Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Does it need to be possible to enter the US if you are poor? Are you suggesting they have a right to enter the country? This raises red flags to me as I feel no one has a right to enter any country, the country has a right to allow in who they want and refuse who they don't. I don't see anyone complaining about Japan and their strict policies.
I don't think any non-citizen has a "right" to enter the country. But I do think that there needs to be a way to get workers who want to come to this country a way to do so legally that doesn't practically require winning a lottery. The jobs most of them are coming to do are jobs that most Americans don't want to do. Things like picking fruit, working in meat processing plants, etc. I'm open to different ideas, whether that's temporary work permits, very deep background checks, and whatever else, but I'd rather have people we need doing work that needs to be done on the up-and-up, paying taxes, and knowing for as close to a fact as possible that they are who they say they are and don't have criminal backgrounds.

Just as an example here (I live just outside of Washington, DC), I have a friend who manages a home-building company. He's super strict about checking everyone's documents, they use eVerify, etc., and he cannot get tradespeople to come into projects in the city anymore. They'll do projects in the suburbs, but not in the city. He told me his normal plumber is a third generation American of hispanic descent, owns his own company, and he won't drive into DC because it's apparently not worth it to risk getting detained. The Supreme Court ruled ICE can stop a car and ask for papers just because people look hispanic, and my friend knows multiple people here legally who are held for hours and hours, including some of his own employees, until they get someone to actually check their paperwork. In what world is that ok?

Another friend is doing a house renovation, and the same issue has already added three months onto the project timeline, which means they're carrying a mortgage and paying at least an extra three months of rent just because of delays because workers don't feel safe coming to do work. And there isn't like there's some huge backlog of construction workers and tradesmen to fill the gap. So what happens? Prices are going up and everyone's projects are getting pushed out.

I do agree that is a problem based on your story if it happened that way. I have seen countless videos of people though refusing to identify not just to ICE but local law enforcement for traffic stops that end up making things far worse for themselves but dragging out the process and refusing. Not saying that is what happened in your story, but there are thousands on YouTube in a similar situation that I would say the person being pulled over has created the problem for themselves. If indeed someone was pulled over and they respectfully asked for ID of the ICE agent and immediately after they smashed their window then yes I think that is escalating things far too quickly. In. the US from my understanding law enforcement has there right to ID people (might be in certain situations or if they have reason to suspect something is going on). In a country with estimated 14 million illegal residents I think that leads to a world where being asked to prove your right to be there is going to be more common and accepted.
In a previous life I worked very closely with Customs and Border Protection. Like "got to do ride-alongs as they patrolled the border" closely. So I understand the danger, and know that not all people coming into the country are good, honest workers. And Law Enforcement absolutely should be able to protect itself. But what's going right now isn't ICE going after harden criminals, they're mostly going after people like my friend's 60 year old uncle, construction workers, cleaning ladies, and the like. They're deporting people as they show up for their green card interview, canceling citizenship ceremonies just of where the people were born. That's not protecting anyone, it's just racism.
 
I don't think any non-citizen has a "right" to enter the country. But I do think that there needs to be a way to get workers who want to come to this country a way to do so legally that doesn't practically require winning a lottery. The jobs most of them are coming to do are jobs that most Americans don't want to do. Things like picking fruit, working in meat processing plants, etc. I'm open to different ideas, whether that's temporary work permits, very deep background checks, and whatever else, but I'd rather have people we need doing work that needs to be done on the up-and-up, paying taxes, and knowing for as close to a fact as possible that they are who they say they are and don't have criminal backgrounds.

Just as an example here (I live just outside of Washington, DC), I have a friend who manages a home-building company. He's super strict about checking everyone's documents, they use eVerify, etc., and he cannot get tradespeople to come into projects in the city anymore. They'll do projects in the suburbs, but not in the city. He told me his normal plumber is a third generation American of hispanic descent, owns his own company, and he won't drive into DC because it's apparently not worth it to risk getting detained. The Supreme Court ruled ICE can stop a car and ask for papers just because people look hispanic, and my friend knows multiple people here legally who are held for hours and hours, including some of his own employees, until they get someone to actually check their paperwork. In what world is that ok?

Another friend is doing a house renovation, and the same issue has already added three months onto the project timeline, which means they're carrying a mortgage and paying at least an extra three months of rent just because of delays because workers don't feel safe coming to do work. And there isn't like there's some huge backlog of construction workers and tradesmen to fill the gap. So what happens? Prices are going up and everyone's projects are getting pushed out.


In a previous life I worked very closely with Customs and Border Protection. Like "got to do ride-alongs as they patrolled the border" closely. So I understand the danger, and know that not all people coming into the country are good, honest workers. And Law Enforcement absolutely should be able to protect itself. But what's going right now isn't ICE going after harden criminals, they're mostly going after people like my friend's 60 year old uncle, construction workers, cleaning ladies, and the like. They're deporting people as they show up for their green card interview, canceling citizenship ceremonies just of where the people were born. That's not protecting anyone, it's just racism.
It does sound like you think they have rights to enter in some ways. A right to make it easier for people to get in. Personally I think a country sets the standard in how it works to enter their country. It is not the US's problem if it is difficult for some people. You do not owe anyone anything to make it simpler in my opinion. Not sure how practical this would be with the US and the size but in England they had the option of setting up asylum offices in France. This would have slowed down the people coming into the country till they were accepted. Now you have a ton of people going into England and then waiting and if denying they are just lose avoiding being deported causing problems. Could the US have asylum offices in Mexico for people to apply and wait till they are accepted. On the surface seems simple to me.

As much as I don't like the idea of searching based on appearances, if you are having a real issue with a group of people of a certain ethnic group I don't really have an issue with stopping and checking. Around 14 million undocumented "illegal" people are living in the US, which is about half of the country of Australia and the population of many countries around the world. That is significant to a countries culture. If workers are being detained it seems simple enough to ensure they have their papers on them, for the employers sake and theirs. The unfortunate reality I think till borders and immigration are tightened up.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: ProbablyDylan
Ironically, if ICEBlock was removed, as you claim, because "it hindered law enforcement in the performance of their jobs," then it's certainly an example of censorship.
It’s an example of potential national security issues.
Since Apple doesn't have any guidelines prohibiting that and publishes apps that engage in similar behavior - including Apple Maps.
There are no guidelines for interfering in the operation of law enforcement? And either way sometimes you have to do what you have to do, even if you open yourself (or your company) to criticism.

In this case it appears Apple did the right thing even though (it allegedly appears) the left is calling censorship.
 
Last edited:
It’s an example of potential national security issues.
Neither the government nor Apple claimed it was removed for national security reasons.

There are no guidelines for interfering in the operation of law enforcement? And either way sometimes you have to do what you have to do, even if you open yourself (or your company) to criticism.
No. They quoted a specific guideline. Feel free to read their explanation in the OP.

In this case it appears Apple did the right thing even though (it allegedly appears)
What's right about prohibiting the reporting of law enforcement activity in public? News crews do it all the time.

the left is calling censorship.
When the government demands the removal of legal speech, what would you call it?
 
you haven't followed King Donald very closely, have you?
What leads you to believe this hasn’t happened with other administrations? Does you belief also extend to other policies, such as those about safety, theft, discrimination, etc.?
 
Neither the government nor Apple claimed it was removed for national security reasons.
The app was requested to be removed but you and I don’t know the underlying reason and if that was communicated to Apple.
No. They quoted a specific guideline. Feel free to read their explanation in the OP.
Okay so there is a guideline. 👍
What's right about prohibiting the reporting of law enforcement activity in public? News crews do it all the time.
News crews don’t do it all the time for every situation 100% of the time. The above is a straw man.
When the government demands the removal of legal speech, what would you call it?
It depends on the reason doesn’t it?
 
Weird. So in reality, the left does support deportations of illegal immigrant as long as they’re not done in a cruel and indiscriminate way. Somebody better let the right know so they can apologize for mischaracterizing the left’s position.

There’s no such thing as a “left” or “right” in the US. It appears nowhere in US news or US political history until European activists started to infest the US political sphere. The Founders and the Enlightenment philosophers were neither left or right.

Those are European terms that the Europeans use to beat each other on the head like idiots. The US and the rest of the world should stop using these idiotic European divisive terms ‘left’ and ‘right’.

Liberals can come in many stripes and colours. A progressive can mean many things. These terms should also not be co-opted and abused by so called leftists and rightists.

If you want to be part of this cultural warfare it is sufficient enough to call each other by your party support only.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: whatnot
The app was requested to be removed but you and I don’t know the underlying reason and if that was communicated to Apple.
Again, we know what Apple's justification was. It wasn't what you claimed.

Okay so there is a guideline. 👍
Yep. Just has nothing to do with what you claimed.

News crews don’t do it all the time for every situation 100% of the time. The above is a straw man.
So? Does doing it more often make it illegal?

It depends on the reason doesn’t it?
Sure, but the stated reason is not backed up by any evidence, and could apply to many other apps that are currently on the App Store. I certainly don't give this administration the benefit of the doubt based on their track record of using leverage to get what they want.

Also, the administration made the case for harm publicly for three months without Apple removing the app. And then the same day that the DOJ contacted Apple privately to demand the removal, they did. As documented in the lawsuit, there is also evidence of viewpoint discrimination as the DOJ publicly referred to pro ICEBlock coverage as illegal while praising anti-ICEBlock coverage.
 
Again, we know what Apple's justification was. It wasn't what you claimed.
We know what they said and not the underlying reason.
Yep. Just has nothing to do with what you claimed.
Nobody knows that for a fact.
So? Does doing it more often make it illegal?
Based on circumstances the government and law enforcement has the legal right to control a scene.
Sure, but the stated reason is not backed up by any evidence, and could apply to many other apps that are currently on the App Store. I certainly don't give this administration the benefit of the doubt based on their track record of using leverage to get what they want.
There really is no knowledge of the justifications. Apple might have to keep mum on certain aspects.
Also, the administration made the case for harm publicly for three months without Apple removing the app. And then the same day that the DOJ contacted Apple privately to demand the removal, they did. As documented in the lawsuit, there is also evidence of viewpoint discrimination as the DOJ publicly referred to pro ICEBlock coverage as illegal while praising anti-ICEBlock coverage.
Justice and sometimes law enforcement is slow moving. I’m glad Apple has the courage to do what it thinks is best. You can bet this will be a fierce fight and we don’t know how this will turn out. The sharks are circling Apple waiting to eat the remains. Sometimes though it just doesn’t happen like that.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: turbineseaplane
We know what they said and not the underlying reason.

Nobody knows that for a fact.

Based on circumstances the government and law enforcement has the legal right to control a scene.

There really is no knowledge of the justifications. Apple might have to keep mum on certain aspects.

Justice and sometimes law enforcement is slow moving. I’m glad Apple has the courage to do what it thinks is best. You can bet this will be a fierce fight and we don’t know how this will turn out. The sharks are circling Apple waiting to eat the remains. Sometimes though it just doesn’t happen like that.
You're just making up stuff at this point, so I'm done. Thanks.
 
Law enforcement shouldn’t worry they have a target on their backs.

so presumably police officers 'have a target on their backs' simply by being identifiable as such? if even plain clothes goons feel threatened by filming, the pressure must be unbearable.

Having an opinion of something that can’t be proved is not the same as making stuff up

er, given that 'something that can't be proved' might as well be made up, the opinion 'of' it is likewise out there.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.