6 ms·

I don't see how what has been described here as "the system works as intended". A free state should not be able to sniff after people for made up reasons.

Curiositiy 8mo ago
[flagged]
- bobmcnamara 8mo ago
  [flagged]
philipallstar 8mo ago
In the sense that all reasons are made up, I suppose that might be true. But while deporting illegal immigrants for no other reason is totally fine, deporting the ones that also have a criminal conviction is definitely not made up reasons.
- fakedang 8mo ago
  Yeah, and your point? ICE has already descended into detaining anyone, literally anyone, because they have quotas to meet. They seized a white Irishman last October who had a valid work permit and was just about to head to his green card interview. This is Gestapo all over again.
  - philipallstar 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - BugsJustFindMe 8mo ago
      > We lock up innocent people all the time, as the court system is imperfect. That doesn't make something the Gestapo. Correct. The methods, the scale, and the targets do. Refusing to ever show any identification or proof of orders at all when that definitionally makes them a secret police does. Repeatedly violating federal court orders does (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46965333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46965333). Repeatedly violating habeas corpus rights does. Assaulting people in the streets merely for witnessing does. Let us not forget that a woman was violently shoved backward to the ground while she was backing up in the lead-up to the killing of Alex Pretti, and the government's immediate response was repeated shameless lies and hiding or destroying evidence, just like they did with the killing of Renee Nicole Good, just like they did with the killing of Geraldo Lunas Campos, just like they did with Alberto Castañeda Mondragón, ... The list doesn't end. It's very weird of you to just ignore all of that.
  - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - michaelteter 8mo ago
      Probably referring to this: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/seamus-culleton-ice-ireland-trump-kilkenny-b2917222.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/seamus-cul...
      - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        This guy had an order of removal, so he seems to be a valid person to detain and deport, no? Edit: the more I read about it, the more I am convinced he is not a "literally everyone" case. He was in the US for 20 years, and had no green card. He has work authorization, which means he probably got it as part of the i485 application to get a green card due to his marriage. Other publications report that he came to the US on a tourist waiver visa program, and overstayed. So, what was his status all these years? No wonder the trust in media is all time low -- this article did a sloppy job to paint a specific picture, and this picture has a bunch of holes in it.
    - baconbrand 8mo ago
      https://youtu.be/e4X0hI40a8A https://youtu.be/e4X0hI40a8A Just a handful of examples from last year. As a resident of Minneapolis I can assure you it is much, much worse than these few examples. Are you not familiar with Liam Conejo Ramos? Or Kilmar Abrego Garcia? Just two other high profile cases, but this is far more prevalent than any reporting has outlined. Three of Liam’s classmates were also “mistakenly” shipped to Texas and returned. At least one of his classmates, a documented asylum seeker like the rest, is still in Dilley.
      - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
        I am not familiar with the first one, but the second one is not a clear cut and not “everyone”. Regardless, there is a huge gap between “literally everyone” and individuals who are not a slum dunk citizens, but have questionable status. Regardless, I think this kind of sensationalism desensitizes the public to the point when no one cares.
  - JuniperMesos 8mo ago
    That guy had been overstaying a tourist visa for something like 17 years, and only started the green card process in April 2025. I don't think people who have overstayed tourist visas for 17 years should be eligible for any kind of permanent residency in the US, and would support laws making it impossible for someone in his position to get a green card or a work permit. The fact that he is a white Irishman is legally irrelevant and enforcing immigration law in a race-neutral way is pretty un-Gestapo-like behavior.
    - deepsun 8mo ago
      Only because we made the "overstaying" an illegal offense. But there's no reason to -- if the guy was paying taxes the whole time, and never committed a serious crime, then we should be happy to welcome such guys, ramping up our GDP. Don't forget that the paperwork costs a lot, if one has children, can get close to $10k. Look at Spain -- instead of deporting "illegals", they just made them "legals" (those without a criminal record). Easy, problem solved.
      - direwolf20 8mo ago
        [flagged]
      - tick_tock_tick 8mo ago
        If he was paying taxes during that time period he was also committing a felony.
        bryanrasmussen 8mo ago
        I like this theory of paying taxes is a felony, tell me more!! Levity aside, working on a tourist visa is a violation but generally isn't prosecuted as a felony. Also the grandparent post said "They seized a white Irishman last October who had a valid work permit and was just about to head to his green card interview." If he had a valid work permit I suppose this means that he was allowed to work and pay taxes on that work, in other words - no, he was not committing a felony.
reddozen 8mo ago
You can't write rules against bad actors. There will always be some legal loophole a bad president can invent to exploit. if not for administrative warrants we would see some other creative (read: illegal) use of executive power. The only option is to not elect someone that doesn't respect rule of law. And since I know some enlightened "centrist" will play the both sides game: What's 1 thing any previous president has done equivalent to violating posse comitatus.
- Nasrudith 8mo ago
  I strongly disagree. You should always write rules under the assumption it will get in the hands of the worst people. If there is a 'become god-emperor' lever in your supposedly democratic government system then it is a shitty system.
  - XorNot 8mo ago
    Maybe so but what here really would've prevented this? The information involved is necessarily public: bank details and credit card numbers need to be shared otherwise why have them? Writing a rule that says the government can't do this is just the government writing a rule it can simply remove it ignore when inconvenient.
    - mulmen 8mo ago
      The banking information belongs to the account holder and the bank. Google knows it by coincidence but should not share it because it isn’t theirs. If the government wants to know my banking details they can ask my bank. If they can’t figure out who my bank is they should get better at investigating. This approach is just exploiting Google’s wide reach.
  - Dylan16807 8mo ago
    No careful rulecrafting can survive the worst people being in charge.
    - 8mo ago
wombat-man 8mo ago
The archive link isn't working for me atm. But tech companies should be complying with subpoenas from governments in countries they would like to operate in. I don't like what is happening in the US either, but to me this feels like a problem with the electorate. Maybe it's possible for Google to provide some of these services without actually having access to the data under subpoena, but I don't know enough about what services they were using or how they work.
MetaWhirledPeas 8mo ago
Re-read the first few sentences of his post. > if there is a valid warrant or subpoena
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- antonvs 8mo ago
  It still shouldn't be secret. An ordinary valid warrant or subpoena wouldn't allow them to secretly search your house.
lenerdenator 8mo ago
Ultimately, whether or not people are able to do anything involves consequences for their actions. There's the "three" boxes of liberty that are meant to give a framework for how humans in a society are to introduce consequences to state actors who abuse rights: the soap box, the ballot box, and the jury box. So we need to start using at least those three to prevent human rights abuses with regard to search warrants.
- kernal 8mo ago
  What about the consequences for the people that let in millions of illegal aliens with criminal records that harmed and killed Americans? Should those politicians be charged as accessories?
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    Can you list off the names and crimes of these millions of illegal aliens with criminal records so I can verify they exist?
  - rc5150 8mo ago
    are the millions of illegal aliens with criminal records in the room with us now? Can you show us on the doll where the millions of illegal aliens with criminal records touched you?
    - antonvs 8mo ago
      But Fox News said...
  - bryanrasmussen 8mo ago
    if only they had killed the Americans without harming them, but I think it was a step too far to harm the Americans and Kill them! That's rude. How many Americans did each of these millions of Illegal Aliens Harm and Kill, I'm guessing at least two due to the plural usage and there are millions of the Illegal Aliens therefore there are at least two million. This means that the Illegal Aliens have evidently harmed and killed at least 4 million Americans. I'm not gonna sugar-coat it here, that is a lot of harming and killing alright.
ModernMech 8mo ago
> A free state should not be able to sniff after people for made up reasons. Right, exactly -- a free state should not do that, yet the system is working as intended, therefore we do not live in a free state. It's time to accept that.
- mulmen 8mo ago
  Why would we accept that instead of changing it?
  - BLKNSLVR 8mo ago
    My interpretation of ModernMech's comment is that acceptance is a pre-requisite of changing it. ie. if you didn't accept it, then you wouldn't feel the need to change it.
    - mulmen 8mo ago
      I agree that is the most favorable interpretation.
      - ModernMech 8mo ago
        That's how I meant it but now actually I don't agree with the usage of "accept", because acceptance implies consent. So I would change the word to "acknowledge".
direwolf20 8mo ago
All systems work as intended — usually phrased as "the purpose of a system is what it does" If this wasn't the intention they would have changed it by now.
moate 8mo ago
No, this is absolutely the system working as intended: The State exists to protect large monied interests and their power, and those entities in exchange will sell out individuals to the State that seek to undermine their power. The State will never not do this. Like, I realize I'm the rambling anarchist up in here, but show me ANY government ever that didn't Murder and Pillage, two things that we all hate when perpetrated by individuals. There's no amount of democracy that can be injected into a hierarchy responsible for controlling hundreds of millions of people that will inhibit authoritarianism, the best people can hope for (and what many white/middle class citizens thought they had for the last few decades) is not being the target of that authoritarianism. Cat's out of the bag now and we're doing that thing we do every few decades where we weaponize the State against the citizens.
- SanjayMehta 8mo ago
  > The State exists to protect large monied interests and their power, and those entities in exchange will sell out individuals to the State that seek to undermine their power. The State will never not do this. Reminds me of a certain ideology, can't quite put my finger on it. I think it starts with F
  - tracker1 8mo ago
    I find it funny how many people think that Capitalism and Fascism are compatible or the same... completely disregarding the fact that Fascism is a form of Socialism borne out of the limitations of Communism.
    - SanjayMehta 8mo ago
      From just the economic point of view, fascism is the state controlling and collaborating with large corporations.
      - tracker1 8mo ago
        There's a little more to it than that... but what most people ascribe as "fascism" conflates with authoritarianism, which includes the political and economic structures the people talking or using the "F" word generally do support. There's no communism that doesn't lead to authoritarianism, for example. Which leaves the distinction about economics.
arcanemachiner 8mo ago
I'm having trouble imagining a way to describe a post-Patriot Act USA as a free state.

Curiositiy 8mo ago

[flagged]

bobmcnamara 8mo ago
[flagged]

philipallstar 8mo ago

In the sense that all reasons are made up, I suppose that might be true. But while deporting illegal immigrants for no other reason is totally fine, deporting the ones that also have a criminal conviction is definitely not made up reasons.

fakedang 8mo ago
Yeah, and your point? ICE has already descended into detaining anyone, literally anyone, because they have quotas to meet. They seized a white Irishman last October who had a valid work permit and was just about to head to his green card interview. This is Gestapo all over again.
- philipallstar 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - BugsJustFindMe 8mo ago
    > We lock up innocent people all the time, as the court system is imperfect. That doesn't make something the Gestapo. Correct. The methods, the scale, and the targets do. Refusing to ever show any identification or proof of orders at all when that definitionally makes them a secret police does. Repeatedly violating federal court orders does (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46965333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46965333). Repeatedly violating habeas corpus rights does. Assaulting people in the streets merely for witnessing does. Let us not forget that a woman was violently shoved backward to the ground while she was backing up in the lead-up to the killing of Alex Pretti, and the government's immediate response was repeated shameless lies and hiding or destroying evidence, just like they did with the killing of Renee Nicole Good, just like they did with the killing of Geraldo Lunas Campos, just like they did with Alberto Castañeda Mondragón, ... The list doesn't end. It's very weird of you to just ignore all of that.
- reliabilityguy 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - michaelteter 8mo ago
    Probably referring to this: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/seamus-culleton-ice-ireland-trump-kilkenny-b2917222.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/seamus-cul...
    - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
      This guy had an order of removal, so he seems to be a valid person to detain and deport, no? Edit: the more I read about it, the more I am convinced he is not a "literally everyone" case. He was in the US for 20 years, and had no green card. He has work authorization, which means he probably got it as part of the i485 application to get a green card due to his marriage. Other publications report that he came to the US on a tourist waiver visa program, and overstayed. So, what was his status all these years? No wonder the trust in media is all time low -- this article did a sloppy job to paint a specific picture, and this picture has a bunch of holes in it.
  - baconbrand 8mo ago
    https://youtu.be/e4X0hI40a8A https://youtu.be/e4X0hI40a8A Just a handful of examples from last year. As a resident of Minneapolis I can assure you it is much, much worse than these few examples. Are you not familiar with Liam Conejo Ramos? Or Kilmar Abrego Garcia? Just two other high profile cases, but this is far more prevalent than any reporting has outlined. Three of Liam’s classmates were also “mistakenly” shipped to Texas and returned. At least one of his classmates, a documented asylum seeker like the rest, is still in Dilley.
    - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
      I am not familiar with the first one, but the second one is not a clear cut and not “everyone”. Regardless, there is a huge gap between “literally everyone” and individuals who are not a slum dunk citizens, but have questionable status. Regardless, I think this kind of sensationalism desensitizes the public to the point when no one cares.
- JuniperMesos 8mo ago
  That guy had been overstaying a tourist visa for something like 17 years, and only started the green card process in April 2025. I don't think people who have overstayed tourist visas for 17 years should be eligible for any kind of permanent residency in the US, and would support laws making it impossible for someone in his position to get a green card or a work permit. The fact that he is a white Irishman is legally irrelevant and enforcing immigration law in a race-neutral way is pretty un-Gestapo-like behavior.
  - deepsun 8mo ago
    Only because we made the "overstaying" an illegal offense. But there's no reason to -- if the guy was paying taxes the whole time, and never committed a serious crime, then we should be happy to welcome such guys, ramping up our GDP. Don't forget that the paperwork costs a lot, if one has children, can get close to $10k. Look at Spain -- instead of deporting "illegals", they just made them "legals" (those without a criminal record). Easy, problem solved.
    - direwolf20 8mo ago
      [flagged]
    - tick_tock_tick 8mo ago
      If he was paying taxes during that time period he was also committing a felony.
      - bryanrasmussen 8mo ago
        I like this theory of paying taxes is a felony, tell me more!! Levity aside, working on a tourist visa is a violation but generally isn't prosecuted as a felony. Also the grandparent post said "They seized a white Irishman last October who had a valid work permit and was just about to head to his green card interview." If he had a valid work permit I suppose this means that he was allowed to work and pay taxes on that work, in other words - no, he was not committing a felony.

reddozen 8mo ago

You can't write rules against bad actors. There will always be some legal loophole a bad president can invent to exploit. if not for administrative warrants we would see some other creative (read: illegal) use of executive power. The only option is to not elect someone that doesn't respect rule of law. And since I know some enlightened "centrist" will play the both sides game: What's 1 thing any previous president has done equivalent to violating posse comitatus.

Nasrudith 8mo ago
I strongly disagree. You should always write rules under the assumption it will get in the hands of the worst people. If there is a 'become god-emperor' lever in your supposedly democratic government system then it is a shitty system.
- XorNot 8mo ago
  Maybe so but what here really would've prevented this? The information involved is necessarily public: bank details and credit card numbers need to be shared otherwise why have them? Writing a rule that says the government can't do this is just the government writing a rule it can simply remove it ignore when inconvenient.
  - mulmen 8mo ago
    The banking information belongs to the account holder and the bank. Google knows it by coincidence but should not share it because it isn’t theirs. If the government wants to know my banking details they can ask my bank. If they can’t figure out who my bank is they should get better at investigating. This approach is just exploiting Google’s wide reach.
- Dylan16807 8mo ago
  No careful rulecrafting can survive the worst people being in charge.
  - 8mo ago

wombat-man 8mo ago

The archive link isn't working for me atm. But tech companies should be complying with subpoenas from governments in countries they would like to operate in. I don't like what is happening in the US either, but to me this feels like a problem with the electorate. Maybe it's possible for Google to provide some of these services without actually having access to the data under subpoena, but I don't know enough about what services they were using or how they work.

MetaWhirledPeas 8mo ago

Re-read the first few sentences of his post. > if there is a valid warrant or subpoena

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
antonvs 8mo ago
It still shouldn't be secret. An ordinary valid warrant or subpoena wouldn't allow them to secretly search your house.

lenerdenator 8mo ago

Ultimately, whether or not people are able to do anything involves consequences for their actions. There's the "three" boxes of liberty that are meant to give a framework for how humans in a society are to introduce consequences to state actors who abuse rights: the soap box, the ballot box, and the jury box. So we need to start using at least those three to prevent human rights abuses with regard to search warrants.

kernal 8mo ago
What about the consequences for the people that let in millions of illegal aliens with criminal records that harmed and killed Americans? Should those politicians be charged as accessories?
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  Can you list off the names and crimes of these millions of illegal aliens with criminal records so I can verify they exist?
- rc5150 8mo ago
  are the millions of illegal aliens with criminal records in the room with us now? Can you show us on the doll where the millions of illegal aliens with criminal records touched you?
  - antonvs 8mo ago
    But Fox News said...
- bryanrasmussen 8mo ago
  if only they had killed the Americans without harming them, but I think it was a step too far to harm the Americans and Kill them! That's rude. How many Americans did each of these millions of Illegal Aliens Harm and Kill, I'm guessing at least two due to the plural usage and there are millions of the Illegal Aliens therefore there are at least two million. This means that the Illegal Aliens have evidently harmed and killed at least 4 million Americans. I'm not gonna sugar-coat it here, that is a lot of harming and killing alright.

ModernMech 8mo ago

> A free state should not be able to sniff after people for made up reasons. Right, exactly -- a free state should not do that, yet the system is working as intended, therefore we do not live in a free state. It's time to accept that.

mulmen 8mo ago
Why would we accept that instead of changing it?
- BLKNSLVR 8mo ago
  My interpretation of ModernMech's comment is that acceptance is a pre-requisite of changing it. ie. if you didn't accept it, then you wouldn't feel the need to change it.
  - mulmen 8mo ago
    I agree that is the most favorable interpretation.
    - ModernMech 8mo ago
      That's how I meant it but now actually I don't agree with the usage of "accept", because acceptance implies consent. So I would change the word to "acknowledge".

direwolf20 8mo ago

All systems work as intended — usually phrased as "the purpose of a system is what it does" If this wasn't the intention they would have changed it by now.

moate 8mo ago

No, this is absolutely the system working as intended: The State exists to protect large monied interests and their power, and those entities in exchange will sell out individuals to the State that seek to undermine their power. The State will never not do this. Like, I realize I'm the rambling anarchist up in here, but show me ANY government ever that didn't Murder and Pillage, two things that we all hate when perpetrated by individuals. There's no amount of democracy that can be injected into a hierarchy responsible for controlling hundreds of millions of people that will inhibit authoritarianism, the best people can hope for (and what many white/middle class citizens thought they had for the last few decades) is not being the target of that authoritarianism. Cat's out of the bag now and we're doing that thing we do every few decades where we weaponize the State against the citizens.

SanjayMehta 8mo ago
> The State exists to protect large monied interests and their power, and those entities in exchange will sell out individuals to the State that seek to undermine their power. The State will never not do this. Reminds me of a certain ideology, can't quite put my finger on it. I think it starts with F
- tracker1 8mo ago
  I find it funny how many people think that Capitalism and Fascism are compatible or the same... completely disregarding the fact that Fascism is a form of Socialism borne out of the limitations of Communism.
  - SanjayMehta 8mo ago
    From just the economic point of view, fascism is the state controlling and collaborating with large corporations.
    - tracker1 8mo ago
      There's a little more to it than that... but what most people ascribe as "fascism" conflates with authoritarianism, which includes the political and economic structures the people talking or using the "F" word generally do support. There's no communism that doesn't lead to authoritarianism, for example. Which leaves the distinction about economics.

arcanemachiner 8mo ago

I'm having trouble imagining a way to describe a post-Patriot Act USA as a free state.