"
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works
You are perpetrating a myth that millions of people are coming to America. Our cap isn't even a tenth of a million, let alone how many are actually coming.

I made it obviously and abundantly clear in my post that I was only referring to illegal immigration. These caps you are referring to apply to the legal immigration and granting asylum to refugees - which is entirely separate from illegal immigration.

Did you miss that or are you purposely trying to conflate "illegal" immigration with the legal process for immigration/seeking asylum?

Furthermore, the US deported a quarter million people last year alone, and there are projections from several years ago talking about a "net increase" of 500,000-700,000 illegal immigrants every year despite deportations. The total illegal immigrant population numbers anywhere from 12 to 15 million. So yes, their numbers are in the millions and the rate at which they're coming in varies from hundreds of thousands to somewhere under a million per year. https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/2017

Finally, in your very link, the requirements of what constitutes refugees are quite specific - and they disqualify the majority of the folks we're talking about. Fleeing poverty and random violence from private actors does not qualify them as refugees. You can't just dress up illegal immigration under the guise of refugees/asylum/etc because they don't qualify as such as under the law and government policies.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Yes, how horrible it is that we keep children away from adult detention centers. Why dont we just allow children to be around jailed adults that come here illegally, that we dont know anything about, I'm SURE nothing wrong could come from that.

Actually, better idea, lets just insta-deport every family that comes here illegally, and let mexico deal with their inability to secure their own borders and provide for their own citizens. There is no reason foreign criminals (because coming here illegally is, you know, illegal, which makes them criminals) should be held here for longer then absolutely necessary.

 

[bandit8623]

If you support keeping children with families that subject them to the dangers of illegal immigration, you support child abuse.

I'm guessing you are pro-Trump so let me explain this to you since you likely take your surrounding for granted.

If you live someplace that is corrupt, someplace that violence is normal and work is hard to find, someplace that your kids can't be safe and eat on a daily basis... You would be willing to do what it takes to keep them safe. Yes, that includes sneaking to that safe place even if it means breaking that place's laws to get there. If it's life or death for you, you'd be willing to try. This does not make you a bad person, or a cold-hearted criminal. It means you are a human being. illegal immigration is NOT child abuse, it's giving your child a chance at a real life.

Still illegal. Your logic you can do whatever you want as long as you think its ok.

 

[davislane1]

I wonder what that makes the illegal immigrants who moved to North America to escape British rule....

It's ironic how you do not see that the people you are persecuting are only doing what the founders and generations of Americans have done.

FYI it is not illegal to seek asylum regardless of what the current administration thinks.

The Colonials were not escaping British rule. They made the trip across the Atlantic for economic opportunity that did not exist in their homeland.

The first direct consequence of this was the conquest of the natives. The second consequence is this was separation from Britain when it became viable to do so, economically and politically.

This is precisely why I am against any type of large-scale immigration. Especially when the birth rates of the migrating populations are higher than the native pop.

There is no irony here. I am 100% against the fundamental transformation of the United States into a different country. Just as I would have been 100% against British immigration had I been a Native American in the colonial era (recall how tribe elders were dismissed for these concerns back in the day).


I know my history. You should study yours.

 

[captaincranky]

"Several top tech executives, including Tim Cook, Elon Musk, and Microsoft president Brad Smith have all condemned the immigration policy".

@midian182 You forgot to include, "so it comes as no surprise that the possibly most ruthless CEO of the bunch would give a press conference, shamelessly pandering to extreme left wing liberals and "militant" SJWs of all races, creeds, religions, and national origins".

He probably thinks this overtly duplicitous bunch of hogwash he's spraying around, will convince the rest of the world to install Windows 10. , Which BTW, he wasn't able to force on civilization as a whole, despite his covert, and overt, clandestine megalomanical efforts towards that end...

As for the social issues of South America, most of which have been precipitated by mindless obedience to the Roman Catholic Church, I'll repeat a statement by Pete Towshend, in context to the stranglehold on their population(s) as a whole by the drug cartels. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

While "wishing won't do it", in regards to reining in the drug cartels, a thousand or so Predator drone strikes, along with a few thousand troops to incinerate the coca fields would.

But that would be ever so politically incorrect on the part of the US, and no doubt the cartel heads running their governments, wouldn't allow it.

I can just picture the headlines, "Armadas del Estados Unidos Invaden Mexico, y muchos mas de Nuestros Paises sin Razon".

 

[captaincranky]

Again, you live in a country where you think this is unthinkable, but LIFE is always most important. So no, there are good (but hard) reasons. There are videos of people who've escaped North Korea who describe what it took to get away from the dangerous dictatorship there, including being raped. Sometimes decisions aren't easy.

First, one sob story does not a precedent make, or an axiomatically contrived humanitarian path for human governments to follow.

The unvarnished truth of the matter is this; the survival of the planet as a whole is as, or is more important, than the continuance of the human species. There have been other "masters of the realm", before us, and there may very well be a species, (singular or plural), which supplants us.

As far as providing breeding stock for the continuance of Homo sapiens, we're providing that in overabundance. In point of fact, there are likely as many as 6 billion of us, which could be considered "biologically unnecessary", or patently, "expendable".

As far as immigrants from South America go, the Catholic church has convinced many of them that "birth control is a sin", so they don't practice it. Which somehow you seem to believe leaves the US wide open and irrefutably responsible, for the biological overflow.

So, there's a difference between immigration, and "trickle down invasion", which is basically what's taking place now.

 

[OutlawCecil]

First, one sob story does not a precedent make, or an axiomatically contrived humanitarian path for human governments to follow.

The unvarnished truth of the matter is this; the survival of the planet as a whole is as, or is more important, than the continuance of the human species. There have been other "masters of the realm", before us, and there may very well be a species, (singular or plural), which supplants us.

As far as providing breeding stock for the continuance of Homo sapiens, we're providing that in overabundance. In point of fact, there are likely as many as 6 billion of us, which could be considered "biologically unnecessary", or patently, "expendable".

As far as immigrants from South America go, the Catholic church has convinced many of them that "birth control is a sin", so they don't practice it. Which somehow you seem to believe leaves the US wide open and irrefutably responsible, for the biological overflow.

So, there's a difference between immigration, and "trickle down invasion", which is basically what's taking place now.

So your point is, the Earth is too full, lives don't matter, and thus stay away. Wow... You can take out your silver spoon whenever you are ready.

 

[bandit8623]

So your point is, the Earth is too full, lives don't matter, and thus stay away. Wow... You can take out your silver spoon whenever you are ready.

Thats the great thing about the usa we are special and we can keep crap out when we want.

 

[cliffordcooley]

This is my thought on the topic. If we are willing to take the kids and place them in a home, we should be willing to include the parents. Separating a family is wrong when they are only looking for a better life.

 

[captaincranky]

This is my thought on the topic. If we are willing to take the kids and place them in a home, we should be willing to include the parents. Separating a family is wrong when they are only looking for a better life.

Then you need to be prepared to dust off your checkbook and clean up any spare rooms that you might have, to make room for you new amigos.

It's convenient to spout humanitarian ideals and platitudes, it makes you look good in the forum. But try putting your money where your mouth is. You'll see that's an entirely vast new dimension of "caring".

 

[cliffordcooley]

Then you need to be prepared to dust off your checkbook and clean up any spare rooms that you might have, to make room for you new amigos.

I didn't say take in everyone. I said if we were willing to step in at all, we should take everyone. If we are not willing to allow the parents in then the kids should be sent back with the parents.

Further more it is my opinion that if we do step in and separate the kids from the parents, we should grant the kids citizenship right there on the spot. If not then the kids are not our responsibility.

 

[OutlawCecil]

Thats the great thing about the usa we are special and we can keep crap out when we want.

Yeah... we can keep out slavery (wait, we had that), immigrants (wait, we ARE them), crime (no wait, tons of crime here), terrorism (uhh, nope)... wait I lost my train of thought. What are we keeping out? I feel like we're only keeping IN our own racism.