They're not being held back by anti-progress haters, they're just straight-up ignoring the environmental agreement they voluntarily signed.
When companies have complete disregard for public welfare and dump the cost onto everyone else, that damage needs to be part of their value equation.
FTA -
>That agreement, signed by a Boring executive in 2022, was intended to compel the company to comply with state water pollution laws. Instead, state inspectors documented nearly 100 alleged new violations of the agreement.
Americans don’t want economic growth, or don’t want foreigners in the country?
I feel like we should be honest - Americans are perfectly comfortable picking and choosing when laws get enforced. We do it all the time. We don’t treat every law as sacred. Enforcement is selective in a million other areas, from antitrust to wage theft to pollution. Nobody insists those must be pursued to the letter every single time.
So why single out immigration as the one area where “the law is the law” trumps any rational or humane appeal? It starts to look less like a principled stand on legal consistency and more like a cultural preference. One that just happens to line up with race and class anxieties rather than some universal devotion to the rule of law.
Norms and goalposts aside, what’s the value in adopting a formal policy of harassment against non-criminal, non-violent workers?
Congress can debate immigration laws on the books, but this cultural shift seems to be something else entirely. Instead of measured enforcement, it appears to be the normalization of cruelty. We're punishing people who are part of the workforce contributing to our country's economic output.
Seems like the real question is, what do we get out of this? Because it doesn't appear to be aligned with security or prosperity. It's just needless suffering, bureaucracy, and wasted resources.
In some cases, but a product must fulfill its core purpose. If a SSD intentionally dumped data and self destructed at a set time, that would be disastrous for the brand. Same way a car doesn't adopt planned obsolescence by blowing up after 200k miles.
Doesn't your linked article counter that argument? Both the head of Samsung and a former president of SK received prison time for bribery. That seems big. I'm not knowledgeable about the full scope of the corruption, but based on that article it sounds like "effective measures" are entirely possible.