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 former Editor-in-Chief of Windows Central. He began working with Windows Central, Android Central, and iMore as a news writer in 2014 and is obsessed with tech of all sorts. You can follow Dan on Twitter @DthorpL and Instagram @heyitsdtl

212 Comments
  • 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?
    https://amp.businessinsider.com/migrant-children-in-cages-2014-photos-ex...
  • 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. https://lawandcrime.com/immigration/obamas-immigration-agencies-separate...
  • 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: http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/
  • 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
  • Why waste your precious time schooling the unteachable? It's obvious he's brimming with elitist cojones and lots of hubris.
  • I mean, yeah, if separating children from families is to be considered normal (and apparently biblical), one can make that argument. However, I think a more interesting discussion should be, given Microsoft's stance, do you think they're doing enough to support their statement or are they being hypocritical. This is a discussion that wouldn't even require you to agree or disagree with Microsoft's stance (or Daniel's for that matter). That's the crux of this article, yet that's been lost on so many people who seem to have a problem with Daniel's opinion on the matter.
  • Stay away from politics dude and you have no idea what you talking about. lol, Stick to Andromeda Please.
  • Well, even Microsoft regrets and doesn't approve US government stand on this issue. This is more of a moral issue than political! Until these minors are adults their parents should decide their faith not the US government!
  • They already did when they crossed the border illegally. When a parent breaks the law should we ignore it simply because they have a child under foot? I think not.
  • Seeking asylum is not breaking the law genius.
  • In your world, all someone has to do is claim asylum. If we had a damn secure border with a few specific check points, this whole thing would be easier to manage. We have MS 13 gangs using children to try and come here, claiming asylum.
    And many of these people who claim asylum or otherwise, have been let go after given a court date... And then they never show up to court.
  • Tt sounds like you're arguing that fewer doors makes for a safer establishment. Where did I hear that recently...
  • How about the 10,000 kids sex-trafficked under Hussein's watch... Get that wall built and reunite those criminals with their kids on the other side of it.
  • They only pretend to care when they play politics with it. They meaning the media and the Hollywood idiots. This damn thing has been going on for years. No one made a deal of it until Trump.
  • Well the cabal and half of hollywood certainly benefitted from having easy access to all those kids. Pay attention to those particularly anti-Trump Hollywood actors (pizza coming out their... wherever), and Barry sure does like them hotdogs.
  • No one gets to whine, "But, but, the children!" when they support slaughtering them in the womb.
  • no one gets to claim pro-life when... well... you know the rest...
  • How nescient. You're agitating for the literal burning, poisoning, crushing, and tearing apart of children. You don't have a say, butcher.
  • Oh, we can do that now? Amillennialist, you don't have a say! Sweet, I didn't know I can argue for something by just stating pure opinion and follow it with such a decree. Ah, no wonder you find no need for logic. This is *so* much easier. How is what I stated ignorant? You can be pro-abortion, but still care about people who are in existence. It's kind of funny in that, one can make a similar argument that many of you are making. "We can't just let everyone in." Well, lets take care of the living before we let anymore in. Right? Or here, since that's not really what I believe (but it works well as an argument given your belief framework), I'll tell you that I simply don't believe a fetus is a child. In any case, I think we can all agree that the children down south are *definitely* children, yet you seem to want to treat them as less and send them to death. So, there's more logical inconsistency in your beliefs than in mine.
  • There's no "opinion" about slaughtering children. How fiendish. Not allowing someone to break into and set up residence in your home is not "seeming to want to treat them as less and send them to death." You're quite a craven liar.
  • Why would you refer to someone by their middle name? Especially when there are other, much more recognizable people with that name. It causes confusion and sounds stupid. Obama tried to actually address that issue, but was setback in court and in congress.
  • Microsoft is just one of many tech companies under contract to provide services to the federal government and ICE. If you're going to call out Microsoft then you need to call out every one of the rest of these companies too.
  • Its a shame that Windows Central is now posting political articles on what is tech media outlet. Also as a legal immigrant these are my 2 cents. I worked hard and struggled to come to the US while respecting its laws, I find it despicable that some people have sympathy for these criminals who obviously broke the law and so have no respect for the US or Americans. And these are the people u want to welcome into the country? They aren't the only people looking for a better life...so is everyone else...the difference is that some if us don't insult our would be hosts by illegally entering their country. If they are that desperate to get in, then there are serious issues in Mexico and allowing unchecked wholesale movement of people into the US isn't gonna solve the problems there. How many people can the US take from Mexico anyway? Why not let all of them move in? Why even have a border then? Ask any legal immigrant and they will say the same thing.
  • Its a shame that Windows Central is now posting political articles on what is tech media outlet. Also as a legal immigrant these are my 2 cents. I worked hard and struggled to come to the US while respecting its laws, I find it despicable that some people have sympathy for these criminals who obviously broke the law and so have no respect for the US or Americans. And these are the people u want to welcome into the country? They aren't the only people looking for a better life...so is everyone else...the difference is that some if us don't insult our would be hosts by illegally entering their country. If they are that desperate to get in, then there are serious issues in Mexico and allowing unchecked wholesale movement of people into the US isn't gonna solve the problems there. How many people can the US take from Mexico anyway? Why not let all of them move in? Why even have a border then? Ask any legal immigrant and they will say the same thing.
  • Good post. And as far as Mexico goes... Why don't they take in asylum seekers? Why are we supposed to be the opened door, refugee camp for the world? We can not afford to take in everyone.
  • A couple years back I shared with someone an article about building a wall on the southern border. It was about Mexico and their efforts to keep out illegal immigrants. It changed their perspective a bit. Every nation on Earth has the right and the responsibility to defend its borders. A country without borders won't be one for long. Open borders + welfare state = national suicide.
  • I mean, those last bits sound nice, but what evidence do you have for that as a logical argument? What evidence do you have to backup your last two paragraphs (since your first paragraph doesn't really mean anything... 'oh, I changed someone's mind once with an article.' Real powerful). But then you make a bunch of statements and provide nothing.
  • You're neither reading nor thinking, prerequisites for the positions you hold. Well done.
  • Cause its the law... You still here? Wow!
  • You are absolutely right. Democrats (and their Useful Idiots) only care about this issue because (they think) it's a bludgeon with which to pound on Trump and the GOP heading into the November elections and because they need to import vast quantities of people who will cast votes that Americans just won't cast.
  • I mean, even the GOP is against this issue though. Hell, Ted Cruz is trying to stop it. If Ted Cruz thinks you've gone too far, that's saying something. Granted, he's a supposed Christian though, so he has other reasons to be against it, and at least here, he seems to at least be acting in alignment with his stated beliefs (which he doesn't always do).
  • Smearing Cruz. Not surprising.
  • What needs to be done is the border needs to be better secured. It's a shame both sides run on that during election time, but then nothing happens. Now we have a President that wants to get it done, has pleaded for it, and what do you know, the Left and some others are doing all they can to prevent it. But then they want to whine about families temporarily being a part after they make it over here.... Illegally. Unreal.
  • Why though? Maybe that's not the best way to fix the problem. in fact, what is the problem you're even trying to fix?
  • Came to this sight to escape the political deluge everywhere else. Gonna channel my inner-Trump and just say. Sad.
  • Bigly. Everyone's saying it.
  • As distasteful as it may seem for a company like Microsoft to be providing technology services to ICE in the wake of it implementing a child separation policy for asylum-seekers at the border, I think a service like Azure should remain as neutral and agnostic as possible. I don't think we want Microsoft getting into the business of deciding who may or may not use Azure based on their moral compass.
  • This is one of the first useful comments on this article and would prove to be the more useful discussion to have, but unfortunately, no one seems to be biting. I'd try to add to it, but I agree with you. I also think I'd rather ICE have a competent technology solution to try to help navigate this mess to begin with.
  • Asylum from whom for what? Asylum used to have a definition, now it simply seems to mean “my country sucks, can I join yours?”
  • Do you have any idea how hard it is to apply for and get asylum status or any other form of legal immigration? Asylum status is also different from illegal immigration.
  • Legal immigrants respect our country and want to be a part of it. In light of the growing welfare state, illegal immigration seems a lot more like, "Give me your stuff."
  • In light of no facts, my gut says you're argument is more like, "I just wish I could be a dark, hateful being and not be judged for it." See, anyone can make baseless claims. To be clear, I don't actually believe that about you, its just that the statement is as well-founded as yours, and as you can see, completely useless and doesn't help anything. I like to teach by example sometimes.
  • "In light of no facts, my gut says" Finally! Some honesty from you.
  • Wow i didnt realize how racist some of the viewers of this site is.... Separating children from parents is not ok.... What happened to American values.... Windows Central reports on windows related news.... Just because trump is a racist dictator treasonous slimeball you republicans lose your composer
  • @nolonger, they are here all the time time, articles like this one bring them out... What i dont get is why do they visit Microsoft related sites and continue to use Microsoft products.
  • @Akira X, there are camps for Asylum seekers, where children get raped by immigrants every day, or there are cases when people, who have nothing to lose, use children as shield against bullets. Now tell me that they should not be separated. It's always easy to bullsh*t from an armchair. Sure it's not okay. Just like it's not okay to illegally immigrate.
  • Ok, children should not be separated from their parents. Babies should not be separated from their parents.. Im saying it and Microsoft is saying it.
  • How is separating children from parents racist?
  • Lol it isn't. It's just their go to move, playing the race card.
  • Because its being done because these people are brown. Where have you trolls been when trump was saying mexicans are rapists and murderers, africa and haiti are shitholes, a federal judge presiding over his fraud case against Trump University wouldn't be able be fair because of his "Mexican heritage."  see a pattern? Yet its ok to let more people in from Norway! Hmm, why more people from Norway?? What makes Norway more acceptable.... Let me goggle bing it... Be right back..
  • After you're done "goggling," look at the facts (if you can): Trump never called all people of Mexican origin/descent "rapists and murderers"; he was referring to those illegal immigrants from Mexico who are actually rapists and murderers.
  • So he generalizes an ethnic group but says little to nothing about school shooters and other home grown terrorists other than they are sick, mental health... Gotcha...
  • You're not paying attention: Trump never "generalized an ethnic group"; he was referring specifically to illegal aliens from Mexico who commit violent crimes.
  • his statement was *at best* misleading. at worst, lying. When pushed for evidence that what he was saying was true, he said he talked to border patrol agents and they told him. This may well be true, but even someone so close to the issue at hand, may still be wrong. Statistics collected since the 80s though show that violent criminals don't really cross over into the US from Mexico (obviously some do, but just not in the numbers Trump implies... which gets to the whole "he's not technically wrong..."). In fact, a large majority are hard working individuals. The kind of people who immigrated at the beginning of the US and were touted as examples of what immigrants should be like.
  • "Misleading"? No. You choose to distort it. Let's send the "tiny minority" of violent trespassers to your home. I'm sure you and your family will embrace that.
  • Enforcing American immigration law is not "racism." How are you so credulous?
  • Honestly, while I have to agree with you, that he doesn't provide a lot of logical evidence for his argument, to be fair, neither do you. I'd have to define both of you as credulous.
  • Then you'd have to get a dictionary.
  • I think the change in policy causing family separation at the border happened after they took the contract? It's easy to think that MS can't be responsible for how their resources are used, but they already are. Anyways I wonder if they could legally drop the contract?
  • Fake news media trying to create hysteria with several lies. This doesn't fit the narrative pushed and the media should be ashamed. Trump Created Separation Of Children From Illegal Immigrant Parents. This is plainly false. In 1997, the federal government made an agreement in a case called Flores not to keep unaccompanied illegal immigrant children in custody beyond 20 days. The settlement said nothing about accompanied illegal immigrant children – children who crossed the border with their parents. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals then ruled that accompanied children also could not be held in custody under the terms of the settlement. This meant that the government either had to release whole families, or that the government had to separate parents from children. 2. Immigrants Seeking Asylum Are Being Punished For Seeking Asylum.This is plainly untrue as well. Immigrants who come to points of entry to seek asylum aren’t actually illegally in the country – they’re not arrested. They’re processed through ICE, and their children stay with them. If, however, illegal immigrants cross the border illegally, the Trump administration now treats them as criminals. If they choose deportation, they aren’t separated from their kids; if they choose to apply for asylum, they stay in the country longer than 20 days, and their kids have to be removed by operation of law.
    3. The Trump Facilities Are Awful Thanks To Trump. They may be awful, but they were just as awful under President Obama
  • Yup but low IQ Dan isn't interested in facts. He totally believes the left wing propaganda machine. How many kids are being separated from their adult child-sex traffickers? Yeah that's the most of them. Anyone at this point who believes the left wing propaganda needs to get their brain checked. Apparently Danny boy was dropped on his head as a child (he told my mum in a moment of passion so I believe it as fact). https://i.redd.it/aeytzy58px411.jpg
  • 1) Trump Created Separation of Children: This is plainly true. Previous administrations didn't prosecute criminally families with children simply for illegally crossing the border. They criminally prosecuted other crimes, which led to the pictures and the statements that children were separated from their parents under Obama. Obama's administration put them through immigration proceedings instead, which allowed them to stay together as they weren't being detained. However, Sessions put in a new policy that dictated to use child separation as a deterrent. This is absolutely new and was non-existent previously. Since there is 100% prosecutions, they're separating 100% of families. This has *never* been done before and definitely never close to this scale. Considering a brand new policy, put in place by the Trump administration, is fully responsible for this occurring (cause it wasn't occurring prior to April), it's pretty evident that it's Trump's fault. He didn't separate the first family, but he's doing it on a scale that's never been seen before. Asylum is a legal defense to being deported. Therefore, if you cross illegally, you can still be trying to claim asylum and it's an entirely legitimate way to do so. Asylum lawyers even state its probably better, especially under the current administration since they've restricted the definition of asylum to be a lot narrower than in decades (I can't say century, because there were some fairly racist policies in the early 1900s). 3) they're just as awful, but money was spent to paint Trump's face all over them. so... if you're gonna spend money on them, why waste it on something like that?
  • @pjhenry: "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.'" https://lawandcrime.com/immigration/obamas-immigration-agencies-separate...
  • You left out the best part of the article you quoted: "To be clear: the Obama administration’s use of ATEP was not intended to break-up families–that was an occasionally expected side effect–while Trump’s recently-confirmed policy is expressly directed toward that end in the name of “deterrence.”"
  • So, Obama didn't mean to? Brilliant. Citing someone who looked the other way from Hezbollah's drug running within our borders in order to get Iran's permission for him to give them billions of dollars and green-light their nuclear genocide program is not a winning argument for you.
  • @pjhenry...Thank You sir!
  • "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.'" https://lawandcrime.com/immigration/obamas-immigration-agencies-separate...
  • You keep leaving out the last paragraph of the article: "To be clear: the Obama administration’s use of ATEP was not intended to break-up families–that was an occasionally expected side effect–while Trump’s recently-confirmed policy is expressly directed toward that end in the name of “deterrence.”"
  • You keep trying to gloss over the fact that he expected to break up families and did it anyway. I'm not sure how citing someone who looked the other way from Hezbollah's drug running within our borders in order to get Iran's permission for him to give them billions of dollars and green-light their nuclear genocide program is a winning argument for you.
  • The comments should have been turned off for this article.
  • Exactly, it's amazing how much people are triggered by any idea that doesn't fit with their own personal narrative. Could have been an amazing discussion about MS ideals vs business paractices but oh well.
  • Yep, 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ or say nothing.
  • How sad that you don't realize the irony of your saying so.
  • The only items that threw the discussion off is people claiming that this shouldn't be here or people claiming Daniel is being too liberal, etc etc etc. People tried to talk about business ethics, but those conversations didn't get as many replies.
  • Daniel shouldn't have attacked his readers. (How senseless is that?)
  • Dude, is this your first time reading one of his articles? Or, more to the point, the first time reading comments where someone disagreed with him?
  • Dude, he attacked his readers in defense of enemies of the Republic. Neither moral nor wise.
  • Daniel's initial attacks -- and then Akira's dutiful trolling -- only made things worse.
  • And yet you still here posting on a site about a company whose stance on this topic is clear, opposite to yours... Makes total sense.
  • But that's Daniel. I feel like you just haven't seen his participation in his other articles where people have disagreed with him. Its not just politics. It's just Dan. And I like that about this site. I think it adds character.
  • Arguing over tech means nothing. Undermining the nation -- however well-intentioned he may be -- matters.
  • SHUT UP AND LEAVE POLITICS OUT OF THIS! I don't want to hear your political BS. I fully support Microsoft and their decision to support our government. I wish more companies like Microsoft would stand behind our government, unlike Google and Amazon now who refuse to use their technology to keep America safe. Jeez, I can't believe you idiots want to make your site some politically left leaning garbage site by raising these issues.
  • Nope...
  • You're right, tdog.
  • Honestly, I want to know how he's "right." Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have all spoken against what's going on. But they all sell their services to the government. So, how are they any different from each other? Personally, I agree that they should all sell their services still, but they all seem to be doing that. So, are you just agreeing with someone because they sort of sound like they hold the same beliefs as you? Do you just believe anything you read as long as the tone sounds right?
  • Do you post clumsy and nescient smears in defense of leftist positions merely to be contrarian, or do you just believe anything you read as long as the tone sounds right?
  • Whoa, what? None of what you said even sounds remotely true. Microsoft spoke out against the government (but still sells their services, an action I agree with), but Google & Amazon both also sell their services to the government. So, they're all kind of in the same boat. They've spoken against the government, but still sell to the government. So, what rant are you on?
  • "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. " Incorrect. If they were using inferior technological support, they would be more likely to lose tracking information, thus more likely to accidentally separate families long term. And I'm sure MS makes a ton of money supporting government infrastructure. You think they're going to risk all of their other lucrative government contracts, by pulling support for ICE? Unlikely. Not to mention, they're under contract, so they can't.
  • I don't think it would be against the law to violate a contract but it probably would be very costly. A company as calculating as MS knew exactly how it's services were being used when it stated it's position on family separation, so maybe they should pull the contract and take a stand.
  • Contracts are legally binding. They may not go to jail over it, but they would be held financially liable, depending on the terms of the agreement. And if they break the contract, the federal government would use it as justification to break their contracts for every other division, which would be a major financial blow to MS. And any other blowback the feds might try to leverage on them. Everything MS does in the US requires government approval. Good luck with that if you start violating contracts.
  • You're right about most of it, except they can't use that as justification to break other contracts. But it could possibly be used to not offer future contracts. The last bit is a gray area as to whether the US government would or could go that far, but is at least enough to be a concern.
  • So the point you're making is they'd be financially liable. Then they should take the hit and break the contract. What sense is it to against a policy in public while you profit from that policy? Also what exactly would ice do? Use Amazon or Google services, I don't think those companies would take the contract.
  • Setting that precedent is dangerous. Also, would you really rather ICE have confusion on their hands and have an even harder time tracking children simply because they don't have a solid system to rely on? I'd rather choose the lesser of two evils here. Moreover, they're not benefiting from the policy. They are simply providing a service to the entire organization. Plus, as stated, its not just the financial hit from that one contract. it could easily lead to losing an enormous portion of their revenue, which ultimately may cause them the inability to recover. And no one said Google or Amazon *wouldn't* do business with them, nor have those companies. That's just your belief.
  • I concur with the sentiment here. I don't think its in stark contrast. Imagine if suddenly (assuming it were legally possible) ICE suddenly lost all their technical infrastructure, how much worse that would be for everyone.
  • I ran out of popcorn twice reading these comments.
  • It would be nice if all United States of America corporations would work together to continue to make America great. If they have technology that would help the taxpayers and citizens, present it and we may purchase it. Thank you for your help! THANK YOU law enforcement, citizens, Microsoft and other corporations for helping keep United States of America safe. Keeping the "family" together is the "family's" choice, not ours. If they really wanted to stay together, they would not cross the border illegally. Simple. They are the ones crossing the border knowing full well that they will be separated from their "family". It is their choice. Their free will. Their decision. As far as forcing young girls to stay in the same jail cell as their sex trafficker (fake family), I am strongly against it. I am not sure why so many on the left are demanding that they stay together. It's just sick and twisted. A pervert, stranger, or coyote, brings over 6 kids and you are demanding that they be forced to live together? Sick. In United States of America, minors are not jailed or housed with adults. Never. It has nothing to do with family or whether someone might be lonely. It is 100% to keep the children safe.
  • Democrats support abortion, promote deviance to children, and obfuscate for Islam and its child sex slavery (Muhammad married his favorite "wife" 'Aisha when she was six and consummated the "marriage" when she was only a prepubescent nine). Democrat "concern" for children is directly proportional to the political benefit it provides. [Before you go apoplectic, Akira, take a breath: I'm not the one saying that about Muhammad, Islam is: "Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 and 65).]
  • Amillennialist, lets end it on this one... OK? ..
  • Do you have something against Muhammad?
  • ::sigh:: now we're attacking religions? I mean, i'm all for that, but lets be fair and attack all of them. Religion (Christian, Judaism, Islam, all of it) is quite likely the most dangerous concept on the planet.
  • So, you're also religiously illiterate. Telling the truth about Muhammad is not "attacking religion." Teachings such as the one noted above are gloried in by devout, traditional, orthodox Islam, and that's because Muhammad is called by Allah a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please it and "Al-Insan al-Kamil," the "Ideal Man," by the faithful. There's only one, major, extant "religion" on Earth mandating the rape, enslavement, and slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert. On the other hand, Christianity is the foundation of Western Civilization and our modern notions of Liberty, equality, and human rights. Please, tell the truth.
  • This is why you won't persuade people. Setting up strawman arguments doesn't actually do anything. No one is arguing for the things you are saying they are arguing for.
  • CIA strikes again. If CIA hadn't been destabilizing Latin America for the last 70 years, this may not be happening right now. No matter which color of Kool-Aid you order from your politicians, this is largely a problem of your own making.
  • I think we should just annex Mexico. That would solve a lot of problems.
  • Politics dont belong here. This "crisis" started way before the current administration and the timing of this news cycle is obviously artificially created for whatever purpose the liberal agenda needs it. I'm not even going to blame Dan as i guarantee he had no choice in the matter. Orders like this come straight from the top. Also, I'll like to add the USA is a sovereign nation with borders. A nation with no borders is not a nation at all. You cannot cross the border illegally and expect to be treated like a law abiding citizen. Many will make this about race. Those are unfortunately simply the racists among us. This is about sovereignty and every nation has the right to it. If a white person from Europe overstays their Visa and stays in the USA illegally, ICE will also be deporting them because it's the law.