It’s called voting with your wallet. People in America do this, and are told to do this, all the time.
What would you like them to do? Roll over on the co-CEO and throw him under the bus, signaling to everyone that there is a “correct” point of view to have that Mullvad as a company is going to push and promote?
Individuals should be allowed to think and do what they want as an individual, as long as it isn’t compromising the company. The fact that they have 2 CEOs with differing political views seems like a healthy thing.
Freedom of speech is a political view that shouldn’t be tied to any one party.
[flagged]
There is a more nuanced argument against deportation as a policy. First of all it causes migrants to destroy their documentation and to be less coöperative with the immigration process. Second, some migrant countries refuse repatriation, which is currently an unsolved problem. Finally there's something to be said for immigrants to be registered regardless of status, rather than incentivising them to avoid authorities.
Now some of these problems could be solved, but there's a legitimate argument that the policy causes more problems than it solves.
Refusing repatriation of your own people is a hostile act something a bit short of a declaration of war, in my opinion. Which is why I assume that origin countries are cooperating with deportations from the USA, but not from Europe. Because they know there can be hell to pay if they outrage the Americans.
> It's common-sense, not an OPINION to deport illegal immigrants
It's not though. More immigrants mean more people buying products, paying taxes on them, supporting local business, more people contributing to the economy in general. Another important factor is that most european populations are aging, meaning that the ratio of working people versus older people who stopped working, is reaching unsustainable levels. Without migrants, our economies will be seriously hampered.
Illegal immigrants often don't carry the same level of education as Swedes (which is unfair to Swedes), else they could just emigrate there legally, so why aren't they doing so?
I agree that immigration is important and even giving chances to people that are willing to completely assimilate, change culture and loyalty to the said country to eventually after XX years to become a citizen, but starting by saying f*ck your laws before even arriving is just blatant disrespect.
Illegal immigrants are not paying social contributions because the can't be hired legally, so they don't really contribute to the retirement issue, and very often, let's be real, they must resort to even more illegal schemes to get by because of restrictions having no-paper, it's hard to even get a SIM card, so even to get a phone, they'll need to commit a crime of some sort by stealing an ID.
I just don't understand how we can reach fairness which is extremely important with people that want to do the right thing and actually apply properly and assimilate.
Making it easier to immigrate legally (with documentation and vetting etc...) is a different thing then just turning a blind eye to people who ignore the law. It seems the debate is "enforce vs not enforce" instead of "find some solution to a necessary but overbearing legal structure"
All that can happen with _legal_ immigration, by people who respect the laws and processes of the country. If the first thing someone does as an immigrant is commit a crime, which is the case with every illegal immigrant, by definition, that's a bad start.
> It's common-sense, not an OPINION to deport illegal immigrants but apparently it's up for debate
I would assume that a company which prides itself on privacy and being immune to government overreach would not enable policies that encourage the dissolution of privacy and government overreach. But ultimately I know folks don't care about privacy as long as it targets people with certain colors of skin, ignoring that they get caught in the net as well. That's really what the arguments against in this thread boil down to.
[flagged]
Let me ask you a blunt question to understand your headspace: Am I committing a crime if I cross South Korea border and stay over there without any form of consent? And more that the technicality of the crime, is it morally fine to do so?
No, crossing a border is not in and of itself a crime.
Unfortunately that is factually incorrect.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=61640&type...
You can find similar laws for the majority of other first-world countries too.
Yeah I'm pretty sure hiding in a cargo while I cross border to Iran isn't shady at all, seems really a legit way to live life.