Skip to main content

Microsoft supports 'family unification' but also provides tech for U.S. immigration enforcement

Microsoft Logo at Ignite
Microsoft Logo at Ignite (Image credit: Windows Central)

The child migrant crisis currently underway at the U.S.-Mexico border is causing a firestorm of public outrage throughout the country, and Microsoft has now found itself in the middle. The cause? A January 2018 (opens in new tab) blog post in which Microsoft says it is "proud to support" the work of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is at the center of the controversy over separating migrant children from their parents, by providing Azure tech to the agency.

The January blog touted Azure Government's achievement of Authority to Operate (ATO) designations for two arms of the U.S. government: the Air Force and ICE. In reference to ICE, Microsoft stated in January:

ICE's decision to accelerate IT modernization using Azure Government will help them innovate faster while reducing the burden of legacy IT. The agency is currently implementing transformative technologies for homeland security and public safety, and we're proud to support this work with our mission-critical cloud.

Though the post came months ahead of the current controversy and is clearly unrelated, some Twitter users have called out Microsoft's support of ICE as offensive.

See more

When reached for comment, a Microsoft spokesperson stated:

As a company, Microsoft is dismayed by the forcible separation of children from their families at the border. Family unification has been a fundamental tenant of American policy and law since the end of World War II. As a company Microsoft has worked for over 20 years to combine technology with the rule of law to ensure that children who are refugees and immigrants can remain with their parents. We need to continue to build on this noble tradition rather than change course now. We urge the administration to change its policy and Congress to pass legislation ensuring children are no longer separated from their families.

That sentiment largely jells with a Father's Day LinkedIn post (opens in new tab) from Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith, in which he called attention to the issue. From that post:

This Father's Day provides an opportunity to recall one thing we shouldn't take for granted – the opportunity to be with our children. It's what makes Father's Day so special. And given the news of migrant children being separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border, it's especially poignant this year.

Given its public stance, Microsoft clearly isn't supporting children being separated from their parents. Indeed, the company provides services like Azure and Windows to a number of commercial entities and governments around the world, including the U.S. federal government.

Still, the company's position on the border crisis stands in sharp contrast to its willingness to provide backend technical support for the digital services that ICE relies upon to pursue its mission. Given the complicated nature of the contracts and services involved, there's likely no easy answer here. But, with the passion of the current political climate, and the plight of families arriving at the border, Microsoft's support of ICE is likely to remain a thorny issue.

Dan Thorp-Lancaster is the Editor in Chief for Windows Central. He began working with Windows Central as a news writer in 2014 and is obsessed with tech of all sorts. You can follow Dan on Twitter @DthorpL and Instagram @heyitsdtl. Got a hot tip? Send it to

  • This site mixing politics and tech probably is not a good idea. You are looking to open a pandora's box here. I come to windowscentral for my tech news and not politics, just like I dont go to Fox/CNN for tech news and I would hope it remains so. I would not want to visit this site if it starts publishing politically motivated tech articles, irrespective of which side of the ICE debate you fall on.
  • Yea, really, have to listen to partisan crying and foot stomping on here now too? Is there any topic anymore thats not being poisoned by politics?
  • Nay
  • What a stupid comment. This website is about Microsoft. And this article is talking about a Microsoft technology, which happens to be used by a certain government entity. Nothing out of place here.
  • Agreed
  • So are we going to get an article on Microsoft fighting crime and criminals also using Microsoft products? Are we going to see an article on Microsoft fighting pollution, and Power-Plants also using Microsoft products? This is a demagogic article, and a trap Dan walked into. This article is not wrong because of politics. This article is wrong on the basis of false reasoning.
  • Well, are those stories creating a lot of interest on the internet for Microsoft? There's something involving Microsoft that's creating news. Why is that wrong to post on a site about Microsoft?
  • "So are we going to get an article on Microsoft fighting crime"
    Already covered in ?2010? with story about MS working with Toronto police to create COFFEE USB forensic key. "... criminals also using Microsoft products"
    already covered by article showing uptick in low end lumias, to use as burner phones. "Microsoft fighting pollution"
    MSR initiatives reported on regularly. Azure teams as well. Also, every new datacenter they open has clean energy requirements. "Power-Plants also using Microsoft products"
    Yes. Both to improve, and picking clean energy partners for datacenters. So, what are you on about???
  • I was thinking the same thing
  • Calling support for those who defend our borders "controversial" is Democrat-recruitment propaganda, not tech talk.
  • Calling something controversial means that the public is arguing about it. That's factual. The literal definition of controversial means it may cause the public to argue about it. This article is about people in the public arguing about it. I fail to see where you're getting confused with dictionary definitions of words from the English language.
  • No need to be obnoxious. When leftists promote their agenda, anything that they don't like is "controversial," "concerning," "troubling," etc. Was Hillary's (stated) support for enforcing immigration law just a few years ago "controversial"? Of course not. Was anything that Obama did "controversial" to his sycophants in the media? No. And there should be nothing controversial about defending our borders. Only usurpers and fiends find protecting the Republic "controversial." Rather than disparage the intellect of those who disagree with you, just be honest.
  • Anything rightists don't like is "controversial" as well. Like I said, its literally the definition of "controversial." And by definition, if you don't like something, then yes, you'll label it as troubling because that's how language and communication works. Obama's immigration policies were eventually found to be unconstitutional and they were extremely unpopular, both then *and* now. It's just really difficult to remember how bad they were because they're so ridiculously weak compared to now. Operation Streamline is *probably* the closest example (and it was during GWB) and even then, they decided not to prosecute families. And *I'm* being obnoxious? You're going around insulting this website like its your job. Moreover, there's *plenty* that Obama and Hillary did that was controversial, to people on all parts of the spectrum. I don't understand this delusion people have that think the media didn't say anything negative about the white house administration for eight years. I think we all can recall Holden as a prime example. And seriously, if you're best defense is to say "well what about so and so"... you're not really making a good argument. It's the weakest possible argument you can make, if you can even call it that.
  • Rather than whine and splutter dishonestly in defense of your fellow travelers, why not deal with what I posted?
  • Which is odd, since the laws that sperate children at the border was signed by a Democrat - Bill Clinton.
  • care to name the law he signed? i'm really curious to know what you're talking about.
  • What a great way to have a discourse, by calling people you disagree with stupid. Maybe they don't teach you manners where you come from?
    This article is not talking about MSFT tech, not talking about what Azure is. It is talking about the politics behind the entity that has implemented the technology.
  • Agreed. No politics here.
  • Also in agreement. We already have politics shoved in our faces in sports, music and movies.
  • Nonsense. Quit buying into the narratives pushed by media and Hollywood. Those kids are treated better than we treat our own poor and homeless. And the parents came here, bypassing Mexico and other safe countries. They took the risk. Now they're detained until a court date. If we don't detain them, most won't show up to court.
  • Going to deport you next.
  • What kind of nescient reply is that, Daniel? American children are separated from their parents every day because their parents violate some law; do you agitate for them, too? The only people responsible for separating children from those entering our country illegally are the parents themselves. If you want to stay with your kids, then don't enter a foreign nation without its consent.
  • Seeking asylum is not violating the law... Sigh!
  • If you cross the border illegally yes it does. You must seek asylum at an actual port of entry. Besides, most of these cases are not asylum-related at all.
  • And you know this how? Foxnews? Breitbart? So you agree the percentage that are seeking asylum are being treating in humanely, glad you agree.. Like broken clocks, even trolls can agree...
  • You have to apply for asylum. Legally.
    Crossing the border without authorisation to do so is illegal. Period.
    This isn't even debatable, mate.
  • This isn't about only asylum. Breathe.
  • If they were all doing it legally than they wouldn't be prosecuted... Sigh! There's a difference between seeking asylum and sneaking in.
  • Hi Daniel, your tirade against anyone opposing your ideas in the comment section is one reason I am leaving this website. I wish Mobile nations bring in a better editor. I have been a reader of the site since last 3-4 years. No more, goodbye.
  • Yes, Daniel's ugliness is surprising and disappointing.
  • Ok, Bye Felicia!
  • That Twitter quote is a little ridiculous. The website was updated well before the scandal erupted. Microsoft obviously won't drop the American government as a client. That doesn't make any sense. Also, the "taotetek" character has a history of bizarre statements on Twitter. Apple, and many other technology companies also provide services to ICE. taotetek goes on and on about the GitHub purchase and how Microsoft is "evil".
  • Separation is temporary until the court hearings. In the mean time, the children are safe, fed, and housed. So there's really no reason for MS to stop providing tech for ICE or the border. This isn't as big of an issue as it seems except the media is just doing what it does. Tries to create anger and fear rather than give real analysis. They found something to pounce on because of the typical hatred for the President and they'll stick with it for as long as they feel it hurts the President.
    Microsoft wants to try and fend off the typical social justice types, which I can understand since they're like rabid dogs. But it'll blow over eventually.
  • Human beings, particular young children, are not whole just because they have food and clothing, stuffed into a shelter. They are not puppies. Love and caring by parents matters. Just go see what inner cities in US is like, it is the absence of good parenting and not poverty per se. Blaming media for reporting facts is silly. As for the site mentioning this, I agree that it is not a right place for it. I don't think MS has anything to do with it. It is a policy lead by the president as a political leverage to get funding for his wall.
  • If you think the media is simply reporting facts and not pushing a narrative, you're part of the problem. This whole thing is a broader issue that needs to be dealt with by securing the damn border except for check points. Asylum seekers can check in at those points. And they'll be checked out and either let in together or turned away together.
    The fact is, most crying about this don't really care. They don't want the border secured and would rather we have open borders.
  • "If you think the media is simply reporting facts and not pushing a narrative, you're part of the problem"
    No, you're the problem. Fall right in line though and obey the state like a good citizen.
  • Oh please. Spare me the faux outrage. We have videos under Obamas watch of people, kids in cages. Where were you then?
    And did you know thousands of kids are sent here by their parents? What do we do with them?
    The simple fact remains is every election, they talk border security. And then nothing gets done. We have someone who wants to get it done, but of course the media and the left want nothing to do with making the border more secure. Building a wall and having several real check points for asylum seekers to use.
    When all of these news outlets start pushing the same damn narrative 24/7, often from one side of things, that's not news. That's propaganda.
  • Well said, DaveGx!
  • can't the same be said about the news you follow? do they not have similar narratives? or are the only bad narratives just the ones you don't agree with? if anything, the more misleading talking points are coming from the President and his administration, so really, his literal words are actually more fitting to the definition of propaganda. he has literally told lies (like blaming it on democratic laws, etc.) and you talk about Obama, but that was on such a smaller scale and the administration had put in place policy to avoid such events. this one literally put into place a policy to *cause* these events. saying they are equivalent is ridiculously ignorant.
  • So, rather than address the point, you fall back into a tu quoque. The kids in cages were from Obama's time in office.
  • I did address the point. It's that simply having a narrative isn't sufficient to dismiss it. Every bit of news you get, whether you agree with it or not, has a narrative. Fox News has a narrative. Breitbart has a narrative, CNN has a narrative, NYT has a narrative. Simply stating "oh, they have a narrative" is not an argument against the message being conveyed. And you didn't address my point either. I didn't say it *didn't* happen under Obama. Obama had a policy to avoid separating children and minimize it as much as possible. The kids in cages was an unfortunate side effect of Obama's fairly hard line on immigration. They put in policies and workarounds to avoid it as much as possible. Kids in cages with Trump is a goddamn feature. They're not the same. If you don't understand how they're different, you don't understand enough about the situation to be discussing it.
  • Where is Trump putting "kids in cages"? And as for Obama's "hard line," he's also the person who unconstitutionally imported thousands of undocumented Democrats before leaving office. You're running around here lying and defaming in defense of your fellow leftists like it's your job or something.
  • And how is what you are doing any different. U are falling in line with the left wing agenda just like a good liberal as well. Lack of insight into your own shortcomings and biases does not a good journalist make.
  • Since Microsoft made its position known, if I were among the racist, anti-christ, biggot, anti-empathetic posting in this thread, I would stop using all Microsoft products since they are left leaning socialists..and i would definitely stop visiting and posting on a site that is Microsoft centric... Get a clue...
  • Until Microsoft actually follows up its words by discontinuing all their work and all their sales with the government (every last bit) then their words are hollow. Me personally, I don't care what Microsoft says, I will use what I like. Perhaps, it is you that should step up stop using Microsoft products until they actually do that. Otherwise, your words are hollow as well.
  • Glad you agree then what we BOTH are saying is hollow and pointless.
  • I think you missed his entire point. I would re-read his comment. you aren't saying the opposite of what he said.
  • Mr Rubino, just stick to what your day job is, which is running a website. Looking to you for commentary on politics and the like is akin to taking stock tips from the janitor at Charles Schwab.
  • @lord, leave the site.. We wont miss you.
  • Hiding behind Daniel's skirt? Perhaps you should take your own advice.
  • I never took you for an anarchist. I'm more of a minarchist myself, but I applaud your skepticism of a powerful state. That said, I would also prefer a politics free tech site. There's just too much emotion and hyperbole, as you statement illustrates. Either way though, I'm coming here for my Microsoft news.
  • Every free person should absolutely distrust those in power, but that's not what Daniel is doing. Daniel's promoting the Democrats' open border policies to the harm of our nation. "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -Thomas Jefferson
  • It must turn you on in some way, why are you still here posting? I dont visit foxnews...
  • What kind of freak turns the defense of a nation into something prurient?
  • Who calls posting comments on a tech news site defending a nation?
  • Says the person who's trying clumsily to subvert it.
  • Well, this IS a tech site. Something he most likely came for. NOT politics.
  • So, were you protesting against immigration enforcement under Obama (when he wasn't hindering it)? You're swallowing the Democrat propaganda whole, Daniel. If someone broke into your home, set up camp, and started eating your food and demanding that you pay for their medical care and their children's education, then you'd be fine with that? You can choose that for yourself, but you have no right to impose that on the rest of the country. Be careful, Daniel, your agitating is going to cost you readers.
  • Forget costing Daniel readers, howabout stop visiting the site all together... Believe me, you wont be missed...
  • You need some new material. Are you Daniel's attack puppy?
  • Oh and Obama didnt separate kids from their parents.
  • Post the link of the video separating familes under Obama.
  • You mean the pictures showing kids in cages (not families huddled together in detention cages just children) and the media and the left went into their full blame Trump mode (not even taken a second to verify anything) when it was really under the "Holy Saint" himself, Obama'sadministration? You mean these?
  • You put Akira into the fetal position.
  • Do some research, this was a trending situation when Obama was the head of our nation. It was only going to get worse regardless of who was in power.
  • Ok this site is just now partisan. This site is dead to me. Glad you have a point of view Daniel, but attacking your readers in this way is not going to be nice for your readership or the website. I will go find other non political tech websites. As much as I agree with lot of your political views, you as an editor fueling this partisan politics fight in the comment section is the end of it for me. I come here for tech not politics. FWIW: I am against what ICE is doing and I am not a conservative and I dislike current GOP.
  • you've clearly never seen Dan's comments on other articles (including non-political ones).
  • "Love and caring by parents matters." You're talking to the wrong people; talk to the parents entering a foreign nation without its consent. And the media are hardly "reporting facts"; most of what you see is hysterical anti-Trump and pro-Democrat-voter-import propaganda.
  • parents have been sent back to their country of origin and had their children murdered. this is sometimes their best option to protect their children. but sure, yeah, the parents are wrong because they were born in the wrong conditions.
  • Those parents are wrong because they're violating the laws of a foreign nation and expecting to get away with it. The Democrats are wrong because they don't care about children -- 60 million (and counting) slaughtered in the womb -- they care only about a propaganda win for the mid-term elections and importing vast quantities of future Democrats. You're wrong because you're swallowing their mendacity whole.
  • I don't consider fetuses to be children. There's a reason we have a different word to describe it. It's because they're different things. It's not logically inconsistent. However, pretending to care about life in the womb and then stopping to care after its born, *that* is logically inconsistent. And you didn't address my point at all. You're still basically punishing them because of where they were born. If you had to choose between stealing bread to keep your child fed for one night or letting them die in their sleep, you're making the argument that they'd be a better parent if they respected laws and let their child die. Logically inconsistent with your apparent abortion views (which you've stated many times over this article which is entirely unrelated to anything to begin with).
  • "I don't consider fetuses to be children. "
    "You're still basically punishing them because of where they were born. "
    So, it's okay to punish them for being conceived? How about we all just not be okay with either one?
  • That's still unrelated. You're still applying logic for how to treat people to something I don't consider a person, plus at the same time, removing someone's freedom in the process. I don't put the 'rights' of something that isn't a person, above the rights of an actual living breathing human being in the real world. You're argument fails because it's making an assumption I've already stated I don't accept. So until you can provide an argument challenging *that* scenario, anything beyond that is pointless and without intellectual merit.
  • Believing a "fetus" isn't a "person" is without intellectual merit. And if you truly believe that a child shouldn't be punished based on their location (in-womb / not in-womb), then it is related. Question: Why is it legal to have an abortion (and therefore stating that a fetus is not a person and not granted protections that born children are given), yet if a person kills a pregnant woman, or causes a miscarriage of a pregnant woman, they can be charged with a count of murder for that "fetus"?
  • No person has a right to enter a foreign nation against its will. Make it personal: "Hey, everyone! You have a right to take up residence in pjhenry's home. He said so. He'll probably pay for your food, education, medical care, and cellphone, too. No, he really means it. He calls it 'caring for kids.'"
  • "Child: A person who has not yet reached adulthood [...] One's son or daughter, regardless of age [...]" Only the deranged and the depraved claim that if you oppose illegal immigration, then you don't care about kids. That kind of "logic" might hold water with your fellow travelers, but it's utterly embarrassing among those who think for themselves. Neither is a nation's defending its borders punishing those trying to invade it. Don't be such a liar, butcher.
  • If the Democrats can't flood new voters into the country -- people who'll cast votes that Americans won't -- then their party is doomed.
  • This article is a political point of view. Keep politics out of this site. There are plenty of other outlets.
  • We're going to pass on your advice, but thanks for expressing your view point.
  • You're not really grateful, and you're going to lose readers.
  • With only 10k MAU you'd think alarm bells would be ringing. Although iMore has around the same, different tone over there. Although in saying that, this article is a tad more popular than average...
  • Dear Daniel, We are going to pass on your articles, but thanks for expressing your view point.
  • And to that, I have decided to pass on your website. I just had a conversation with a coworker about how hard it is to find a neutral news outlet. One that just reports the news without an agenda. Now I'll have to find a tech site that just reports technology. Bye.
  • Then leave... Heres a hint, the first time i read a foxnews comment section I quickly realized its mostly a bunch of racists and anti-semitic trolls that constantly blame the black guy for everything, well, because hes black. I havent been back since. Why are you here? Stop using Microsoft products and stop visiting Microsoft sites...
  • Blame Hussein? But he's only half Indonesian.
  • Shouldn't you as a matter of principle stop using products by Microsoft until they actually back up their words? Otherwise, their statement is like most of what the left says, full of hot air. No, you should show your distaste for them as they continue to cuddle up with the government because of all this. Until they step away from anything related to ICE (including HHS) and the money they receive from the government they are the ones being hypocrites and so are you for using a product from a company that says one thing (to appease the liberal lemmings) but likes the green so much more
  • I don't understand why you think its hypocritical to sell your goods to people, even if you disagree with them. I feel like that would put any company out of business fairly quickly.
  • Oh no. A technology and computer company is providing tech to a federal law enforcement agency for them to carry out their duties? Oh no. The horror. What is next? Providing this agency internet and running water to operate their federal job? Hope not
  • You ever read 'The Banality of Evil'? You should.
  • I think u should understand the meaning of that term first Daniel. That phrase can only be understood in comparison with radical evil. U are suggesting that the current US government is engaged in something so heinous and evil and that the law enforcement have excepted this unimaginable evil as the norm. Do u know who even coined this term and under what context? Educate yourself before using terms you don't understand.
  • He's just like the dummies out their comparing it to concentration camps. Dishonest, fear mongering bs propaganda. And they know it. Last I checked, concentration camps/evil wouldn't temporarily separate families while they figured things out like who are they, are they really the parents, do they really deserve asylum,....while feeding and housing them.....
  • Also, just throwing an idea out there.. How about not crossing the border ILLEGALLY? I'm not American, so I have no vested interest in this issue either way. But logically, if I wanted to migrate to another country, I'd do it legally. Not jump the border or overstay my tourist visa and hope I don't get caught. Just saying.. And let's not confuse these affected migrants with refugees. There's a big difference.
  • And how many of the refugees are really in need of refuge? If you want to help people in real need, bring in the Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Baha'i, Zoroastrians, animists, and other non-Muslims persecuted in Islamic lands.
  • @rgody, youre not from here but you grace us with your sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity... Just wow....
  • So Akira, instead of degrading yourself to just throwing out personal insults, why don't you actually put forward a proper argument against the points I've raised. Would you like every tourist from China/India coming into the USA, not going home and overstaying their legally permitted visas? Just so that they can have what they perceive as a "better" way of life and work illegally in some restaurant's kitchen or another. Same argument here. These are migrants , not refugees (again, not to be confused). The rule of law needs to be followed. As much as I am for helping people who need help, I appreciate that a country cannot be governed that way. Checks and balances are important and we unfortunately do not live in a utopia where a single country can welcome in an unlimited amount of people and expect life for everyone to be full of rainbows and unicorns.
  • So then deport them with the family intact, or keep the parents with the kids until their day in court. What sense does it make to needlessly tramatize kids. Whats being done is by policy, not law. Its inhumane, its wrong. Now let me put it where the goats can get it, this is being done by policy because these people are brown(they have melanin in their skin). If these were blue eyed russian kids and familes , this would not be happening under this administration, plain and simple.
  • keeping kids with their parents is what the previous administration did, however it required them to process them differently and not bring them to court. its a supreme court ruling that found you can't detain children, however, I fyou housed them while they waited immigration proceedings, that's fine. that's what Obama did. Kids were separated when they were forced to hold different criminal proceedings. however, Sessions literally put a stop to this practice and said it cannot be done. So, Sessions' policy is literally stating to do the exact opposite of what you're suggesting and that's the problem.
  • When you've got nothing, call names, right? "Sparingly used upon inception, the Obama administration drastically increased the use of ATEP in 2011, responding to a perceived increase in attempts at immigration into the United States by Mexican nationals. "But immigrants’ rights activists had long cautioned that Lateral Repatriation breaks up families. The reason is fairly simple: many male Mexican nationals who are detained trying to cross the border often come with their families in tow. When ATEP is used, the men are captured and taken thousands of miles away, while their wives, partners and children are placed in immigrant detention centers. [...] "Multiple stories about those family detention centers written during the Obama era–just not by the mainstream media. In particular, dozens of stories about the Nogales Placement Center in Nogales, Arizona particular were written by journalists at Shadowproof, a reader-supported media outlet, alone. Journalists for Shadowproof also frequently reported on the T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, Texas. Most media declined to investigate these facilities until fairly recently. "According to Angelo Guisado, a staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights: '[T]hese places are tortuous: policies include banning mothers and children from sleeping together and turning lights on/off every hour to ensure this…guaranteeing sleep deprivation, this aside from your other standard physical/sexual abuse in ICE custody.'" You're such a lying hypocrite.
  • I like how you pointed out all the ways Obama tried to not separate children from their parents, and the most negative aspects of what you write were direct consequences of him being denied money to make establishments better.
  • Spin all you want. Facts hurt when you're lying, don't they.
  • Speaking of "sincere ignorance and [...] stupidity," you're the one smearing those who'd like our nation secure.
  • Statistics show that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes. So, in terms of security, you're actually introducing, on average, a less violent element into a more violent element. Math simply doesn't backup the concept that our nation becomes more secure with better borders.
  • That's another absurd false dichotomy from you. Let's make it personal again: "Hey, 'less violent element' imported illegally! Go to pjhenry's house. Prove his calculations correct by showing him that he won't be more secure by keeping you out of it." You're deranged.
  • Some of them can't afford the time or cost of doing so. Some of them have the choice of letting their children get murdered while waiting *or* taking the chance of trying to go into the country. And since asylum is an allowable legal defense against deportation, you can 'illegally' cross and still claim asylum as a defense.
  • Damn DaveGx, you still here posting?!? I dont get it.. I dont like confederate flags so i dont put them in my yard or on my car. I dont like the klan so i dont associate with them... You embrace a set of ideas that are the opposite of a Microsoft stance politically, yet you still here posting?
  • I'll post where I want. I don't have a fit like an SJW idiot and cry for a boycott because someone disagrees with me
  • My goodness, Akira, you still here arguing from ignorance? The Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat party. The Republican party was created to end slavery.
  • And then the parties flipped and now your team supports the Klan and racism. DEAL WITH IT
  • Another historical illiterate lying in defense of the Democrats, dead? When Nixon ran, he explicitly left the rotting fruit of racial hatred to the Democrats, where it's always belonged. After your party saw that their open, hue-based hostility was going to cost them power, they moved away from it. That left your fellow haters with nowhere to go to scratch that bigoted itch. To the degree that racist former Democrats started voting Republican, it was because of the Republicans' support for individual rights, smaller government, and a strong military. To think that Nixon -- who received recognition from MLK for his work on civil rights -- caused the nation's two major political parties to flip on the subject of race is absurd. "King closed the August 1957 letter, writing, 'Let me say before closing how deeply grateful all people of goodwill are to you for your assiduous labor and dauntless courage in seeking to make the Civil Rights Bill a reality.'"
  • It really is well-documented and known historical fact that the parties did flip. Why else do you think the heavily democratic south became heavily republican south? They didn't logically flip, but the main platforms did indeed change. Small government used to be a democratic thing, etc. You can read more about it here:
  • So, neither is history your strong suit, pj. When Nixon ran, he explicitly left the rotting fruit of racial hatred to the Democrats, where it's always belonged. After your party saw that their open, hue-based hostility was going to cost them power, they moved away from it. That left your fellow haters with nowhere to go to scratch that bigoted itch. To the degree that racist former Democrats started voting Republican, it was because of the Republicans' support for individual rights, smaller government, and a strong military. To think that Nixon -- who received recognition from MLK for his work on civil rights -- caused the nation's two major political parties to flip on the subject of race is absurd. (You'll note how long it took those southern Democrat states to elect Republican senators.) "King closed the August 1957 letter, writing, 'Let me say before closing how deeply grateful all people of goodwill are to you for your assiduous labor and dauntless courage in seeking to make the Civil Rights Bill a reality.'" From slavery to the Civil War to Segregation to Manifest Destiny to The Trail of Tears to resegregating the federal government to the internment of American citizens during World War II to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to today's racial division, antagonism, and dependence, the Democrats are the party of racism