5 ms·

> This ICE stuff is that scaled up to a multi-billion dollar federal agency with, apparently, no accountability for following the law at all. Apparently any ti

by tombert 9mo ago

> This ICE stuff is that scaled up to a multi-billion dollar federal agency with, apparently, no accountability for following the law at all. Apparently any time they do anything horrifying, they will just declare that victim as a "terrorist" or something, and their sycophantic supporters will happily agree. What I find amusing is that when the Snowden leaks happened and I would discuss it, when I said something like "let's pretend for a moment that we can't trust every single person in the government" I would usually get an agreeable laugh. But using these same arguments with ICE + Palantir, these same people will say something like "ICE IS ONLY DEPORTING THE CRIMINALS YOU JUST WANT OPEN BORDERS!!!". People's hypocrisy knows no bounds.

JuniperMesos 9mo ago
[flagged]
- tombert 9mo ago
  Without going into a long tangent talking about each point, I would like to point out that ICE doesn't actually seem terribly concerned with whether or not the people are illegal aliens or criminals. The last two people they murdered were US citizens, there are many US citizens, some natural born, that have been detained. If they have access to all this information that was volunteered, then why are they so utterly incompetent at actually deporting illegal aliens? That said, the disturbing part of Palantir and ICE isn't just that they are reading my driver's license or my legal status, it's the fact that they know everything. You are absolutely, unequivocally incorrect that anyone in any significant numbers wants "open borders". I know this is a meme, but it's a meme that isn't true.
  - abustamam 9mo ago
    To add onto that, Palantir is a private company. They have no business having that much of my data without my consent, with no way to opt out.
    - Loughla 9mo ago
      Yeah I don't give a shit about the illegal immigrant situation. I don't want that agency to have all of my information for no reason at all. There's is no world in which that is appropriate, regardless of your views on immigration.
- throw0101c 9mo ago
  > Every single one of the tens of millions of people who have illegally immigrated to the United States over the past few decades is a criminal who can be legally deported. There are an estimated 100K illegal immigrants in Minnesota,[1] and about 2M in Texas.[2] With 900K in Florida, 350K in Georgia, 325K in North Carolina, etc. [3] Why doesn't ICE concentrate on fishing where the fish are… but of course that would mean doing stuff in red states. [1] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/MN https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-... [2] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/TX https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-... [3] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-unauthorized-immigra...
  - Dig1t 9mo ago
    Great question, most Trump supporters are extremely unhappy he’s not doing the mass deportations he promised and instead just doing tiny stunts in Minnesota. Basically neither the right nor left are happy with this admin.
    - cmorgan31 9mo ago
      Considering the AG demanded the voter rolls for MN to remove ICE it becomes obvious what game is being played. It’s a shame the USA is a terrible place.
      - JuniperMesos 9mo ago
        If it was actually a terrible place the illegal immigrants would leave on their own volition and it wouldn't be necessary to have federal police find them and forcibly arrest and deport them.
        tombert 9mo ago
        I think that's a bit reductive. There are plenty of economic, political, or familial reasons for not leaving. Many people are trying to evade oppressive regimes where their prospects might literally mean death. The US can still be "terrible" while still not being quite as dangerous as that. I mean, this kind of reads victim-blamey; hyperbolic example, when a person stays with an abusive partner for much longer than they should, does that imply that that relationship isn't terrible?
- cyberax 9mo ago
  The "crime" is the same severity as driving drunk or bringing a gun into a restroom in a National Park. Are you saying it's OK for Federal officers swarm your house without a warrant, and then just shoot you for that?
  - wat10000 9mo ago
    It’s more on the level of a speeding ticket.
- KittenInABox 9mo ago
  > Every single one of the tens of millions of people who have illegally immigrated to the United States over the past few decades is a criminal who can be legally deported. I 100% agree with this sentiment and that is why I strongly support speeding the asylum application process through redirecting immigration enforcement funding to bolstering the courts. Our backlog should be 0 before we start knocking door to door and stopping people for the suspicious behavior of being brown at Home Depot.
  - abustamam 9mo ago
    Yeah, I agree. The emphasis on expanded field enforcement is backwards. If millions of people are "illegal" primarily because they are stuck in multi-year backlogs, then the failure is in the court and asylum system, not in a lack of raids. From a systems perspective, we're heavily funding the most expensive and disruptive part of the pipeline (identification and removal) while starving the part that actually resolves legal status (adjudication, asylum review, work authorization). Though maybe that's a feature of this administration, not a bug. If the goal is public safety, prioritizing people who commit violent crimes makes sense. If the goal is restoring legal order, then yeah, the obvious first step is to drive the backlog toward zero. I don't think that's the administration's goal though.
    - KittenInABox 9mo ago
      I agree the administration's goal is not to restore legal order or even public safety. Hate makes you stupid. Hating a people makes you really stupid. I don't think it really has a goal, not even Project 2025 or whatever. It's too stupid. It's like a teenager breaking its own xbox because its gf didn't text it fast enough. Nonsensical anger directed towards random innocents.
direwolf20 9mo ago
How do we know whether they're people or bots?
- tombert 9mo ago
  Well in my case I was referring to actual vocal conversations I've had with humans, either in person or on MS Teams. I suppose that there could be an extremely elaborate LLM to control humanoid robots to try and fool me, but I do not believe that's the case.
  - jacquesm 9mo ago
    Yet. But another year or two of progress on AI deepfakes and you will be talking to a bot and be none the wiser.
    - tombert 9mo ago
      Sure, but until then I'm reasonably certain that the people I have discussed this with were not bots.
      - jacquesm 9mo ago
        Well, they might as well be if you can't reason with them. There are some prime examples right here on HN who defy the imagination in terms of how far they will go to defend the indefensible, to come out swinging to make sure you realize that they will go to any length to stand for their 'principles'. And they probably believe the reverse is true as well, they see the rest of us as the ones that are terribly wrong, misguided and the subject of propaganda.
    - instagraham 9mo ago
      I find it odd that Americans aren't angrier about Russia running disinfo bot networks for over a decade now, building up to almost everything in the current cultural moment. Also odd that the tech behind this isn't more talked about. I lost the source but there was something about bot networks that could argue both sides of a topic to feign the illusion of a real debate - and this predated ChatGPT by many years. Big platforms like Google or X have only mildly experimented with heavenbanning and discourse manipulation at scale. These Russian networks have had at least a decades' worth of experience with it. Somehow, in reducing all political opponents to bots, the discourse does seem to forget that there's often someone behind the bots, a tangible nation-state of a target.
steve-atx-7600 9mo ago
Yes, exactly. But, I’ll admit it took me until the republican primary before the 2016 election for this to register in my mind. I was born in the US in the 80s & fell into the “what you see is all there is” bias (and hadn’t read enough history before then either). Another opinion that I’m sure will get me downvoted is that this is the primary reason I support gun ownership by private citizens. I think having a chance at stopping mass government slaughter like in Iran and Syria is overall better than the downside. Bottom line is that human nature has not changed. Some of us westerners take comfortable lives for granted because we’ve been lucky.
- jacquesm 9mo ago
  > I think having a chance at stopping mass government slaughter like in Iran and Syria is overall better than the downside. That won't stop the mass government slaughter, if anything it will accelerate it.
- trinsic2 9mo ago
  > Bottom line is that human nature has not changed. Some of us westerners take comfortable lives for granted because we’ve been lucky. Which I bet our luck has run out. This year and the next 5 or 10 years from now, its going to be really bad. I don't even trust local state governments at this point.. It all seems like a big ploy on the people to keep the grift going.
- tombert 9mo ago
  Apparently even if you legally own a gun they'll shoot you just for owning it anyway, so I'm not sure that will help.
- gf000 9mo ago
  > I think having a chance at stopping mass government slaughter This would be questionable 100 years ago, let alone today's technology. Civils just can't organize efficiently, and "heads" (like someone locally coordinating civils) can be cut off easily by a central force (like it's just a drone strike away). The only real power is that a sane military will not turn against their own people. You don't need weapons for that.

by tombert 9mo ago

JuniperMesos 9mo ago

[flagged]

tombert 9mo ago
Without going into a long tangent talking about each point, I would like to point out that ICE doesn't actually seem terribly concerned with whether or not the people are illegal aliens or criminals. The last two people they murdered were US citizens, there are many US citizens, some natural born, that have been detained. If they have access to all this information that was volunteered, then why are they so utterly incompetent at actually deporting illegal aliens? That said, the disturbing part of Palantir and ICE isn't just that they are reading my driver's license or my legal status, it's the fact that they know everything. You are absolutely, unequivocally incorrect that anyone in any significant numbers wants "open borders". I know this is a meme, but it's a meme that isn't true.
- abustamam 9mo ago
  To add onto that, Palantir is a private company. They have no business having that much of my data without my consent, with no way to opt out.
  - Loughla 9mo ago
    Yeah I don't give a shit about the illegal immigrant situation. I don't want that agency to have all of my information for no reason at all. There's is no world in which that is appropriate, regardless of your views on immigration.
throw0101c 9mo ago
> Every single one of the tens of millions of people who have illegally immigrated to the United States over the past few decades is a criminal who can be legally deported. There are an estimated 100K illegal immigrants in Minnesota,[1] and about 2M in Texas.[2] With 900K in Florida, 350K in Georgia, 325K in North Carolina, etc. [3] Why doesn't ICE concentrate on fishing where the fish are… but of course that would mean doing stuff in red states. [1] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/MN https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-... [2] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/TX https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-... [3] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-unauthorized-immigra...
- Dig1t 9mo ago
  Great question, most Trump supporters are extremely unhappy he’s not doing the mass deportations he promised and instead just doing tiny stunts in Minnesota. Basically neither the right nor left are happy with this admin.
  - cmorgan31 9mo ago
    Considering the AG demanded the voter rolls for MN to remove ICE it becomes obvious what game is being played. It’s a shame the USA is a terrible place.
    - JuniperMesos 9mo ago
      If it was actually a terrible place the illegal immigrants would leave on their own volition and it wouldn't be necessary to have federal police find them and forcibly arrest and deport them.
      - tombert 9mo ago
        I think that's a bit reductive. There are plenty of economic, political, or familial reasons for not leaving. Many people are trying to evade oppressive regimes where their prospects might literally mean death. The US can still be "terrible" while still not being quite as dangerous as that. I mean, this kind of reads victim-blamey; hyperbolic example, when a person stays with an abusive partner for much longer than they should, does that imply that that relationship isn't terrible?
cyberax 9mo ago
The "crime" is the same severity as driving drunk or bringing a gun into a restroom in a National Park. Are you saying it's OK for Federal officers swarm your house without a warrant, and then just shoot you for that?
- wat10000 9mo ago
  It’s more on the level of a speeding ticket.
KittenInABox 9mo ago
> Every single one of the tens of millions of people who have illegally immigrated to the United States over the past few decades is a criminal who can be legally deported. I 100% agree with this sentiment and that is why I strongly support speeding the asylum application process through redirecting immigration enforcement funding to bolstering the courts. Our backlog should be 0 before we start knocking door to door and stopping people for the suspicious behavior of being brown at Home Depot.
- abustamam 9mo ago
  Yeah, I agree. The emphasis on expanded field enforcement is backwards. If millions of people are "illegal" primarily because they are stuck in multi-year backlogs, then the failure is in the court and asylum system, not in a lack of raids. From a systems perspective, we're heavily funding the most expensive and disruptive part of the pipeline (identification and removal) while starving the part that actually resolves legal status (adjudication, asylum review, work authorization). Though maybe that's a feature of this administration, not a bug. If the goal is public safety, prioritizing people who commit violent crimes makes sense. If the goal is restoring legal order, then yeah, the obvious first step is to drive the backlog toward zero. I don't think that's the administration's goal though.
  - KittenInABox 9mo ago
    I agree the administration's goal is not to restore legal order or even public safety. Hate makes you stupid. Hating a people makes you really stupid. I don't think it really has a goal, not even Project 2025 or whatever. It's too stupid. It's like a teenager breaking its own xbox because its gf didn't text it fast enough. Nonsensical anger directed towards random innocents.

direwolf20 9mo ago

How do we know whether they're people or bots?

tombert 9mo ago
Well in my case I was referring to actual vocal conversations I've had with humans, either in person or on MS Teams. I suppose that there could be an extremely elaborate LLM to control humanoid robots to try and fool me, but I do not believe that's the case.
- jacquesm 9mo ago
  Yet. But another year or two of progress on AI deepfakes and you will be talking to a bot and be none the wiser.
  - tombert 9mo ago
    Sure, but until then I'm reasonably certain that the people I have discussed this with were not bots.
    - jacquesm 9mo ago
      Well, they might as well be if you can't reason with them. There are some prime examples right here on HN who defy the imagination in terms of how far they will go to defend the indefensible, to come out swinging to make sure you realize that they will go to any length to stand for their 'principles'. And they probably believe the reverse is true as well, they see the rest of us as the ones that are terribly wrong, misguided and the subject of propaganda.
  - instagraham 9mo ago
    I find it odd that Americans aren't angrier about Russia running disinfo bot networks for over a decade now, building up to almost everything in the current cultural moment. Also odd that the tech behind this isn't more talked about. I lost the source but there was something about bot networks that could argue both sides of a topic to feign the illusion of a real debate - and this predated ChatGPT by many years. Big platforms like Google or X have only mildly experimented with heavenbanning and discourse manipulation at scale. These Russian networks have had at least a decades' worth of experience with it. Somehow, in reducing all political opponents to bots, the discourse does seem to forget that there's often someone behind the bots, a tangible nation-state of a target.

steve-atx-7600 9mo ago

Yes, exactly. But, I’ll admit it took me until the republican primary before the 2016 election for this to register in my mind. I was born in the US in the 80s & fell into the “what you see is all there is” bias (and hadn’t read enough history before then either). Another opinion that I’m sure will get me downvoted is that this is the primary reason I support gun ownership by private citizens. I think having a chance at stopping mass government slaughter like in Iran and Syria is overall better than the downside. Bottom line is that human nature has not changed. Some of us westerners take comfortable lives for granted because we’ve been lucky.

jacquesm 9mo ago
> I think having a chance at stopping mass government slaughter like in Iran and Syria is overall better than the downside. That won't stop the mass government slaughter, if anything it will accelerate it.
trinsic2 9mo ago
> Bottom line is that human nature has not changed. Some of us westerners take comfortable lives for granted because we’ve been lucky. Which I bet our luck has run out. This year and the next 5 or 10 years from now, its going to be really bad. I don't even trust local state governments at this point.. It all seems like a big ploy on the people to keep the grift going.
tombert 9mo ago
Apparently even if you legally own a gun they'll shoot you just for owning it anyway, so I'm not sure that will help.
gf000 9mo ago
> I think having a chance at stopping mass government slaughter This would be questionable 100 years ago, let alone today's technology. Civils just can't organize efficiently, and "heads" (like someone locally coordinating civils) can be cut off easily by a central force (like it's just a drone strike away). The only real power is that a sane military will not turn against their own people. You don't need weapons for that.