> 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.
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.
I think in part this is because it would require them to admit that they've been had, which is even worse than to have to admit you're a terrible person. Being terrible is one thing, most people can handle that. Being so utterly dumb that you've been carrying water against your own country and effectively are in every sense of the word a useful idiot is a thing most people would shy away from.
Psychology is weird. As soon as something becomes a part of your identity you start living as though it is really you that is attacked, rather than the thing you stand for, no matter what it is, no matter whether it is positive or negative. The response is invariable to dig in.
Religion, atheism, vegetarianism, fascism, libertarian, democrat or republican, fan of Arsenal or rather the opposite and so on. They all tap into some kind of deep tribal sense of belonging and people will go to extreme lengths to defend their tribe at the expense of themselves. There probably is a direct evolutionary link here as well.
In some sense, it is a part of one's identity, for one can't easily separate the worldview from the person. But we enter a strange era when your identity is challenged and remoulded by a non-human entity.
People have always derived a tribal sense of belonging from a set of worldviews, but these views are now perpetuated by robots. These anti-immigration or anti-brown or post-renaissance worldviews are lived by very few people of flesh and blood - it's a set of interlinked concepts and ideals in an imaginary post-truth world.
But it lives more in silicon than in some Aryan ideal. And if you had to draw a line from this silicon to reality, you'd still end up in Crimea or in Pokrovsk, watching a 21st-century battle with echoes of WWI. It is about land and power and politics, like it always has been. But the person fighting "woke" in a comment section over a made-up story about a made-up Disney film doesn't know it.
I'm in India, so the second-order effects of all this are even more surreal here. You get Christians cheering the rise of a Hindutva nationalist government because it's "anti-woke" (only to get heckled and beaten up during Christmas) and Trump supporters doing religious ceremonies for the man for the same reason (only to get the nation's entire suite of exports tariffed), and you see cabs with giant Russia Today ads on their sides in the streets (but the discounted oil we buy from Russia has not dropped prices at the pump by even a rupee). Our lived reality has very little in common with these digital culture wars.
I don't think it is a tangent at all, it just underlines the principle in even more stark ways than the other ones do: tribalism is a very powerful button to press and we're in an era now where you can be a 'tribe of one' with your mentality manipulated by extremely personalized targeting to steer you in a particular direction, no matter where you were born or what your original affiliations are.
It will take extreme mental fortitude and some degree of self isolation not to be pulled in. When I was 15 the peer pressure to start smoking, drinking and using drugs was absolutely off the charts. I stopped going to parties, basically. Until I was 13 or 14 or so it was ok and then from one moment to the next it stopped being fun. People don't like being confronted with their own idiocy and just having one reminder in a roomful of people that you're doing something stupid is apparently enough to become really aggressive against that person. Better if it isn't just you, so the first enlist some of your buddies.
That experience really helped me in many ways.
People in large groups are far more stupid than individuals, and the internet has tied people together into all kinds of weird large groups that reinforce their worst belief systems.
Russia may be a factor, but I have always maintained the american right wing has enough natural and innate stupidity it could have anyways self created maga.
The Tea Party was an astroturfed political movement that started freerunning on hatred, and still hasn't stopped. MAGA is just that political movement still running.
That political movement was basically "Fox News will save us from the Government", and of course, "Black people are their own problem"
Donald Trump can be directly traced back to shit Nixon did, and every single Republican administration since. "If the president does it, it's not illegal" is literally how Nixon tried to defend his crimes.
It's a common trope in liberal circles that Fox News was started explicitly to never ever let that happen again. Well, it worked.
IMO it goes all the way back to reconstruction being abandoned because racist people voted for horrifically racist politicians who were sympathetic to the Confederate cause. America elected many politicians, including literal presidents, who thought fixing the problem of genuine traitors should be avoided.
The confederacy was a shithole, authoritarian state who's entire purpose was maintaining the institution of slavery, and the vast majority of it's supporters didn't even hold slaves. But they needed to live in a world where a black person was inherently worse than they were. The confederacy was also working to lean on the dumbest fundamentalists Christians they could find, the ones who lapped up the "God wants us to enslave black people" tripe they spouted, and millions did exactly that. The Confederacy was exploring being an explicit theocracy, but the main reason against that was essentially that the oligarchs preferred being in control.
This happened again with the Civil Rights movement, where America has responded by pretending it wasn't real, we never did anything to black people that wronged them after we banned slavery, it's all woke nonsense, why do black people keep talking about being oppressed, "Obama shouldn't have made it a race thing" when it was definitely a race thing, etc.
> I find it odd that Americans aren't angrier about Russia running disinfo bot networks for over a decade now
Half the country has been convinced that stories about Russia running disinformation campaigns are a hoaxes.
> 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
I read a similar argument years ago about how disinformation gets into the networks. It starts with bots sharing and discussing with each other until it reaches the level to hit a few real people (useful idiots) who then share it out giving it more credence. Musk comes to mind as a key target for these types of posts now.
i have been screaming that this is possibly the #1 information systems problem/failure that has led us to where we are and i have seen no thought leaders or solutions emerge. it's imo the top impact vector and the most critical thing that must be addressed to take the foot off the gas. it's the other side of the double edged blade of open and free internet and we are so far beyond trusting that open and free on its own is going to naturally sort itself out. nothing is being done to combat this, everyone that has the wits and intelligence to problem solve in this arena is head down reading about the next claude code update.
i'm terrified/hopeless tbh, this fucking sucks. i've always seen this as the number one thing that is destabilizing countries around the world. this shit is not contained to the US and other countries will follow our course in the coming years without efforts to solve for russia/iran/china and their damn ass bots. these things are way more sophisticated than people think and most people cannot discern the difference. they can and do simulate arguments in comment sections to play up a winning side in a believable way.
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.
already happening mate. credible reporting says 20-40% of social media ain't people.
you think a news site about tech startups run by their incubator -- who has serious interest in seeing these companies make money -- wouldn't run shillbots 24/7?
I mean, tens of millions of people voted for this. So even if social media sentiment is mostly bot-driven, it's provably backed up or supported by what real people deeply believe and want and will continue to vote for in mid-terms.
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.
> 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.
You don't need gun freedom to avoid mass government slaughter like in Iran. I live in France and I feel safe even though I can't defend my home with a gun. The door is pretty strong and if I go outside I know that the worst thing that can be against me is a knife or a dog, something I never saw used against someone with my own eyes, only in the newspapers.
What is required is a constant fight against obscurantism. It's a cultural battle.
You can buy black powder guns over the counter in france and easily make or import the black powder from elsewhere in the EU. A black powder revolver is damn good for self defense, just needs maintained more frequently so the powder doesn't go bad.
Also note of sale (underground, also trivially made on one's own) in france is also FGC-9 pistols (modern gun + ammo easily made in short time in france, all with unregulated components), and attackers in france have also used re-activated decommissioned rifles.
Your country is awash in guns for anyone who wants it.
> 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.
it's starting right now, brother. time to put your money where your mouth is.
we'll see how many of these 2nd amendment uber alles types are actually chickenhawks real soon...
> 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.
ICE officials are pretty consistently saying that they do more visible immigration enforcement in places where the local police are forbidden by local or state law from giving information about people they arrest to ICE, compared to places where the local police do this happily. Legally-forbidding local police from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement is a prototypically blue-state policy that red states do not generally do.
The visible disruptive protests against ICE activity are also the sort of thing that you'd expect the sorts of voters that make a blue state blue to do, so when ICE does arrest illegal immigrants in red states, there's much fewer people who are inclined to protest it and therefore less publicity in general.
Can't talk for all Red states, but in Austin, TX the city police is arresting even people who try to interfere with traffic, even more so people who interfere with federal agents so there is a little chance someone reads reddit, figures there is nothing going to happen if he or she lays hands on a fed and get lit. Now, I've seen quite a few of videos from Minneapolis and there were literally 0 MPD officers in any of those. I wonder where is the police in the blue states, definitely not on the streets where riots are going on.
I feel like calling protests that are overwhelmingly peaceful riots tells me everything I need to know about the chances of this conversation being productive. Framing the language in a way that intrinsically devalues the fundamental first amendment right to assembly and speech puts all of this into a very obviously biased conversation.
Some of the George Floyd protests devolved into riots. That is not what is happening in MN, or TX, or anywhere. Police or federal officers using riot dispersal techniques against a protest does not suddenly make the protest a riot.
ICE and CBP do not have the remit to behave like they are doing in these situations either - they do not have the same powers as local law enforcement. Yet we see them issuing unlawful commands - like telling Good to get out of her vehicle. They explicitly are not allowed to force a US citizen out of their car. Pretti was shot after the weapon he had never brandished or gone for was removed from his person while he has a multitude of CBP agents dogpiling him. (We could also talk how that shot was insanely dangerous and stupid for the CBP officer to begin with, even if there had been a threat - he very easily could have shot his fellow officers.)
It doesn't matter if MPD is there. If they're absent, this doesn't suddenly give ICE and CBP the authority to police in a way that they are explicitly not allowed to do. This doesn't give them the right to shoot people when they are not actually in danger.
Fundamentally, I do not understand why you think anything in your comment is a rebuttal to the point being made. I don't understand why you think it is even relevant to the discussion at all.
>Police or federal officers using riot dispersal techniques against a protest does not suddenly make the protest a riot.
I agree. Assaulting police or federal officers, harassing citizens and blocking traffic does though, and the police acts on that, not just randomly gassing people because Trump.
>ICE and CBP do not have the remit to behave like they are doing in these situations either - they do not have the same powers as local law enforcement.
Yes, they have different powers yet they employ sworn officers and those can arrest people who they believe are committing crimes in front of them.
>They explicitly are not allowed to force a US citizen out of their car.
Need a source for that, it's news to me.
>It doesn't matter if MPD is there.
It does though. Even in LA the mayor was not as dumb as to order LAPD to stand down and as the result zero people got shot by feds during more massive riots than in Minneapolis. Local police is more lenient and less likely to use deadly force even when met with violence, you'd imagine if mayor had any compassion for his constituents he'd sent the police to deal with them rather than leave it to feds.
> I agree. Assaulting police or federal officers, harassing citizens and blocking traffic does though, and the police acts on that, not just randomly gassing people because Trump.
The first of the things in this list has a very large gap with the rest. I have seen zero evidence there is any sort of widescale assault on police or federal officers with these protests. Some isolated incidents, yes, but isolated incidents are not riots.
Harassing citizens does not make something a riot.
Blocking traffic does not make something a riot.
They might not be protected by the 1A (Well, depending on what you mean by 'harassing citizens' it very well might be, that's a very broad term) but that isn't the same thing as a riot.
> Yes, they have different powers yet they employ sworn officers and those can arrest people who they believe are committing crimes in front of them.
They can arrest people for committing federal crimes in front of them or with reasonable suspicion of a felony having occurred. This is different from what they are doing
> It does though. Even in LA the mayor was not as dumb as to order LAPD to stand down and as the result zero people got shot by feds during more massive riots than in Minneapolis. Local police is more lenient and less likely to use deadly force even when met with violence, you'd imagine if mayor had any compassion for his constituents he'd sent the police to deal with them rather than leave it to feds.
Your entire argument seems to be based on the idea that if cops aren't around then it's the fault of anyone but CBP/ICE when CBP/ICE fuck up. Which is a weird abdication of personal responsibility.
> Local police is more lenient and less likely to use deadly force even when met with violence,
In particular here, I'd say it's not a matter of leniency - local police undergo training at a policy academy and a supervised training period when they enter the job. In combination this can result in years of training. They also have background checks done. Most large departments also employ some form (or even multiple forms) of psychological screening. They have ongoing re-training and re-certification around all sorts of topics including de-escalation and dealing with the public.
And police still fuck it up fairly regularly. Meanwhile, ICE has 47 days of training (the number chosen, of course, because Trump is president #47...) and no-to-minimal background and psychological screening. Police are less likely to use violent force because we have attempted to select for people that will not use it unnecessarily and also provided extensive training to them on when and when not to use it.
For example, even if you believe lethal force is justified in a situation like Good's, the immediate consequences show that it was the incorrect choice for the stated claim - after she was shot in the head, the vehicle accelerated at a far greater speed and with no human control over it. Many departments now train their officers to not be in front of vehicles like this because they know that not only does it unnecessarily increase the risk to the officer, but that in a situation like this one they do not have recourse to stop it from happening - shooting the driver of a car that is right in front of you does not decrease your chances of getting run over even if they are intending to do so (and by no means do I think it is likely that Good ever intended to do so), and if they are not actively attempting to run you over, can even increase it.
> I have seen zero evidence there is any sort of widescale assault on police or federal officers with these protests.
It depends on your scale, in the both cases of shootings though the victims assaulted an officer before they had been shot. It's on video and in case you deny that - look up the definition of assault as a criminal act.
>Harassing citizens does not make something a riot. Blocking traffic does not make something a riot.
Don't have Facebook but in the Youtube video some dude literally says "unless they have some type of a reason to detain you" at 0:50. You said "They explicitly are not allowed to force a US citizen out of their car.", if it was so there had been some statue saying that they are not allowed to force a US citizen out of their car, this is what explicitly means. Not some dude on youtbue saying they cannot arrest you unless they have a reason to arrest you, duh.
>Your entire argument seems to be based on the idea that if cops aren't around then it's the fault of anyone but CBP/ICE when CBP/ICE fuck up.
Nope. My entire argument is that if cops were around they would have prevented people from the law school of reddit and Youtube from committing crimes against armed officers and getting killed in the process.
> It depends on your scale, in the both cases of shootings though the victims assaulted an officer before they had been shot. It's on video and in case you deny that - look up the definition of assault as a criminal act.
Good never touches the officer with her car. This is clearly the case from the close up video, and every single claim I have seen otherwise relies on a heavily compressed low resolution video taken from significant distance away. His cell phone video does not provide any evidence of him being hit, and there has been no actual evidence or documentation provided that he received any medical treatment. Conversely, we do see him walking around without any obvious issue for some time after the shooting. The medical examiner also determined that it was the 2nd or 3rd shot that killed her - the shots that went through the driver window where he was indisputably no longer in the path of the vehicle when he fired. Lethal force is not allowed to be a punitive act of revenge, it is to protect the safety of the officer and others. We can't argue that it was for the safety of anyone else, because as we saw in the video, killing her sent the vehicle even more out of control.
For Pretti, it is not cut and dry as to whether there is anything worthy of assault. His actions all seem purely defensive and more about stabilizing himself, etc., to me than anything else, but we have seen cases where I do not understand how a jury of my peers could find the actions of the defendant to be assault, so I won't rule it out. But none of that changes the fact that the firearm that he was legally carrying and had never brandished nor made a move to handle during the event had already been removed from his person when he was shot and killed while having a multitude of CBP officers on top of him.
Either way, are you claiming that these occurrences were riots? Come on. It is incredibly clear from all of the videos in both cases that these conflicts were not riots by any stretch of the imagination. What are we even doing in this conversation?
> Don't have Facebook but in the Youtube video some dude literally says "unless they have some type of a reason to detain you" at 0:50. You said "They explicitly are not allowed to force a US citizen out of their car.", if it was so there had been some statue saying that they are not allowed to force a US citizen out of their car, this is what explicitly means. Not some dude on youtbue saying they cannot arrest you unless they have a reason to arrest you, duh.
The second link has a lawyer going into more detail about what those reasons are and the legal justifications around them. I will concede I could have worded my statement more explicitly, but my point is that there was no cause for them to ask Good to get out of her vehicle. Recording videos, protesting, etc., are not reasonable cause to start detaining people and pulling them out of their vehicles,
"Some dude on youtube" makes it sound like this is just a random video and not a clip of a news anchor interviewing a law professor. There's a reason people are saying you're arguing in bad faith.
> Nope. My entire argument is that if cops were around they would have prevented people from the law school of reddit and Youtube from committing crimes against armed officers and getting killed in the process.
Committing a crime is not immediate justification for being shot. We have due process and a multi-tiered legal system for a reason.
Why are you holding everyday people to higher standards than law enforcement? Arming them and giving them the legal right to use lethal force when necessary as part of their daily jobs comes with the expectation that they will do so with prudence. Even if Good and Pretti were not acting fully within the bounds of the law, that does not in and of itself justify or mitigate the actions of CBP and ICE here.
It's not credible to claim that Good got in her car that day with the intent to run over ICE and cause a mass casualty event. Her actions immediately preceding her death were 1) parking her car perpendicular to the road, rather than lining up with officers and building up speed; and 2) waving at and talking to her killer-to-be.
Whether or not her car made contact with her killer, no reasonable person would assume she had any desire to run him over. There's also no reason for anyone to believe that shooting her as she drove past prevented an imminent mass casualty attack.
So then your argument boils down to: if you brush against law enforcement with your car, even by accident, they should kill you on the spot in retaliation.
>It's not credible to claim that Good got in her car that day with the intent to run over ICE and cause a mass casualty event.
It's not a claim anyone in this thread has made though. The claim I find ridiculous is "Good never touches the officer with her car."
>Whether or not her car made contact with her killer, no reasonable person would assume she had any desire to run him over.
You are welcome not to discuss it then, I, however, see someone claiming there was no contact in face of the contact shown on video and deduct that the person is either delusional or hopes to gaslight me somehow.
Well, you probably have seen the video where the officer is being pushed by the car to the point he is sliding backwards yet you keep arguing he is not touching the car. I don't see any point in trying to persuade you or figuring what you think is moving him this way, you are not going to change your opinion nor will I.
Or we could look at the video where we can actually see the distance between the officer and the vehicle.
That's really all that matters. We have a video that shows the distance between the two for all of the relevant points of the situation. What you might have guessed something would have been from a bad angle becomes an irrelevant metric when there is superior evidence available. I don't know why it looks like he is moving that way on a ultra compressed low resolution video shot from a distance. I don't really care, either, because I can look at the video that was shot from right at the scene, with higher resolution, less compression, and a much better angle.
You've also completely dodged the overwhelming majority of the comment where the meat of the argument was for anything that actually matters. Hell, not even the most relevant point for just Good. Even if I were to agree she had hit him with the car, the medical examiner determined the fatal shot was either the 2nd or 3rd which came through the driver window of the car.
But how were either of these riots? How do they reinforce your argument that there is rioting?
Why are you being disingenuous in how you present the argument being made to you?
Why are you arguing to hold people who are at least nominally law enforcement to a lower standard than everyday civilians when it comes to following it?
I don't have a Tiktok account so I don't really have a means to search that, and it's tough to find stuff on YouTube because the recent murder is (understandably) hogging the headlines and the top searches, and I cannot be bothered doing more than a cursory search considering I don't really think you're arguing in good faith anyway. Regardless, I don't really think this is the slam dunk that you seem to think it is. You "not seeing MPD interact with protestors" is hardly strong evidence of anything.
But let's pretend you're right, MPD is completely absent, it doesn't forgive anything ICE has done, actually. It is disingenuous to act like it does.
So you yourself have not seen MPD yet first accused me of only seeing four videos and then accuse me of arguing in bad faith (I don't even know what that would mean in this context, you believe I've seen MPD in the four videos I have seen but lie about it?). Good talk.
I pulled the number "four" out of my ass, sorry if that wasn't clear. I was trying to say that if you saw some videos that don't have MPD then that's hardly very compelling evidence of anything.
The "bad faith" part is that it's really not relevant. I made a comment about ICE murdering civilians and you diverted to some tangent about MPD that doesn't actually detract from my original point. Because it's not relevant, I don't think it was brought up in good faith.
"I've proposed a hypothetical situation based off evidence I won't provide and now I'm going to demand sources refuting it because you said 4 TikTok videos is basically subjective bullshit" is just... not how honest discussion works. Come on.
What do you expect, me presenting the videos with no police in Minneapolis? These are pretty popular on this site. I can show you some from APD dealing with rioters:
No, I was expecting you to engage with some degree of intellectual honesty in the first place. The complaint was clearly and unequivocally not that you didn't present "evidence".
Of course they can perform more than one task at the time, the question is why have they started prioritizing Minnesota? Which dont have a lot of illegal immigrants.
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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.