"one of the components that caused former intelligence contractors’ concern was that ERO ONE agents will analyze both classified and nonclassified information to produce “network, link and relationship” analyses."
Should the federal government be tracking our interpersonal relationships?
Should an immigration officer be privy to the timing and manner of communications that I, a citizen, have with other citizens? Why?
Why should ICE be able to collect this information when domestic law enforcement generally has to show probable cause to a judge to gather similar information? Who decided to make ICE the country's supreme law enforcement agency?
Related, ICE is arresting citizens on fake immigration charges[1]. Some US citizens have been deported.
US citizens "can't" be deported, but ICE has supralegal powers. Should we have a law enforcement agency that is not bound by our laws? Why? What guardrails does it have if not law? Who defines those guardrails?
So long as Republicans have no counterbalance in courts, congress, or the whitehouse then these things will continue to metastasize.
The entire experiment here is to bring the surveillance apparatus' of dictatorships to the US. They no doubt see the durability of these dictatorships and one-party states around the world and are drooling at the prospect of running it in the US.
That has shown to be nothing but hot air and wishful thinking. The second they got into power they’ve thrown any hint of caring about the constitution out the window.
The Bill of Rights is just words on paper. For it to mean anything, the judicial needs to be willing to uphold it and the executive needs to be willing to enforce those decisions.
That becomes much less likely when they are allowed to become overly partisan. The officials who wield power lose the ability to distinguish between civic duty and the rule of law, and loyalty to the party itself.
The primary mechanism for redress of constitutional right violations under current law are monetary damages under FTCA, especially now that universal injunctions are dead. There's no actual counterbalance.
Even if you had access to all the munitions on paper, it would be extraordinarily surprising to wake up one day to the news that US citizens collectively out-gunned the US armed forces. I mean, F35s are not famous for being cheap.
Even if you could spend alike in aggregate, who maintains them? Where is the secondary military drilling people on tactics and/or strategy?
Nah, the 2nd never did what its proponents claimed, not even in the old days.
It’s been meaningless ever since the courts decided the “well-regulated militia” part doesn’t actually mean anything. It was never meant to be carte blanche access to every weapon under the sun
5 year statute of limitations, unlimited if it results in death.
Unless he pardons literally every ICE agent, a new administration can and certainly should levy all kinds of charges. That's one reason folks have been documenting so much about what's going on even if it can't be stopped right now.
While Republicans certainly have a focus on illegal immigration, support for spying on American citizens is hardly a partisan issue.
ie: 25 years of Patriot Act renewal, Flock rollouts in liberal cities, Obama’s pursuit of Snowden and not the NSA itself
There is certainly liberal leadership concerned with our rights, just as there are conservatives, but they are the minority under both partisan umbrellas.
If you have some information on how much they approve or support these programs i'm open to hearing it, but i'm not sure how much "Both parties have bad people/policies" contributes to a discussion on this specific program.
This is shifting the goal posts. You said this will continue to happen as long as Republicans have no counterbalance in courts[0], congress[1], or the whitehouse [2; sic] - which kind of implies (actually not kind of, it directly implies) that if only there were some more Democrats around this wouldn't happen. So "both parties do this" is absolutely a valid criticism of your point and one you probably have to address.
[0] Most things are decided long before SCOTUS involvement, and most courts are liberal-leaning.
[1] Republicans are far short of a supermajority in the Senate so nothing passes Congress without Democratic votes
[2] The White House is always singularly partisan by definition, what Democratic counterbalance you expect to see in a Republican White House, or vice versa?
If anything i'm asking for the conversation to stay 'on-goal'.
If I take for granted that the waterline surveillance increases under previous administrations (and i do, i implicitly conceded it) then the only meaningful discussion is then on its magnitude.
So you tell me, are Republicans going further with this program than before? And furthermore, are Republican courts and Republican congresses going to curtail it at any point?
I already know my answers to this, but if i'm going to be criticized I think it should be against the meaningful alternative facing us where Republicans retain control of these branches.
this isn't Europe, so if you make that claim, you have to define "liberal"
> Republicans are far short of a supermajority in the Senate so nothing passes Congress without Democratic votes
in fact that's not how it works! read up on reconciliation and how ICE got funded
> [2] The White House is always singularly partisan by definition, what Democratic counterbalance you expect to see in a Republican White House, or vice versa?
both sides that fucker, good and hard, better things aren't possible woo!
> Most things are decided long before SCOTUS involvement, and most courts are liberal-leaning.
Doesn't matter if the damage is already done. Raise dead doesn't exist in the real world. And the courts don't decide things. The executive has proven it will just ignore the courts.
> Republicans are far short of a supermajority in the Senate so nothing passes Congress without Democratic votes
First, this it 100% not true, and secondly, if you ignore congress, it doesn't matter. And once again, the damage is already done by the time congress gets around to it.
> The White House is always singularly partisan by definition, what Democratic counterbalance you expect to see in a Republican White House, or vice versa?
Expect? None. Hope for? Basic respect to the rule of law to start. But with pdf in the white house, all bets are off.
In my fairly wealthy and liberal community, the mayor (a Democrat) approved a Flock contract and refused to hold a public hearing on the issue until it became a nationwide story, at which point the contract was ripped up. The community was told to kick dirt until it became a political liability, and that's the point.
Political leadership doesn't want civil discourse until it becomes a self-preservation concern for them, same with data centers.
Even so, scale, severity, and flaunting of the law matter. Current political powers have turned it up to 11. You can absolutely "both sides bad" in general, but I don't think you should be doing so within this context or it's disingenuous / whataboutism.
It is “don’t expect the Democrat party to save us when they come back into power at the Federal level. With regard to erosion of privacy rights, I don’t see a positive track record for them.
Please surface to me what I’m missing and I’m happy to change my mind.
I disagree, it's important to discuss because it indicates that neither party is capable or interested in deviating from the current trajectory. Say the Republicans are voted out of power this cycle, who's really confident that the trajectory of all of this is going to meaningfully change in the next decade based on what we've seen in the past without a major shakeup in the political system?
It's the same core group of people controlling the centers of power in both parties for many years now, and it's not realistic to expect meaningful change for as long as they remain in power
Surveillance expanded under Obama and Biden. It would have expanded under Clinton or Harris. It will expand under the next Democratic President and it will expand under the next Republican one.
Maybe the Republicans are worse, I don't particularly give a shit. They're both horrible and anti-American on this issue and nothing will change without systemic changes.
Let's be clear here that this is explicitly not just surveillance. This is surveillance in service of abducting people without due process. We can debate surveillance in the abstract, but this specifically is a feeder program to a system that has illegally deported US citizens without any due process. (Which would have, at step 1, indicated that US citizens cannot be deported.)
This is surveillance as part of a department that explicitly says it is not bound by US law or the Constitution.
All of that makes this program materially different than any other US domestic surveillance program or proposal of which I am aware.
"Maybe the Republicans are worse" when the democrats have a plan to create a 100M domestic surveillance program and push it on the national stage, the word maybe becomes relevant. Until then, it is clear to everyone with a functional set of eyes what is happening; maybe schedule your check-up.
> when the democrats have a plan to create a 100M domestic surveillance program
Did you miss the Snowden reporting? How much do you think those programs cost? Whenever you hear someone’s political analysis contain “The Republicans…” “The Democrats…” you can be sure they have no grasp on how DC works.
Ya, I am a fan of the coast guard... and I think we need the FAA/TSA to keep the planes running on time. And FEMA might be laughed at in some quarters but a federal disaster response is something we should have ahead of hurricane season.
What does the Coast Guard have to do with my comment? It was founded in 1915 in its current form and has existed since 1790. DHS is only 24 years old, and was a reactionary response to a terrorist attack.
Obviously we're not talking about getting rid of FAA or FEMA, but rather breaking up DHS back how it was before and getting rid of ICE. TSA doesn't do jack squat and is almost entirely security theater; it needs to go.
And FEMA is now so ridiculously politicized maybe it does need a rebuild, when you have leadership debating whether aid is deserved or granted based on whether a county or state voted for the malignant narcissist in charge.
I think most Americans think we should have a sensible border policy and some way to identify and remove the 5-10m illegal immigrants that came in over the Biden administration.
You should rethink your position as it's not going to give you the electoral wins you think it will.
I will never support deporting people already here unless they commit felonies. It's cruel and immoral. People come here for a better life and work opportunities, the immigration system needs reform, and nobody goes after the employers who typically support Republicans.
This is a huge, wealthy country. There's plenty of room and economic opportunity. The undocumented are not the problem. They're scape goated.
But even setting all that aside, ICE and DHS need fundamental reform, so might as well abolish them and create new agencies with all new employees.
You can always spot the addicts mainlining outrage pornography by how often they bring up the last president that didn't have the right letter next to their name.
> the 5-10m illegal immigrants that came in over the Biden administration.
This part always pisses them off for some reason and any conversations around this cannot be had in a civil manner here without suppression. It's a real insult to people who spent years, sometimes decades, coming into a country legally.
I spent years and tens of thousands of dollars coming here legally. I don't care.
You know what does insult me? Members of the current administration demonizing people who did the same thing as they and their family do. I don't see ICE raiding Melania's HQ for working illegally as a model or entering the country on a fraudulent visa (she was a "model" of no repute in her home country, for an agency whose largest claims to fame were involvement in prostitution and sex trafficking rings, not who they got on the cover of magazines. She certainly didn't meet, not even close, the bar of "who possesses extraordinary ability" or "who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement"). Or Elon, who worked, openly, and famously for startups while here on a non-employment authorizing student visa.
That insults and offends me. Not the common person eking out a life for themselves or their family.
Repeat after me: concerns about illegal immigration are not a justification to destroy the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Period.
The reason this "pisses off" us freedom loving people is we're sick of hearing your hyperbolic talking points repeated as if they have any bearing on the argument whatsoever, while you continue to glibly talk past the relevant criticism of how you're actually cheering on the destruction of our country.
A bunch of people crossing a border illegally can't destroy a country - just like how some planes being flown into office towers can't either. However, throwing our rights, values, and institutions in the trash as a "response" does.
I recall watching live when second tower was hit. US commentator immediately understood the situation and remarked how this is end of an era of freedom and how this will unavoidably bring massive surveillance state aparatus in place from now on and how entire world will be affected negatively. He was 100% correct in all he said.
But lets be clear - its US public that allowed this, over and over. Saner candidates were suppressed as not patriotic enough, entire worse than pointless wars were waged and millions died for nothing. Not US passport holders so I guess thats just an afterthought.
Dont expect rollback in your lifetime. We havent reached even the bottom yet, not with current voting mindset. Still this is what US population wants, I don't see >200 millions even just protesting.
The part that gets me is how many useful idiots who are smart enough to know know better will cheer for these things when sold piecemeal. Your DEP starts trawling the cell phone location records to nab some guy who sold bad dirt. Your traffic cameras tell law enforcement how to tailor their revenue generation toward those who can't push back. Your school system monitors social media to nab some teenager for selling vapes his older relative bought. And people cheer. They call it progress.
Only when the comprehensiveness of this 1984 is presented in an unflattering way like "we're gonna snoop on everything so ICE can round people up" (or an AI camera goes up on every street corner) do they even become uneasy.
> Why should ICE be able to collect this information when domestic law enforcement generally has to show probable cause to a judge to gather similar information? Who decided to make ICE the country's supreme law enforcement agency?
You know what's funny, everything you said is valid, but, I've never seen this much outrage over flock cameras on here or on most tech forums. It's actually the opposite. Somehow spying is ok if they like the company.
A lot of users here have vocally admitted that having Flock cameras was okay because they were a HOA member and it gave them security of some sort and they had "nothing to hide"
Another example was Anthropic getting caught stenographically marking requests[1] and Anthropic's response when they got caught was simply "it was just an experiment" and everyone on here said it's okay.
> Why? What guardrails does it have if not law? Who defines those guardrails?
I wish we asked this question to all our favorite tech companies too, this being a tech forum and all.
The link you shared - Those simply are submitted titles to HN, not necessarily the discussions around them. If you read most of them, it's usually pro-surveillance and the argument is almost always along the lines of "I've got nothing to hide"
I wonder how much of the people who comment in defense of these kinds of things work for Flock/Palantir or something surveillance related. Often when there's discussion of ads you also have people who chime in with "I think personalized ads are very useful" comments. And I'm intensely suspicious of these since seeing someone get called out once.
If you want to build a stasi-like system then the answer to all that’s yes - which seems to be what the majority of us citizens is in favour of, otherwise they wouldn’t have elected this admin
This is why Trump is acting like he's on the ballot in November.
Since he is the face of the Republican party, voters understand they are evaluating his decisions and performance since 2024, and will be voting accordingly.
Naturalized citizens can be deported and their citizenship can be revoked in cases of violent crime or other immoral behavior. That information is provided when swearing in.
It's more accurate to say that US citizens who are law abiding and moral, or who are born in the US, can't be deported.
Since we're nitpicking, you are still not correct.
US citizens cannot be deported.
Naturalized citizens cannot be deported for crimes they commit after they became citizens.
Naturalized citizens who obtained their citizenship through fraudulent means can have their citizenship revoked. Then, they are not citizens and can be deported.
US citizens cannot be deported.
(There should be a time limit on revocation after which citizenship becomes permanent and irrevocable.)
Technically it's as soon as it's provided. Once you are a citizen the only way in which it can be revoked is if you are found to have committed fraud during the immigration process.
Yeah, I'm going further and saying there should be a time limit on even the fraud piece. If a person lied on their application 50 years ago, it's too late.
The government should only get a finite period of time to press the issue. (Like with most crimes.)
Also, with this administration, if you didn't dot an 'i' or cross a 't' somewhere in your paperwork, citizenship can be revoked.
Basically, if they catch you in any kind of lie. It's fraud.
Could be ex post facto and seemingly innocuous act unconnected to paperwork as well. You came in. Applied for asylum. Went through the process. And, finally, you were naturalized.
Only you traveled back to your hometown in your country of origin at some point. Before or after naturalization.
Boom.
They got you. That's fraud.
Everyone needs to stay extra careful going forward.
Say more about this. You are hinting at a kind of conditional citizenship that I do not believe exists under US law.
Are you suggesting that there is a class of citizens who did not commit fraud on their naturalization paperwork, yet who are barred from travel to countries that other citizens are able to travel to?
Characterizing the propublica pieces as "fake immigration charges" is pretty misleading. All of their arrests of non-illegal-immigrants has been for (bogus) charges unrelated to immigration, usually some variant of "obstruction".
"Some US citizens have been deported" is also a mischaracterization. Aside from minor children of deported parents, the only case where an American citizen was deported was Brian Morales Garcia.
"fake immigration charges" are what they apply to people born here, so that they can deport them. The charges are facially fake because a person born here cannot have immigrated here.
There is no such thing as a legitimate immigration charge levied against a person born in Chicago or Los Angeles. It's definitionally fake, even if ICE says otherwise. This is part of the reason they deport people before the courts can weigh in.
> "Some US citizens have been deported" is also a mischaracterization
You are simply wrong on this, as you admit in your next sentence. I wonder at the motive for knowingly something flagrantly incorrect, then admitting as much in the next sentence.
In any case, the link I provided includes links to cases where native-born US citizens have been illegally deported without due process. In one case, the prosecutor admitted that the deportations were illegal. But because ICE is supralegal and does not follow due process, those citizens never went before a judge before being deported.
The situation under which citizens have been detained have always been claimed to be for obstruction. I am not aware of a single case where an individual was detained for immigration charges who was not specifically targeted for enforcement, although since ICE is not public about this (and they cannot be in order to protect the accused) it is hard to say for sure.
The link recounts one case, the one I mentioned, Garcia, and the circumstances around his deportation are complex at best. No question that ICE was mistaken on the facts, but the situation was complex -- he had crossed the border into the US illegally; he did have a Mexican passport with a different spelling of his name. I am not aware of any others and the propublica does not cite any others. Please give names if you are aware of any.
My claim was that you mischaracterized the propublica article and I stand by it. You claimed that US citizens were being detained on fake immigration charges and this is not the case (Garcia was a mistake but the charges were not fake, they were just incorrect). You claimed that US citizens have been deported, and the article only provided a single example, which does not support the claim of "people", that being the plural of "person".
The Garcia case illustrates the various lies embedded in ICE. They say they target people with deportation orders, which is obviously false based on ICE statements and testimony in this and other cases.
It also highlights the importance of adherence to the due process guarantees of the Constitution; Garcia was deported before being allowed to prove his citizenship in court. A US citizen is allowed to have had a passport issued in another country; how else would a naturalized citizen have arrived in the US in the first place, except with a passport in their name? The main point here is the Constitution prescribes how all this is to be handled, and ICE does not want to do it that way so they don't. That's a huge problem here.
Anyway, you asked for names. I'll just pull from the ProPublica database. Most of these boil down to ICE habitually violating Constitutional due process. I'm omitting "obstruction" charges. This person:
These two people were deported on fake immigration charges, and then deported. Two individuals, "people," being the plural of "person." "Fake" charges, because people born here are not subject to immigration charges.
I am going to pause here to remind you that citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. Even if they don't "look American." Many/most Americans do not own a picture ID that proves their citizenship. Fewer carry one. Most children do not have picture IDs at all.
And why should they? We are not required to do carry proof of citizenship, even if we are physically proximate to people who are not here legally. Which none of us generally know about the people near us. Outside of my family, I have only seen a handful of citizenship documents of other people I assume are citizens. I would not testify to anyone's citizenship outside of my family, whose citizenship documents I personally procured.
Here's a citizen being arrested because ICE agents did not like his accent. Again, a reminder that many citizens, even of those born here, have accents. That does not change their citizenship in any way or require them to carry proof of citizenship.
The first and third cases were not deportations. They were bogus obstruction detentions.
"how else would a naturalized citizen have arrived in the US in the first place, except with a passport in their name?" -- part of the complexity of the case, as I note, is that he did in fact enter illegally, smuggled across the border. He did not have to enter illegally; he could have simply presented his passport at any border crossing (or, lacking a passport, an affadavit), but nonetheless he did.
The second case was minor children. Known by ICE and immigration judges to be citizens. Deported deliberately to accompany their mother. This was in conflict with the mother's expressed wish for them to remain with other relatives. At no point were the children charged with any sort of immigration crime, fake or otherwise.
I agree that American citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship and agree that they should not be required to present papers to prove citizenship.
But you are describing a world that does not exist. No US citizens are being deported mistakenly (Garcia being the lone exception). Notably, this has not always been the case -- under previous administrations there have been numerous cases of citizens being deported, but in the Trump administrations this has not been the case (with the exception of Garcia). We are not living in a nightmarish dystopia.
You initially wanted to nitpick my characterization of ICE illegally deporting US citizens, even going so far as to define plural. Now you say it was just those two (which I found in under 5 minutes), certainly there were no others.
You wanted to nitpick my characterization of ICE arresting US citizens of fake immigration charges. Now you characterize ICE as making up bogus "obstruction" charges to arrest US citizens. I'm not sure it matters what fake (or, I'll use the synonym you prefer: "bogus") charge goes on the sheet. By nitpicking, you've conceded that there should be masked secret police harassing US citizens over whom they have no jurisdiction.
You are not willing to engage with the core problem issue that I have raised repeatedly, which is that ICE engages in Constitutional violations as a standard operating procedure. For that reason, I'm out.
Read my first reply again and tell me who is nitpicking.
Don't fall into the conspiracy theory trap. ICE can be bad even if they aren't demonic agents of evil. When you believe dramatic but untrue and easily disproven things your world view is going to continue to disconnect from reality.
> The second case was minor children. Known by ICE and immigration judges to be citizens. Deported deliberately to accompany their mother. This was in conflict with the mother's expressed wish for them to remain with other relatives. At no point were the children charged with any sort of immigration crime, fake or otherwise.
On what grounds were those children deported? They were US citizens who had family who were US citizens, whose parents have, in some cases assigned guardianship to said families.
Why were they deported? Citizens who as you say, were not charged with any sort of immigration crime.
Why were they deported? Farcical deportation hearings with 2 year olds (and in one case, an 11 month old in a car seat) "defending themselves" "pro se" against ICE lawyers arguing for deportation over again, as you acknowledge: US citizens, not charged with a crime. Because however much Trump would not like it to be (and for positively hilarious irony, Don Jr, Eric and Ivanka all benefited from it), birthright citizenship is still a thing, and neither a post on Truth Social or an EO override the Constitution.
The specific clearance requirement may suggest Section 702/FISA capability being employed.
If that ends up being the case, then you're talking a reality where American citizens become the target of warrantless domestic surveillance, using data collected by the NSA. Every phone call, e-mail, text message, DM, group chat; anything a person has ever said or done in their digital lives going back years.
It's worse now with AI, because human effort is no longer required to read intercept transcripts or conversations. Instantaneous surfacing of dirt/leverage.
Warrantless surveillance already exists in the US for monitoring cleared people and those with adjacency. The third party doctrine covers everyone else. Everything you can imagine them doing is being done. They already have the collection methods running and just need authorization to expand the scope.
If they can make illegal migrants disappear without any option for them to defend themselves in front of the legal system, they can make anybody disappear, including you.
And if you think: "Why would they want to do that?", consider that even something stupid like someone misinterpreting a gesture or working for a competitor of a company the regime currently favours can get you there.
They don't need to, because the US has a finely honed system of railroading.
They push captured migrants through the system to deportation via a "rocket docket" and our rubber stamp justice system.
The system being discussed simply allows them to lay their hands on more migrants to feed that existing quick deportation pipeline.
It's worse than disappearing people. Disappearing people implies they need to hide what they're doing from an objectionable public. Clearly, the people currently in power are blessed with a constituency they don't need to hide from.
So I want to be clear that I don't like how we do that, but the problem is that if your single metric is "I want fewer humanitarian migrants" then the plan is working. It's the disconnect between people who want that and don't care about the migrants themselves, and the people who either want that but do care) or don't want that and care that's driving all of this.
It's also really unhelpful to act like deportation under any* circumstances is WORSE than enforced disappearance, which generally involves murder and anonymous disposal of remains. I don't like how we're treating migrants and I believe that immigration is one of our greatest advantages over countries that reject it. I can still maintain enough objectivity to tell the difference between disgustingly harsh "push vs pull" tactics and organized mass murder.
Anyone cheering for this fail to realize that these kinds of programs never ever go away. Even if their budget is restricted by a future congress, some forms of this will remain. Also, political changes occur every 4-8 years. Sooner or later, the other side will control the same levers. Instead of targeting immigration, it could be used to target a community/ideology/group of individuals you align with.
Nonsense. This administration erased entire programs with the stroke of a pen. A future administration could do the same. Everything this administration has done can be unraveled.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or actually believe that. History clearly show its naive to think that will happen. See Post-9/11 domestic surveillance programs by the NSA ramped up during the GW Bush years continuing or even increasing under Obama. We just haven't had a Snowden level leak to show what programs have persisted in the last two administration.
We must push for radical candidates who will be willing to inflict infinite punishment on those who have wronged us. The appetite for such a candidate is brewing.
No, what they are saying is the future Democrat administration which will hem and haw at how their hands are tied will be lying.
They will have the power to at very least lay off every person involved. But will they? Probably not (your point). Trump (illegally) shut down the DOE and USAID by simply firing everyone employed there.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Exactly this; how do you have a country of law and order if you don’t extend at least the prosecution rights to the people within it’s borders, citizen or not?
No one spoke out when the government started abducting US citizens (who happened to be brown) off the street and killing them in detention centers or putting them on deportation planes to random countries without any due process. This is just the next logical step of the program. All authoritarian governments handle dissidents in this way.
* Which US citizens have been abducted and by who? Which have been killed?
* Which US citizens found themselves in US detention centers (without lawful arrest) ?
* Which US citizens were placed in other countries without judicial review?
As far as I can tell:
No US citizens have been deported. No US citizens have been detained after evidence of their citizenship has been produced, which is a fast process in practice (taking a few hours), and has affected a few hundred people in total swept up during larger enforcement operations. The worst examples I can find are "At least 36 citizens were held at least a day without being able to contact a lawyer or family." No US citizens have died in detention, nor been killed. In detention, deaths have risen on previous years, but are due to existing medical issues being untreated rather than anyone being killed.
It's hard to say exactly how many because ICE isn't keeping records precisely to make it easier to hide their captives. There are more than a few reports of midnight flights around the country with lawyers being unable to contact their clients.
But for just a taste, here's a propublica article on the matter.
Yes, this is the only evidence I can find of anything even tangentially claimed in this comment. "At least 36 citizens were held at least a day without being able to contact a lawyer or family."
It's unclear how that number could be "0" if there's any immigration enforcement at all. That is: supposing a person is likely to be present without authorisation in the country, and is unable to offer any evidence of citizenship, then what?
It seems this is an incredibly small number for such a large operation, ie., the worst case treatment of US citizens appears to be 36 held for a day.
> It's unclear how that number could be "0" if there's any immigration enforcement at all.
In the US, we believe people are innocent until proven guilty. The way this number can be 0 is by ICE and CBP doing the bare minimum investigation "Is this person here legally" before arresting, not after.
There are, of course, situations that make that particularly difficult to determine, for example at home birth and homeschooling. But that's a burden for the state to resolve, not the individual.
> supposing a person is likely to be present without authorisation in the country, and is unable to offer any evidence of citizenship, then what?
It's not their burden to show citizenship or authorization. Before being arrested the state should have gone through a process "Is this person a citizen? where do they work? Do they have an SSN? Do they have school records or is there a birth certificate?" These are all tasks for the state to do before arresting someone.
> It seems this is an incredibly small number for such a large operation,
1. It's entirely too large, particularly because citizenship can be determined before arresting.
2. This is only what has been found by journalists, not the sum total of illegal arrests. Like I said, ICE is specifically trying to obfuscate their operations (the article mentions it) specifically to get around thing like FOIA requests to see how often these false arrests happen.
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesnt apply to arrest. It only means that you're to be given timely recourse to challenge arrest, not that you cannot be arrested or detained. For obvious reasons.
> These are all tasks for the state to do before arresting someone.
There were certainly done in the case of these 36. That isnt the issue. The issue is that there are some non-zero pool of US citizens, who associate with non-US citizens illegally in the country, who cannot readily prove their citizenship. Since they are present with illegal immigrants, and are reasonably suspected of being one, they are reasonably detained.
> There's almost no way it couldn't be improved.
This indicates you aren't aware of the issues involved.
No one thinks its a good thing for US citizens to be mistakenly detained. The onus is on people who agree that there should be some level of immigration enforcement to explain how a perfect process avoids 100% of all such cases.
If you dont want immigration enforcement, that's a clearer position. Then the question is: what does the US owe to non-citizens who have build nothing, and paid nothing? If the answer is "nothing" you've got a lot of homelesssness, medical, etc. issues to address --- if your answer is "something" then you've got 8bn people on the planet, and the question is: how much?
> "Innocent until proven guilty" doesnt apply to arrest.
Yes it absolutely does. Cops need more than just a hunch before they can arrest someone. They need clear articulable evidence that the person they are arresting more than likely committed a crime. That's what the 4th amendment protects.
For obvious reasons, we don't just allow cops to go out and arrest people on no grounds. Only ICE seems to get that benefit.
> There were certainly done in the case of these 36.
No it wasn't, they wouldn't be arrested if it was done before.
> who associate with non-US citizens illegally in the country
We have the freedom of association (1st amendment and NAACP v. Alabama). There's no such thing as "illegal association".
> This indicates you aren't aware of the issues involved.
Oh I'm aware that there are a number of racist people who want mass deportation and don't care who gets swept up in it. The problem they have is you can't do mass deportation and due process, which is why ICE has abandoned due process. So, people like yourself defend that abrogation because you like the thought of a few more mexicans being thrown into CECOT.
We can stop pretending that's not the "issues involved".
Right, so you assume (and conclude) the possibility and necessity of a perfect enforcement procedure which will never detain a US citizen.
At this point, I dont think i'm talking to a person offering arguments in good faith. Nothing you've said advances or clarifies how such a procedure could be enacted, and your replies are simply restatements of your assumption.
> supposing a person is likely to be present without authorisation in the country, and is unable to offer any evidence of citizenship, then what?
Then don't arrest them and send them to a concentration camp would be a great start. The onus should be on the arresting officer to have a reasonable suspicion that the person in question is in the US without proper authorization (with reasonable suspicion being a pretty high bar, much higher than it currently is).
We have a court system. ICE even has their own special extra-judicial court system. There is absolutely zero need to proactively be disappearing people just because some guy who's only training is that Family Guy meme decided that this particular brown person needs to have their life destroyed.
Also, these detention centers are horrific and something history will not judge kindly, especially given that "the cruelty is the point" seems to be the guiding light for the folks building them.
36 US citizens being incorrectly and illegally arrested is 36 too many. Period. End of story.
Demand better of our government, not "eh, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet."
> The onus should be on the arresting officer to have a reasonable suspicion that the person in question is in the US without proper authorization
My question is: suppose they have such suspicion.
> 36 US citizens being incorrectly and illegally arrested is 36 too many. Period. End of story.
This doesnt really make any sense. Since you want to say that the process of immigration enforcement must be designed to never make a mistake that places a US citizen in detention for any amount of time, i assume that your real goal is to end all immigration enforcement.
It would be better if you said that, rather than laundered your view thru a claim about the possibility and necessity of perfect enforcement.
Well, a law enforcement agency that has no need to be armed at all has shot and killed at least 2 Americans, which in my book is completely and utterly unacceptable. If you asked me what the acceptable life toll was for keeping non-violent (I make that indication, because despite all the "dangerous immigrants" talk from ICE, violent acts are not under their jurisdiction. If someone commits a real crime, it becomes real law enforcement's problem. ICE, definitionally, is only needed for otherwise law-abiding non-citizens) illegal immigrants out of the United States, I'd confidently say zero.
So your view is that government policy is subject to a heckler's veto. If a protester can place themselves between law enforcement such that they're at risk of being injured, or killed -- then, by that very fact, any such law should no longer be enforced.
OK, fair enough. By this logic, those Jan 6th protesters who placed themselves between police and buildings/crowds such that they were injured/killed/etc. by the police -- those people get to cancel a federal election. For, if we cannot have elections without people dying, then presumably there should be none?
yes, people spoke out, but i take your point. a lot of people seemed cool with it or were even excited for it when they thought it wouldn't effect them, but obviously, if they could get away with it with a subset of the population, that subset would only grow.
And what did you do about it? Probably the same as the rest of us.. nothing that actually matters.
We have no power except a vote. Our country is too big (physically) to effectively protest. Our wealth distribution is too large. Our social safety nets are laughable. People can't even take time off work to protest, or if they just didn't show up they can be fired without recourse.
Our country and government is basically built for the people having no actual power. We are at the mercy of the ultra rich that control everything and a large majority of all of our "elected" officials.
I mean, it's cliche but vote! Use your right to vote and vote in people who will hold those who abuse their power accountable.
If everyone who was allowed to vote actually voted, I think there's a reasonably high chance we'd have better politicians. As it stands, there's this pretend "virtue" from a bunch of pseudo-intellectual morons who think they're cool by abstaining from their right to vote, and dedicate a lot of time trying to convince people that their votes don't matter.
Cynicism is always tempting but ultimately lazy; if they votes didn't matter then there wouldn't be politicians wasting their time trying to make it hard or impossible for you to vote.
Blocking roads seems like a very fast way to have people turn on you and your cause. It might be effective in some places, but in much of America I think it's counter productive.
It's counter productive because what roads are you going to block? Cities are Blue, even in Texas.
There were larger protests at ICE concentration camps but ICE made it clear that they'd use deadly force to disperse them. From the Left, the worry was that Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act to suspend elections, deploy the military, etc.
"Calling for new elections" is a regular process in a parliamentary system, and so protestors can pressure a government into that. The US runs on a fixed election schedule and change doesn't happen outside of that (Congressmen and Senators resigning en masse is a pure fantasy).
Sure, you can't have the exact same outcome. But you sure can force change in ways that are feasible in your system. The problem is the lack of even trying.
I don't disagree with anything you said. I'm just saying that voting is something that's a right given to US citizens [1] that is woefully underutilized. Only about half of those eligible bother voting! If you don't like the current state of politics, you should at the very least do the minimal effort to participate in our republic.
That is, of course, the minimal thing, but I think we'd have way better elections if people just used this fundamental right.
[1] Yes yes I know about disenfranchisement for felonies and the like, you don't need to lecture me.
When the government is shooting citizens in the face, disenfranchising voters, dismantling election committees, and encouraging militant groups to show up to polling places and intimidate vote counters, all while claiming every election they've been a part of was rigged against them, it's natural for people to look outside of voting to make an impact.
I will be voting, like I always have, but I live in a state where that's easy to do. This administration is testing the limits of what people will put up with.
Everyone can be stripped off their citizenship now that birthright is debatable (Supreme Court upheld with a narrow 6-3). At which point they are illegals.
The infra we are building for our future dictator is awesome.
Remember those horrible vicious ni… I mean Haitians in Springfield? The ones who are "poisoning the blood of the country", "probably have AIDS", and are "eating the dogs" and "eating the cats"?
They were legal, every last one of them. They were under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). There was no "law and order" justification to object to their presence. Didn't stop the GOP from going after them. Trump and Vance viciously attacked them with the full support of the conservative media. The administration repealed their TPS protection, turning people who had done no wrong into fugitives.
This is about race. Always has been. When they run out of "illegals", they'll turn people into "illegals". When they run out of immigrants entirely, they'll overturn the 14th Amendment and start stripping citizenship from native-born Americans of the wrong color. They've already tried just that, and three motherfuckers on the Supreme Court voted to let them.
what's the problem with ending a temporary protection status? it's supposed to be temporary it's in the name, unless I'm mistaken that program started 16 years ago that seems way past temporary.
There is no problem if it is done for rational reasons and in a fair/unbiased way, but if it is done for irrational reasons (xenophobia, racisms, bigotry, etc) and in unfair/biased way then that is a major problem; the motivations and methods matter.
They were given protection status do to an earthquake it's been 16 years it seems rational to return them home. What would be a fair reason to end this temporary status to you?
I don't think length of time is the rational indicator of whether or not the status is still necessary, the present conditions within the country would be the rational indicator, yes?
What is the present condition in the country that prevents them from returning? What condition would be acceptable in your mind to make returning them ok?
Are you suggesting we should move people from safe conditions to unsafe conditions simply because you don't like the length of time they have been in safe conditions?
For me personally, the conditions should be as safe or safer than the current conditions under which a person resides before considering removal of protective status, or else it would be cruel and inhumane to move them (to worse conditions).
I think preventing unnecessary human suffering should be the number one concern, do you not?
So their country of origin has to become as safe as the United States? That sounds like we would have to keep most people practically indefinitely. If the goal is preventing unnecessary suffering why stop at those who are already here? there are 10s of millions maybe even hundreds of millions of people suffering. Shouldn't we bring them all to the US to reduce their suffering? The people currently in Haiti are in unsafe conditions why don't we bring them over that would reduce suffering.
The name for TPS is not the program is temporary, rather the protection itself is temporary protection (hurr durr) until either the person can return home or seek other means of legal status.
After 16 years why wouldn't they be able to return home? The protection was given due to an earthquake how long are we supposed to allow temporary protections to last?
Haiti is in a state of anarchy, completely taken over by gangs. There are no elected officials in the entire country. It is one of the most dangerous places in the world.
I didn't say anything about race? You said that Haiti is in full blown anarchy and overrun with gangs. Why is it racist not to want people from a country that you referred to as incredibly dangerous?
Because it was done for racist reasons. "Poisoning the blood of the country" and all that. The government is not allowed to do anything for an illegal reason.
The protection was given due to an earthquake it's been 16 years that crisis is over there is nothing racist about sending people home after the crisis we sheltered them for is over.
> So the country is too dangerous because of the people? Why would we want people from one of the most dangerous places in the world in our country?
So it turns our you weren't "just asking questions" in good faith, but rather pushing the standard progressively-louder dog whistles. It always boils down to the collectivism of handwaving about "those people", doesn't it?
At this point I not longer give any credence to arguments about "immigration". There are legitimate criticisms to be made for sure, but they're utterly minuscule relative to this revanchist movement to destroy what little Constitutional liberties we have left.
(un)fun fact, Deloitte currently staffs what looks like a smaller version of this contract, that this may be intended to replace based on the timing. Example, award ID 70CDCR21FR0000022 on USAspending.gov
It is tiring to hear law enforcement be described as a weapon. Law enforcement keeps society functioning. Journalists and public figures who rule up people to be against the law are the real bad actors here trying to subvert American society.
NSA has a culture of at least sort of following the laws that govern them. This needs to be ICE to land with people who will happily ignore court orders.
Sure, but I would actually like to hear what a Trump supporter has to say here. I suspect you and I have a lot of overlap on our opinions, which is great but sort of tangential to what I want to know.
You are extremely unlikely to actually get someone to chat with your earnestly about this on this site. They will get downvoted, flagged, and mobbed by ten other people who want to vent their righteous indignation at your interlocutor.
You will have to know someone personally or read sites that don't just reflect back your existing world view.
> Sure, but I would actually like to hear what a Trump supporter has to say here.
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
You’re replying to a comment that is re-iterating that they are asking for the opinion of actual Trump supporters. Presumably you are not yourself a Trump supporter, and what you posted is not your opinion.
It’s frustrating seeing people’s genuine questions being mocked.
Because it's pointless. 10 years into the experiment, there's nothing to learn. People are economically anxious but vote against their own interests so they can reinforce a caste system? People are gullible or hypocrites? People are willfully ignorant enough to want to ask the mob their agenda?
As a matter of intentional political strategy, I and many other people do not want to see or hear the opinions of actual Trump supporters. I feel it's important to communicate to them that they're bad people with shameful opinions who don't get to have a voice in my circles. In the modern US, this is unfortunately an effective and important component of politics; Trump himself routinely deploys this strategy to great effect.
I really do hope that in the future this strategy will stop being necessary, or that we can at least restore the norms against it. But I'm not going to unilaterally disarm.
I doubt I like trump any more than you do, but if we accept what you said as true, wouldn't that suggest that the entire concept of "free speech" doesn't work?
I think you're mixing up the right to speak with the right to be listened to. "Shut up, fascist, get out of my house" is free speech, too. (And free association.)
I don't think so? "I support this evil person, I think he's the best guy to run the country" and "That's shameful, you should not support evil people and I won't listen to your arguments in his favor" are both core examples of free speech. I don't think that this shameful speech should be illegal or banned from web forums. I don't even think it justifies shunning, necessarily; I'm personally happy to maintain friendships and family relationships with Trump supporters as long as they don't support him anywhere I can hear it.
Keep people in “system 1” thinking to control them. Given the palpable shift in online conversation since a couple of Russian datacenters got blown up, it’s clear that although these fault lines always existed in US society, fringe opinions have been massively signal-boosted by bots for quite some time. I suspect there’s been a psychological Cold War going on online for at least the last decade or two, with a whole ecosystem of grifters and ragebait view farmers bottom-feeding off of state sponsored PsyOps, leading a corrupt inner circle of elite opportunists to take advantage of the resulting anger for personal gain. We’ll probably never get to tease apart what was a natural side effect of social media and what was engineered deliberately but I bet the story would be every bit as fascinating as the Manhattan project.
> Given the palpable shift in online conversation since a couple of Russian datacenters got blown up
Forgive me, but hacker news is the only social media I participate in. Is this a pretty commonly held sentiment? Like are other social media users commenting on this trend? Any news articles? Thanks
> Given the palpable shift in online conversation since a couple of Russian datacenters got blown up
This was a rumor based on a misunderstanding and has since been debunked. It was Yandex search crawler traffic that was reduced.
We do plenty of manipulation and divide-and-conquer on ourselves, which is heavily documented at least since the Cold War. No need to blame it all on outsiders, although certainly some of that is present as well.
If you oppose them, it'd be good to understand them instead of being shocked about straw men. If you'd like to understand them, it's very easy to find their media and thought leaders sharing eg. demographic data. "Remigration" is the key term, now.
Look what the Europeans did from their antisemitism in the 1940s. We need to criminalize hate politics like we've banned other antisocial behaviors such as assault and rape. This just feels so obvious to me. Political hatemongering isn't some mystifying slippery ghost.
But no we're like "oh so we have one candidate that wants to adjust the budget to fund some libraries and this other one that wants to build concentration camps and imprison transgendered people. Alright, let's allow both on the ballot"
Being a violent hateful ignorant bigot isn't a qualifying condition for administering civic life.
YCombinator and their lackies in Big Tech have promoted these types of abuses to occur. The comment section here will be filled with people who lack any substance but will gladly provide lip service. The stories of the modern day Gestapo cannot be told without Silicon Valley.
People doing illegal things is the problem. Change the law if you think it's wrong but it's the executive branch's duty to enforce the law.
You can't sit back here and be upset that Trump decides to selectively enforce the law in the ways he sees fit while approving of the exact behavior when there's a different executive.
This is why the problem of executive power exists, people only care when they disagree and actively approve when they agree.
Nope, I can distinguish between what is right and "wrong" without arbitrary laws decided by <1k corrupt politicians (Ds and Rs).
I dont make judgements about what a problem is based on whether a law says it is. You should be experiencing the world outside the framework of imaginerary legal constructs.
If America tends to create laws that are antithetical to common sense and goodness, maybe its the problem. Maybe we need to do away with the whole system, not patch it.
I think you've misjudged me, I think Biden, and Trump should be sharing the same jail cell. I dont approve of basically any US politician, they're all morally corrupt and outright evil.
> If America tends to create laws that are antithetical to common sense
That isn't the root of the problem at all. The root of the problem is we have certain laws that, under some administrations, are barely enforced. Then, under another administration, there are a large group of people who have been flouting the law because it wasn't being enforced.
You've now created huge class of people who have very tenous legal status, based on the whims of the executive. That's the problem.
US immigration laws are some of the most relaxed in the world. There's plenty of debate on whether that should change or not (and how). But circumventing the legislative process might make you feel good about the immediate problem but it creates a side effect of having an underclass of non-citizens that live under constant threat of deportation and have limited access to social programs.
The only judgement I've made of you is that you seem to think not enforcing the law based on personal feelings is right and you've only confirmed that.
In a democracy, the law isn't just some words on papers, it represents the collective moral judgement of the voting population. It is inherently antithetical to democracy to ignore laws you don't agree with.
> Maybe we need to do away with the whole system, not patch it.
Pretty ironic considering this entire situation is caused by people ignoring the system rather than patching it.
I'd rather my tax money wasted on get US people watched and silenced, than bombing schools and killing children in Middle East.
I mean if I can choose, I want my tax money spent on making Americans healthier, but I don't get to choose. ICE has $70B to spend, this is just 1/700. I'm sure they will do more before next congress trying to crawl back their money.
I can’t fathom this kind of thinking. It’s not a case of having to choose between the lesser of evils, it’s a case of having some principles and making decisions based on them.
It's the same forces doing the bombing and the spying. Want to object to Israel/the US murdering a school full of girls? Guess what, now you've got a Palantir tag on you. Push hard enough and maybe Bill Ackman will jump on Twitter and get you blacklisted.
"one of the components that caused former intelligence contractors’ concern was that ERO ONE agents will analyze both classified and nonclassified information to produce “network, link and relationship” analyses."
Should the federal government be tracking our interpersonal relationships?
Should an immigration officer be privy to the timing and manner of communications that I, a citizen, have with other citizens? Why?
Why should ICE be able to collect this information when domestic law enforcement generally has to show probable cause to a judge to gather similar information? Who decided to make ICE the country's supreme law enforcement agency?
Related, ICE is arresting citizens on fake immigration charges[1]. Some US citizens have been deported.
US citizens "can't" be deported, but ICE has supralegal powers. Should we have a law enforcement agency that is not bound by our laws? Why? What guardrails does it have if not law? Who defines those guardrails?
1 - https://projects.propublica.org/american-citizens-detained-d...
So long as Republicans have no counterbalance in courts, congress, or the whitehouse then these things will continue to metastasize.
The entire experiment here is to bring the surveillance apparatus' of dictatorships to the US. They no doubt see the durability of these dictatorships and one-party states around the world and are drooling at the prospect of running it in the US.
Republicans have suggested for years that there is a counterbalance in the bill of rights.
That has shown to be nothing but hot air and wishful thinking. The second they got into power they’ve thrown any hint of caring about the constitution out the window.
The Republican party is merely a sock puppet. So is Trump.
The really weird thing is, how people/journalists don't seem to untangle who's behind them. Or what their actual game is.
The perceived tail is wagging with the dog and the echo chamber on the left believes it to be just another craziness.
It's a luxury when nobody takes you seriously, you get away with the most incredible stuff.
we know what the game is -- the original deranged billionaires were the Kochs, whose fault a lot of this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family
we've known this forever
turns out nobody cares as long as gas is cheap
The Bill of Rights is just words on paper. For it to mean anything, the judicial needs to be willing to uphold it and the executive needs to be willing to enforce those decisions.
That becomes much less likely when they are allowed to become overly partisan. The officials who wield power lose the ability to distinguish between civic duty and the rule of law, and loyalty to the party itself.
Yet they continue to ignore court orders when those rights are found to have been violated.
The primary mechanism for redress of constitutional right violations under current law are monetary damages under FTCA, especially now that universal injunctions are dead. There's no actual counterbalance.
in theory, yes; in practice, no.
Yeah, and what happens every time we take a Republican at his word?
Can I buy the same weapons the American military has access to?
Until that's true, the 2nd amendment is meaningless when USAF can buy JDAMs and F35s and I, an American citizen, cannot.
Even if you had access to all the munitions on paper, it would be extraordinarily surprising to wake up one day to the news that US citizens collectively out-gunned the US armed forces. I mean, F35s are not famous for being cheap.
Even if you could spend alike in aggregate, who maintains them? Where is the secondary military drilling people on tactics and/or strategy?
Nah, the 2nd never did what its proponents claimed, not even in the old days.
It’s been meaningless ever since the courts decided the “well-regulated militia” part doesn’t actually mean anything. It was never meant to be carte blanche access to every weapon under the sun
18 U.S.C. § 242: Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
A DOJ with its ducks in a row would be charging this left and right.
5 year statute of limitations, unlimited if it results in death.
Unless he pardons literally every ICE agent, a new administration can and certainly should levy all kinds of charges. That's one reason folks have been documenting so much about what's going on even if it can't be stopped right now.
You make the assumption there will be a new administration
That is... not outside of the realm of possibility.
While Republicans certainly have a focus on illegal immigration, support for spying on American citizens is hardly a partisan issue.
ie: 25 years of Patriot Act renewal, Flock rollouts in liberal cities, Obama’s pursuit of Snowden and not the NSA itself
There is certainly liberal leadership concerned with our rights, just as there are conservatives, but they are the minority under both partisan umbrellas.
If you have some information on how much they approve or support these programs i'm open to hearing it, but i'm not sure how much "Both parties have bad people/policies" contributes to a discussion on this specific program.
This is shifting the goal posts. You said this will continue to happen as long as Republicans have no counterbalance in courts[0], congress[1], or the whitehouse [2; sic] - which kind of implies (actually not kind of, it directly implies) that if only there were some more Democrats around this wouldn't happen. So "both parties do this" is absolutely a valid criticism of your point and one you probably have to address.
[0] Most things are decided long before SCOTUS involvement, and most courts are liberal-leaning.
[1] Republicans are far short of a supermajority in the Senate so nothing passes Congress without Democratic votes
[2] The White House is always singularly partisan by definition, what Democratic counterbalance you expect to see in a Republican White House, or vice versa?
If anything i'm asking for the conversation to stay 'on-goal'.
If I take for granted that the waterline surveillance increases under previous administrations (and i do, i implicitly conceded it) then the only meaningful discussion is then on its magnitude.
So you tell me, are Republicans going further with this program than before? And furthermore, are Republican courts and Republican congresses going to curtail it at any point?
I already know my answers to this, but if i'm going to be criticized I think it should be against the meaningful alternative facing us where Republicans retain control of these branches.
> most courts are liberal-leaning.
this isn't Europe, so if you make that claim, you have to define "liberal"
> Republicans are far short of a supermajority in the Senate so nothing passes Congress without Democratic votes
in fact that's not how it works! read up on reconciliation and how ICE got funded
> [2] The White House is always singularly partisan by definition, what Democratic counterbalance you expect to see in a Republican White House, or vice versa?
both sides that fucker, good and hard, better things aren't possible woo!
> Most things are decided long before SCOTUS involvement, and most courts are liberal-leaning.
Doesn't matter if the damage is already done. Raise dead doesn't exist in the real world. And the courts don't decide things. The executive has proven it will just ignore the courts.
> Republicans are far short of a supermajority in the Senate so nothing passes Congress without Democratic votes
First, this it 100% not true, and secondly, if you ignore congress, it doesn't matter. And once again, the damage is already done by the time congress gets around to it.
> The White House is always singularly partisan by definition, what Democratic counterbalance you expect to see in a Republican White House, or vice versa?
Expect? None. Hope for? Basic respect to the rule of law to start. But with pdf in the white house, all bets are off.
In my fairly wealthy and liberal community, the mayor (a Democrat) approved a Flock contract and refused to hold a public hearing on the issue until it became a nationwide story, at which point the contract was ripped up. The community was told to kick dirt until it became a political liability, and that's the point.
Political leadership doesn't want civil discourse until it becomes a self-preservation concern for them, same with data centers.
Which is exactly what i'm advocating, to make the issue a self-preservation concern via voting.
voting for who? If Democrats are also willing to spy, how does voting make a difference?
Republicans mistreated legal immagrants with particular pleasure and revoked their legal status.
Even so, scale, severity, and flaunting of the law matter. Current political powers have turned it up to 11. You can absolutely "both sides bad" in general, but I don't think you should be doing so within this context or it's disingenuous / whataboutism.
My response is not whataboutism.
It is “don’t expect the Democrat party to save us when they come back into power at the Federal level. With regard to erosion of privacy rights, I don’t see a positive track record for them.
Please surface to me what I’m missing and I’m happy to change my mind.
I disagree, it's important to discuss because it indicates that neither party is capable or interested in deviating from the current trajectory. Say the Republicans are voted out of power this cycle, who's really confident that the trajectory of all of this is going to meaningfully change in the next decade based on what we've seen in the past without a major shakeup in the political system?
It's the same core group of people controlling the centers of power in both parties for many years now, and it's not realistic to expect meaningful change for as long as they remain in power
There's bad. And then there's extremely bad.
So let's not conflate the two, ok?
Surveillance expanded under Obama and Biden. It would have expanded under Clinton or Harris. It will expand under the next Democratic President and it will expand under the next Republican one.
Maybe the Republicans are worse, I don't particularly give a shit. They're both horrible and anti-American on this issue and nothing will change without systemic changes.
Let's be clear here that this is explicitly not just surveillance. This is surveillance in service of abducting people without due process. We can debate surveillance in the abstract, but this specifically is a feeder program to a system that has illegally deported US citizens without any due process. (Which would have, at step 1, indicated that US citizens cannot be deported.)
This is surveillance as part of a department that explicitly says it is not bound by US law or the Constitution.
All of that makes this program materially different than any other US domestic surveillance program or proposal of which I am aware.
"Maybe the Republicans are worse" when the democrats have a plan to create a 100M domestic surveillance program and push it on the national stage, the word maybe becomes relevant. Until then, it is clear to everyone with a functional set of eyes what is happening; maybe schedule your check-up.
> when the democrats have a plan to create a 100M domestic surveillance program
Did you miss the Snowden reporting? How much do you think those programs cost? Whenever you hear someone’s political analysis contain “The Republicans…” “The Democrats…” you can be sure they have no grasp on how DC works.
What exactly is the point of this post
to sandbag and continue the narrative that 'both sides are bad' during a time in which only one side has the power. really compelling stuff
They are both bad. Every administration has used and advanced these types of programs. That’s inconvenient for those who wear a tribal badge.
I think the content of my post, and the post I'm replying, makes it pretty obvious. What has you confused?
Need to rollback the entire post-9/11 security mentality.
Abolishing ICE and DHS is the baseline for Democrats I support going forward.
https://www.newsweek.com/democratic-bill-abolish-ice-shut-do...
>> Abolishing ICE and DHS
Ya, I am a fan of the coast guard... and I think we need the FAA/TSA to keep the planes running on time. And FEMA might be laughed at in some quarters but a federal disaster response is something we should have ahead of hurricane season.
What does the Coast Guard have to do with my comment? It was founded in 1915 in its current form and has existed since 1790. DHS is only 24 years old, and was a reactionary response to a terrorist attack.
Coast Guard is DHS.
https://www.dhs.gov/operational-and-support-components
[delayed]
And it can be kept outside of DHS after DHS is scrapped.
Okay, then take those back out before dissolving DHS.
Obviously we're not talking about getting rid of FAA or FEMA, but rather breaking up DHS back how it was before and getting rid of ICE. TSA doesn't do jack squat and is almost entirely security theater; it needs to go.
And FEMA is now so ridiculously politicized maybe it does need a rebuild, when you have leadership debating whether aid is deserved or granted based on whether a county or state voted for the malignant narcissist in charge.
I think most Americans think we should have a sensible border policy and some way to identify and remove the 5-10m illegal immigrants that came in over the Biden administration.
You should rethink your position as it's not going to give you the electoral wins you think it will.
I will never support deporting people already here unless they commit felonies. It's cruel and immoral. People come here for a better life and work opportunities, the immigration system needs reform, and nobody goes after the employers who typically support Republicans.
This is a huge, wealthy country. There's plenty of room and economic opportunity. The undocumented are not the problem. They're scape goated.
But even setting all that aside, ICE and DHS need fundamental reform, so might as well abolish them and create new agencies with all new employees.
But then what do you do with all of the Proud Boys?
You can always spot the addicts mainlining outrage pornography by how often they bring up the last president that didn't have the right letter next to their name.
> the 5-10m illegal immigrants that came in over the Biden administration.
This part always pisses them off for some reason and any conversations around this cannot be had in a civil manner here without suppression. It's a real insult to people who spent years, sometimes decades, coming into a country legally.
I spent years and tens of thousands of dollars coming here legally. I don't care.
You know what does insult me? Members of the current administration demonizing people who did the same thing as they and their family do. I don't see ICE raiding Melania's HQ for working illegally as a model or entering the country on a fraudulent visa (she was a "model" of no repute in her home country, for an agency whose largest claims to fame were involvement in prostitution and sex trafficking rings, not who they got on the cover of magazines. She certainly didn't meet, not even close, the bar of "who possesses extraordinary ability" or "who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement"). Or Elon, who worked, openly, and famously for startups while here on a non-employment authorizing student visa.
That insults and offends me. Not the common person eking out a life for themselves or their family.
Repeat after me: concerns about illegal immigration are not a justification to destroy the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Period.
The reason this "pisses off" us freedom loving people is we're sick of hearing your hyperbolic talking points repeated as if they have any bearing on the argument whatsoever, while you continue to glibly talk past the relevant criticism of how you're actually cheering on the destruction of our country.
A bunch of people crossing a border illegally can't destroy a country - just like how some planes being flown into office towers can't either. However, throwing our rights, values, and institutions in the trash as a "response" does.
Biden actually deported more then previous president. However focus was on criminals.
But, right wing must always lie.
I recall watching live when second tower was hit. US commentator immediately understood the situation and remarked how this is end of an era of freedom and how this will unavoidably bring massive surveillance state aparatus in place from now on and how entire world will be affected negatively. He was 100% correct in all he said.
But lets be clear - its US public that allowed this, over and over. Saner candidates were suppressed as not patriotic enough, entire worse than pointless wars were waged and millions died for nothing. Not US passport holders so I guess thats just an afterthought.
Dont expect rollback in your lifetime. We havent reached even the bottom yet, not with current voting mindset. Still this is what US population wants, I don't see >200 millions even just protesting.
The part that gets me is how many useful idiots who are smart enough to know know better will cheer for these things when sold piecemeal. Your DEP starts trawling the cell phone location records to nab some guy who sold bad dirt. Your traffic cameras tell law enforcement how to tailor their revenue generation toward those who can't push back. Your school system monitors social media to nab some teenager for selling vapes his older relative bought. And people cheer. They call it progress.
Only when the comprehensiveness of this 1984 is presented in an unflattering way like "we're gonna snoop on everything so ICE can round people up" (or an AI camera goes up on every street corner) do they even become uneasy.
Stop assuming that intelligence equates to morals, this has never ever been the case.
> Why should ICE be able to collect this information when domestic law enforcement generally has to show probable cause to a judge to gather similar information? Who decided to make ICE the country's supreme law enforcement agency?
You know what's funny, everything you said is valid, but, I've never seen this much outrage over flock cameras on here or on most tech forums. It's actually the opposite. Somehow spying is ok if they like the company.
A lot of users here have vocally admitted that having Flock cameras was okay because they were a HOA member and it gave them security of some sort and they had "nothing to hide"
Another example was Anthropic getting caught stenographically marking requests[1] and Anthropic's response when they got caught was simply "it was just an experiment" and everyone on here said it's okay.
> Why? What guardrails does it have if not law? Who defines those guardrails?
I wish we asked this question to all our favorite tech companies too, this being a tech forum and all.
[1] https://thereallo.dev/blog/claude-code-prompt-steganography
> I've never seen this much outrage over flock cameras on here or on most tech forums.
Are we on the same platform? Search Flock on HN, below are the top results
Stop Flock
Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves
This Flock Camera Leak is like Netflix For Stalkers
US cities are axing Flock Safety surveillance technology
Grand jury declines to indict Ohio man charged with destroying Flock camera
YouTuber Says Cops Visited Him After He Built a Flock-Style Camera to Track Cops
Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras
Flock CEO calls Deflock a “terrorist organization” (2025) [video]
I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their domestic spying program
Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed
An interactive map of Flock Cams
Flock and Cyble Inc. weaponize “cybercrime” takedowns to silence critics
Hackers Got Inside a Flock Camera
Ring cancels its partnership with Flock Safety after surveillance backlash
Amazon’s Ring to partner with Flock
Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit
Flock Hardcoded the Password for America's Surveillance Infrastructure 53 Times
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=flock
The link you shared - Those simply are submitted titles to HN, not necessarily the discussions around them. If you read most of them, it's usually pro-surveillance and the argument is almost always along the lines of "I've got nothing to hide"
I wonder how much of the people who comment in defense of these kinds of things work for Flock/Palantir or something surveillance related. Often when there's discussion of ads you also have people who chime in with "I think personalized ads are very useful" comments. And I'm intensely suspicious of these since seeing someone get called out once.
> I've never seen this much outrage over flock cameras on here or on most tech forums
I have entirely the opposite impression of HN - I feel like I hear a huge amount of (rightful) resistance to that kind of surveillance.
If you want to build a stasi-like system then the answer to all that’s yes - which seems to be what the majority of us citizens is in favour of, otherwise they wouldn’t have elected this admin
This is why Trump is acting like he's on the ballot in November.
Since he is the face of the Republican party, voters understand they are evaluating his decisions and performance since 2024, and will be voting accordingly.
> US citizens "can't" be deported
Source: I'm a naturalized citizen.
Naturalized citizens can be deported and their citizenship can be revoked in cases of violent crime or other immoral behavior. That information is provided when swearing in.
It's more accurate to say that US citizens who are law abiding and moral, or who are born in the US, can't be deported.
Since we're nitpicking, you are still not correct.
US citizens cannot be deported.
Naturalized citizens cannot be deported for crimes they commit after they became citizens.
Naturalized citizens who obtained their citizenship through fraudulent means can have their citizenship revoked. Then, they are not citizens and can be deported.
US citizens cannot be deported.
(There should be a time limit on revocation after which citizenship becomes permanent and irrevocable.)
Technically it's as soon as it's provided. Once you are a citizen the only way in which it can be revoked is if you are found to have committed fraud during the immigration process.
Yeah, I'm going further and saying there should be a time limit on even the fraud piece. If a person lied on their application 50 years ago, it's too late.
The government should only get a finite period of time to press the issue. (Like with most crimes.)
According to the government, your citizenship can be revoked for a bunch of reasons:
* https://www.usa.gov/renounce-lose-citizenship
More context:
* https://vertexlegal.org/what-causes-american-citizen-lose-ci...
This.
Also, with this administration, if you didn't dot an 'i' or cross a 't' somewhere in your paperwork, citizenship can be revoked.
Basically, if they catch you in any kind of lie. It's fraud.
Could be ex post facto and seemingly innocuous act unconnected to paperwork as well. You came in. Applied for asylum. Went through the process. And, finally, you were naturalized.
Only you traveled back to your hometown in your country of origin at some point. Before or after naturalization.
Boom.
They got you. That's fraud.
Everyone needs to stay extra careful going forward.
> after naturalization
Say more about this. You are hinting at a kind of conditional citizenship that I do not believe exists under US law.
Are you suggesting that there is a class of citizens who did not commit fraud on their naturalization paperwork, yet who are barred from travel to countries that other citizens are able to travel to?
Naturalized citizens really are a different class.
* The US passport lists your place of birth, barring you from entry into certain other countries, if you were born in countries they don't agree with.
* Your citizenship can be revoked and you can be deported as we discussed above.
* You cannot be elected to certain offices.
> barring you from entry into certain other countries
This is not a restriction placed by the US government, is it?
There really should be a time limit on revocation.
re: offices, it's just President & VP that are (Constitutionally) off the table, right?
Characterizing the propublica pieces as "fake immigration charges" is pretty misleading. All of their arrests of non-illegal-immigrants has been for (bogus) charges unrelated to immigration, usually some variant of "obstruction".
"Some US citizens have been deported" is also a mischaracterization. Aside from minor children of deported parents, the only case where an American citizen was deported was Brian Morales Garcia.
"fake immigration charges" are what they apply to people born here, so that they can deport them. The charges are facially fake because a person born here cannot have immigrated here.
There is no such thing as a legitimate immigration charge levied against a person born in Chicago or Los Angeles. It's definitionally fake, even if ICE says otherwise. This is part of the reason they deport people before the courts can weigh in.
> "Some US citizens have been deported" is also a mischaracterization
You are simply wrong on this, as you admit in your next sentence. I wonder at the motive for knowingly something flagrantly incorrect, then admitting as much in the next sentence.
In any case, the link I provided includes links to cases where native-born US citizens have been illegally deported without due process. In one case, the prosecutor admitted that the deportations were illegal. But because ICE is supralegal and does not follow due process, those citizens never went before a judge before being deported.
The situation under which citizens have been detained have always been claimed to be for obstruction. I am not aware of a single case where an individual was detained for immigration charges who was not specifically targeted for enforcement, although since ICE is not public about this (and they cannot be in order to protect the accused) it is hard to say for sure.
The link recounts one case, the one I mentioned, Garcia, and the circumstances around his deportation are complex at best. No question that ICE was mistaken on the facts, but the situation was complex -- he had crossed the border into the US illegally; he did have a Mexican passport with a different spelling of his name. I am not aware of any others and the propublica does not cite any others. Please give names if you are aware of any.
My claim was that you mischaracterized the propublica article and I stand by it. You claimed that US citizens were being detained on fake immigration charges and this is not the case (Garcia was a mistake but the charges were not fake, they were just incorrect). You claimed that US citizens have been deported, and the article only provided a single example, which does not support the claim of "people", that being the plural of "person".
The Garcia case illustrates the various lies embedded in ICE. They say they target people with deportation orders, which is obviously false based on ICE statements and testimony in this and other cases.
It also highlights the importance of adherence to the due process guarantees of the Constitution; Garcia was deported before being allowed to prove his citizenship in court. A US citizen is allowed to have had a passport issued in another country; how else would a naturalized citizen have arrived in the US in the first place, except with a passport in their name? The main point here is the Constitution prescribes how all this is to be handled, and ICE does not want to do it that way so they don't. That's a huge problem here.
Anyway, you asked for names. I'll just pull from the ProPublica database. Most of these boil down to ICE habitually violating Constitutional due process. I'm omitting "obstruction" charges. This person:
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/bronx-man-wrongfully-de...
These two people were deported on fake immigration charges, and then deported. Two individuals, "people," being the plural of "person." "Fake" charges, because people born here are not subject to immigration charges.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2026/03/12/orlando-born-twin...
This citizen was illegally arrested:
https://www.investigatemidwest.org/a-new-immigration-strateg...
I am going to pause here to remind you that citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. Even if they don't "look American." Many/most Americans do not own a picture ID that proves their citizenship. Fewer carry one. Most children do not have picture IDs at all.
And why should they? We are not required to do carry proof of citizenship, even if we are physically proximate to people who are not here legally. Which none of us generally know about the people near us. Outside of my family, I have only seen a handful of citizenship documents of other people I assume are citizens. I would not testify to anyone's citizenship outside of my family, whose citizenship documents I personally procured.
Here's a citizen being arrested because ICE agents did not like his accent. Again, a reminder that many citizens, even of those born here, have accents. That does not change their citizenship in any way or require them to carry proof of citizenship.
https://www.kptv.com/2026/01/18/border-patrol-agent-detains-...
Et cetera.
The first and third cases were not deportations. They were bogus obstruction detentions.
"how else would a naturalized citizen have arrived in the US in the first place, except with a passport in their name?" -- part of the complexity of the case, as I note, is that he did in fact enter illegally, smuggled across the border. He did not have to enter illegally; he could have simply presented his passport at any border crossing (or, lacking a passport, an affadavit), but nonetheless he did.
The second case was minor children. Known by ICE and immigration judges to be citizens. Deported deliberately to accompany their mother. This was in conflict with the mother's expressed wish for them to remain with other relatives. At no point were the children charged with any sort of immigration crime, fake or otherwise.
I agree that American citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship and agree that they should not be required to present papers to prove citizenship.
But you are describing a world that does not exist. No US citizens are being deported mistakenly (Garcia being the lone exception). Notably, this has not always been the case -- under previous administrations there have been numerous cases of citizens being deported, but in the Trump administrations this has not been the case (with the exception of Garcia). We are not living in a nightmarish dystopia.
You initially wanted to nitpick my characterization of ICE illegally deporting US citizens, even going so far as to define plural. Now you say it was just those two (which I found in under 5 minutes), certainly there were no others.
You wanted to nitpick my characterization of ICE arresting US citizens of fake immigration charges. Now you characterize ICE as making up bogus "obstruction" charges to arrest US citizens. I'm not sure it matters what fake (or, I'll use the synonym you prefer: "bogus") charge goes on the sheet. By nitpicking, you've conceded that there should be masked secret police harassing US citizens over whom they have no jurisdiction.
You are not willing to engage with the core problem issue that I have raised repeatedly, which is that ICE engages in Constitutional violations as a standard operating procedure. For that reason, I'm out.
Read my first reply again and tell me who is nitpicking.
Don't fall into the conspiracy theory trap. ICE can be bad even if they aren't demonic agents of evil. When you believe dramatic but untrue and easily disproven things your world view is going to continue to disconnect from reality.
> The second case was minor children. Known by ICE and immigration judges to be citizens. Deported deliberately to accompany their mother. This was in conflict with the mother's expressed wish for them to remain with other relatives. At no point were the children charged with any sort of immigration crime, fake or otherwise.
On what grounds were those children deported? They were US citizens who had family who were US citizens, whose parents have, in some cases assigned guardianship to said families.
Why were they deported? Citizens who as you say, were not charged with any sort of immigration crime.
Why were they deported? Farcical deportation hearings with 2 year olds (and in one case, an 11 month old in a car seat) "defending themselves" "pro se" against ICE lawyers arguing for deportation over again, as you acknowledge: US citizens, not charged with a crime. Because however much Trump would not like it to be (and for positively hilarious irony, Don Jr, Eric and Ivanka all benefited from it), birthright citizenship is still a thing, and neither a post on Truth Social or an EO override the Constitution.
The specific clearance requirement may suggest Section 702/FISA capability being employed.
If that ends up being the case, then you're talking a reality where American citizens become the target of warrantless domestic surveillance, using data collected by the NSA. Every phone call, e-mail, text message, DM, group chat; anything a person has ever said or done in their digital lives going back years.
It's worse now with AI, because human effort is no longer required to read intercept transcripts or conversations. Instantaneous surfacing of dirt/leverage.
Warrantless surveillance already exists in the US for monitoring cleared people and those with adjacency. The third party doctrine covers everyone else. Everything you can imagine them doing is being done. They already have the collection methods running and just need authorization to expand the scope.
This would be illegal of course.
That doesn't generally seem to be an impediment to the US gov.
When the courts have no power or are complicit then legality is irrelevant.
I mean, so is murdering people in cold blood, that's why ICE doesn't really do that.
"enforcement and removal", from the actual name, sounds lots worse than "spying"
in fact it sounds uncannily similar to what a bunch of organizations in USSR were doing to citizens, like NKVD and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheka
The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission, abbreviated as VChK, and commonly known as the Cheka, was the first Soviet secret police organization.
If they can make illegal migrants disappear without any option for them to defend themselves in front of the legal system, they can make anybody disappear, including you.
And if you think: "Why would they want to do that?", consider that even something stupid like someone misinterpreting a gesture or working for a competitor of a company the regime currently favours can get you there.
To be fair, they're not disappearing anyone.
They don't need to, because the US has a finely honed system of railroading.
They push captured migrants through the system to deportation via a "rocket docket" and our rubber stamp justice system.
The system being discussed simply allows them to lay their hands on more migrants to feed that existing quick deportation pipeline.
It's worse than disappearing people. Disappearing people implies they need to hide what they're doing from an objectionable public. Clearly, the people currently in power are blessed with a constituency they don't need to hide from.
So I want to be clear that I don't like how we do that, but the problem is that if your single metric is "I want fewer humanitarian migrants" then the plan is working. It's the disconnect between people who want that and don't care about the migrants themselves, and the people who either want that but do care) or don't want that and care that's driving all of this.
It's also really unhelpful to act like deportation under any* circumstances is WORSE than enforced disappearance, which generally involves murder and anonymous disposal of remains. I don't like how we're treating migrants and I believe that immigration is one of our greatest advantages over countries that reject it. I can still maintain enough objectivity to tell the difference between disgustingly harsh "push vs pull" tactics and organized mass murder.
> uncannily similar to what a bunch of organizations in USSR were doing to citizens
I'm sure Trump has had plenty of input from Putin about all this. Even if he's not formally an "asset", it's more a case of shared goals.
Anyone cheering for this fail to realize that these kinds of programs never ever go away. Even if their budget is restricted by a future congress, some forms of this will remain. Also, political changes occur every 4-8 years. Sooner or later, the other side will control the same levers. Instead of targeting immigration, it could be used to target a community/ideology/group of individuals you align with.
This is all correct. The implication is the only long-term solution is dissolution of DHS.
Whatever functions we need can be rebuilt from scratch later. But this is a rebuild moment, not a refactor moment.
Nonsense. This administration erased entire programs with the stroke of a pen. A future administration could do the same. Everything this administration has done can be unraveled.
Unless it involves the pet projects of those who are really in control.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or actually believe that. History clearly show its naive to think that will happen. See Post-9/11 domestic surveillance programs by the NSA ramped up during the GW Bush years continuing or even increasing under Obama. We just haven't had a Snowden level leak to show what programs have persisted in the last two administration.
We must push for radical candidates who will be willing to inflict infinite punishment on those who have wronged us. The appetite for such a candidate is brewing.
Can you think of a single name though?
No, what they are saying is the future Democrat administration which will hem and haw at how their hands are tied will be lying.
They will have the power to at very least lay off every person involved. But will they? Probably not (your point). Trump (illegally) shut down the DOE and USAID by simply firing everyone employed there.
The US Constitution is actually pretty nice if it were enforced by Congress and the courts.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/
"Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> if it were enforced by Congress
I wish we had a functional congress that was actually motivated to do their job.
https://citizensimpeachment.com/active-impeachments/
All of the impeachment resolutions are dying in committee, too.
The question is, will this hold up against non-citizens as well.
The word citizen is intentionally absent from the text of the amendment. Bill of rights applies to all persons*, not just citizens.
Even those in slavery when the BoR was created?
Exactly this; how do you have a country of law and order if you don’t extend at least the prosecution rights to the people within it’s borders, citizen or not?
So 700k a year for 142 analysts who might analyze this very comment someday and trace it back to me, great.
I'm liking and commenting under my real name. Fuck ICE.
so brave
I’m Spencer Fleming and I approve this message
Fuck ICE. Abolish the agency. Hold ICE agents accountable.
Hey, analyst reading this: You should ask for a raise. Seriously look up income in your area, you're getting scammed.
And I upvoted and replied. Great.
Now I’m lumped into this! Greaaat just great
No one spoke out when the government started abducting US citizens (who happened to be brown) off the street and killing them in detention centers or putting them on deportation planes to random countries without any due process. This is just the next logical step of the program. All authoritarian governments handle dissidents in this way.
Lots of people have spoken out... some have even died while speaking out.
Do you have any references for these claims?
* Which US citizens have been abducted and by who? Which have been killed?
* Which US citizens found themselves in US detention centers (without lawful arrest) ?
* Which US citizens were placed in other countries without judicial review?
As far as I can tell:
No US citizens have been deported. No US citizens have been detained after evidence of their citizenship has been produced, which is a fast process in practice (taking a few hours), and has affected a few hundred people in total swept up during larger enforcement operations. The worst examples I can find are "At least 36 citizens were held at least a day without being able to contact a lawyer or family." No US citizens have died in detention, nor been killed. In detention, deaths have risen on previous years, but are due to existing medical issues being untreated rather than anyone being killed.
It's hard to say exactly how many because ICE isn't keeping records precisely to make it easier to hide their captives. There are more than a few reports of midnight flights around the country with lawyers being unable to contact their clients.
But for just a taste, here's a propublica article on the matter.
https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-...
Yes, this is the only evidence I can find of anything even tangentially claimed in this comment. "At least 36 citizens were held at least a day without being able to contact a lawyer or family."
It's unclear how that number could be "0" if there's any immigration enforcement at all. That is: supposing a person is likely to be present without authorisation in the country, and is unable to offer any evidence of citizenship, then what?
It seems this is an incredibly small number for such a large operation, ie., the worst case treatment of US citizens appears to be 36 held for a day.
Could this be improved? Presumably.
> It's unclear how that number could be "0" if there's any immigration enforcement at all.
In the US, we believe people are innocent until proven guilty. The way this number can be 0 is by ICE and CBP doing the bare minimum investigation "Is this person here legally" before arresting, not after.
There are, of course, situations that make that particularly difficult to determine, for example at home birth and homeschooling. But that's a burden for the state to resolve, not the individual.
> supposing a person is likely to be present without authorisation in the country, and is unable to offer any evidence of citizenship, then what?
It's not their burden to show citizenship or authorization. Before being arrested the state should have gone through a process "Is this person a citizen? where do they work? Do they have an SSN? Do they have school records or is there a birth certificate?" These are all tasks for the state to do before arresting someone.
> It seems this is an incredibly small number for such a large operation,
1. It's entirely too large, particularly because citizenship can be determined before arresting.
2. This is only what has been found by journalists, not the sum total of illegal arrests. Like I said, ICE is specifically trying to obfuscate their operations (the article mentions it) specifically to get around thing like FOIA requests to see how often these false arrests happen.
> Could this be improved?
There's almost no way it couldn't be improved.
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesnt apply to arrest. It only means that you're to be given timely recourse to challenge arrest, not that you cannot be arrested or detained. For obvious reasons.
> These are all tasks for the state to do before arresting someone.
There were certainly done in the case of these 36. That isnt the issue. The issue is that there are some non-zero pool of US citizens, who associate with non-US citizens illegally in the country, who cannot readily prove their citizenship. Since they are present with illegal immigrants, and are reasonably suspected of being one, they are reasonably detained.
> There's almost no way it couldn't be improved.
This indicates you aren't aware of the issues involved.
No one thinks its a good thing for US citizens to be mistakenly detained. The onus is on people who agree that there should be some level of immigration enforcement to explain how a perfect process avoids 100% of all such cases.
If you dont want immigration enforcement, that's a clearer position. Then the question is: what does the US owe to non-citizens who have build nothing, and paid nothing? If the answer is "nothing" you've got a lot of homelesssness, medical, etc. issues to address --- if your answer is "something" then you've got 8bn people on the planet, and the question is: how much?
> "Innocent until proven guilty" doesnt apply to arrest.
Yes it absolutely does. Cops need more than just a hunch before they can arrest someone. They need clear articulable evidence that the person they are arresting more than likely committed a crime. That's what the 4th amendment protects.
For obvious reasons, we don't just allow cops to go out and arrest people on no grounds. Only ICE seems to get that benefit.
> There were certainly done in the case of these 36.
No it wasn't, they wouldn't be arrested if it was done before.
> who associate with non-US citizens illegally in the country
We have the freedom of association (1st amendment and NAACP v. Alabama). There's no such thing as "illegal association".
> This indicates you aren't aware of the issues involved.
Oh I'm aware that there are a number of racist people who want mass deportation and don't care who gets swept up in it. The problem they have is you can't do mass deportation and due process, which is why ICE has abandoned due process. So, people like yourself defend that abrogation because you like the thought of a few more mexicans being thrown into CECOT.
We can stop pretending that's not the "issues involved".
Right, so you assume (and conclude) the possibility and necessity of a perfect enforcement procedure which will never detain a US citizen.
At this point, I dont think i'm talking to a person offering arguments in good faith. Nothing you've said advances or clarifies how such a procedure could be enacted, and your replies are simply restatements of your assumption.
You actually haven't addressed a single one of my arguments which is exactly why I restated them but also directly addressed your points.
If you think this is bad faith, fine. I think you just don't have a strong retort other than "I don't like that idea".
It only seems like a small number to you because (presumably) you don't care about the people harmed.
It's a small number as a property of an enforcement procedure which has to deal with millions of people.
Its unclear how other than requiring the process to be perfect, and without any error at all, that the number could be much lower.
And such a requirement is, in practice, impossible. So requiring the number to be 0 is to require there to be no immigration enforcement at all.
> supposing a person is likely to be present without authorisation in the country, and is unable to offer any evidence of citizenship, then what?
Then don't arrest them and send them to a concentration camp would be a great start. The onus should be on the arresting officer to have a reasonable suspicion that the person in question is in the US without proper authorization (with reasonable suspicion being a pretty high bar, much higher than it currently is).
We have a court system. ICE even has their own special extra-judicial court system. There is absolutely zero need to proactively be disappearing people just because some guy who's only training is that Family Guy meme decided that this particular brown person needs to have their life destroyed.
Also, these detention centers are horrific and something history will not judge kindly, especially given that "the cruelty is the point" seems to be the guiding light for the folks building them.
36 US citizens being incorrectly and illegally arrested is 36 too many. Period. End of story.
Demand better of our government, not "eh, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet."
> The onus should be on the arresting officer to have a reasonable suspicion that the person in question is in the US without proper authorization
My question is: suppose they have such suspicion.
> 36 US citizens being incorrectly and illegally arrested is 36 too many. Period. End of story.
This doesnt really make any sense. Since you want to say that the process of immigration enforcement must be designed to never make a mistake that places a US citizen in detention for any amount of time, i assume that your real goal is to end all immigration enforcement.
It would be better if you said that, rather than laundered your view thru a claim about the possibility and necessity of perfect enforcement.
Well, a law enforcement agency that has no need to be armed at all has shot and killed at least 2 Americans, which in my book is completely and utterly unacceptable. If you asked me what the acceptable life toll was for keeping non-violent (I make that indication, because despite all the "dangerous immigrants" talk from ICE, violent acts are not under their jurisdiction. If someone commits a real crime, it becomes real law enforcement's problem. ICE, definitionally, is only needed for otherwise law-abiding non-citizens) illegal immigrants out of the United States, I'd confidently say zero.
So your view is that government policy is subject to a heckler's veto. If a protester can place themselves between law enforcement such that they're at risk of being injured, or killed -- then, by that very fact, any such law should no longer be enforced.
OK, fair enough. By this logic, those Jan 6th protesters who placed themselves between police and buildings/crowds such that they were injured/killed/etc. by the police -- those people get to cancel a federal election. For, if we cannot have elections without people dying, then presumably there should be none?
If someone requires medical treatment and you prevent them accessing it and they die, then you killed them.
Many people spoke out against it. I don't think "nobody spoke out" is the problem here
"No one spoke out" <- this is just demonstrably false. If you want to live in a doomfantasy be my guest, but don't lie.
yes, people spoke out, but i take your point. a lot of people seemed cool with it or were even excited for it when they thought it wouldn't effect them, but obviously, if they could get away with it with a subset of the population, that subset would only grow.
Many citizens and some politicians spoke out.
Plenty of people spoke out but none of the people with power to stop it (courts, Congress)
Lots of people did.
And what did you do about it? Probably the same as the rest of us.. nothing that actually matters.
We have no power except a vote. Our country is too big (physically) to effectively protest. Our wealth distribution is too large. Our social safety nets are laughable. People can't even take time off work to protest, or if they just didn't show up they can be fired without recourse.
Our country and government is basically built for the people having no actual power. We are at the mercy of the ultra rich that control everything and a large majority of all of our "elected" officials.
I mean, it's cliche but vote! Use your right to vote and vote in people who will hold those who abuse their power accountable.
If everyone who was allowed to vote actually voted, I think there's a reasonably high chance we'd have better politicians. As it stands, there's this pretend "virtue" from a bunch of pseudo-intellectual morons who think they're cool by abstaining from their right to vote, and dedicate a lot of time trying to convince people that their votes don't matter.
Cynicism is always tempting but ultimately lazy; if they votes didn't matter then there wouldn't be politicians wasting their time trying to make it hard or impossible for you to vote.
Voting is important, but your voice doesn't stop there. Take to the streets. Block some roads. Occupy some buildings.
The Serbians did that for two years straight, until their government resigned and called for new elections. Look at videos from a protest: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1jc29fk/breathtakin...
If a much poorer country with (for now!) much worse repression can do it, what's your excuse, Americans?
Politics isn't just the ballot box every couple of years. Politics is always and everywhere.
Blocking roads seems like a very fast way to have people turn on you and your cause. It might be effective in some places, but in much of America I think it's counter productive.
It's counter productive because what roads are you going to block? Cities are Blue, even in Texas.
There were larger protests at ICE concentration camps but ICE made it clear that they'd use deadly force to disperse them. From the Left, the worry was that Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act to suspend elections, deploy the military, etc.
"Calling for new elections" is a regular process in a parliamentary system, and so protestors can pressure a government into that. The US runs on a fixed election schedule and change doesn't happen outside of that (Congressmen and Senators resigning en masse is a pure fantasy).
Sure, you can't have the exact same outcome. But you sure can force change in ways that are feasible in your system. The problem is the lack of even trying.
I don't disagree with anything you said. I'm just saying that voting is something that's a right given to US citizens [1] that is woefully underutilized. Only about half of those eligible bother voting! If you don't like the current state of politics, you should at the very least do the minimal effort to participate in our republic.
That is, of course, the minimal thing, but I think we'd have way better elections if people just used this fundamental right.
[1] Yes yes I know about disenfranchisement for felonies and the like, you don't need to lecture me.
When the government is shooting citizens in the face, disenfranchising voters, dismantling election committees, and encouraging militant groups to show up to polling places and intimidate vote counters, all while claiming every election they've been a part of was rigged against them, it's natural for people to look outside of voting to make an impact.
I will be voting, like I always have, but I live in a state where that's easy to do. This administration is testing the limits of what people will put up with.
I'm not saying you vote instead of doing other things. I'm just saying that this right is really underutilized and anyone who can vote should.
Once they have deported the last undocumented immigrant this system won’t be just decommissioned, it will be repurposed.
Everyone can be stripped off their citizenship now that birthright is debatable (Supreme Court upheld with a narrow 6-3). At which point they are illegals.
The infra we are building for our future dictator is awesome.
Remember those horrible vicious ni… I mean Haitians in Springfield? The ones who are "poisoning the blood of the country", "probably have AIDS", and are "eating the dogs" and "eating the cats"?
They were legal, every last one of them. They were under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). There was no "law and order" justification to object to their presence. Didn't stop the GOP from going after them. Trump and Vance viciously attacked them with the full support of the conservative media. The administration repealed their TPS protection, turning people who had done no wrong into fugitives.
This is about race. Always has been. When they run out of "illegals", they'll turn people into "illegals". When they run out of immigrants entirely, they'll overturn the 14th Amendment and start stripping citizenship from native-born Americans of the wrong color. They've already tried just that, and three motherfuckers on the Supreme Court voted to let them.
what's the problem with ending a temporary protection status? it's supposed to be temporary it's in the name, unless I'm mistaken that program started 16 years ago that seems way past temporary.
There is no problem if it is done for rational reasons and in a fair/unbiased way, but if it is done for irrational reasons (xenophobia, racisms, bigotry, etc) and in unfair/biased way then that is a major problem; the motivations and methods matter.
They were given protection status do to an earthquake it's been 16 years it seems rational to return them home. What would be a fair reason to end this temporary status to you?
I don't think length of time is the rational indicator of whether or not the status is still necessary, the present conditions within the country would be the rational indicator, yes?
Haiti is an amazing place, very safe. Stop spreading your dog whistle racism. Haitians should go back to their beautiful country.
What is the present condition in the country that prevents them from returning? What condition would be acceptable in your mind to make returning them ok?
Are you suggesting we should move people from safe conditions to unsafe conditions simply because you don't like the length of time they have been in safe conditions?
For me personally, the conditions should be as safe or safer than the current conditions under which a person resides before considering removal of protective status, or else it would be cruel and inhumane to move them (to worse conditions).
I think preventing unnecessary human suffering should be the number one concern, do you not?
So their country of origin has to become as safe as the United States? That sounds like we would have to keep most people practically indefinitely. If the goal is preventing unnecessary suffering why stop at those who are already here? there are 10s of millions maybe even hundreds of millions of people suffering. Shouldn't we bring them all to the US to reduce their suffering? The people currently in Haiti are in unsafe conditions why don't we bring them over that would reduce suffering.
The name for TPS is not the program is temporary, rather the protection itself is temporary protection (hurr durr) until either the person can return home or seek other means of legal status.
After 16 years why wouldn't they be able to return home? The protection was given due to an earthquake how long are we supposed to allow temporary protections to last?
Haiti is in a state of anarchy, completely taken over by gangs. There are no elected officials in the entire country. It is one of the most dangerous places in the world.
This is dog whistle racism. Haiti is an amazing country, very safe. Don't let MAGA accounts like adfgaionio tell you otherwise.
So the country is too dangerous because of the people? Why would we want people from one of the most dangerous places in the world in our country?
racism /rā′sĭz″əm/ noun
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
I didn't say anything about race? You said that Haiti is in full blown anarchy and overrun with gangs. Why is it racist not to want people from a country that you referred to as incredibly dangerous?
Because it was done for racist reasons. "Poisoning the blood of the country" and all that. The government is not allowed to do anything for an illegal reason.
The protection was given due to an earthquake it's been 16 years that crisis is over there is nothing racist about sending people home after the crisis we sheltered them for is over.
You in a later comment:
> So the country is too dangerous because of the people? Why would we want people from one of the most dangerous places in the world in our country?
So it turns our you weren't "just asking questions" in good faith, but rather pushing the standard progressively-louder dog whistles. It always boils down to the collectivism of handwaving about "those people", doesn't it?
At this point I not longer give any credence to arguments about "immigration". There are legitimate criticisms to be made for sure, but they're utterly minuscule relative to this revanchist movement to destroy what little Constitutional liberties we have left.
This seems like a problem, reaction, solution scenario where Big Tech was always the solution and needed a problem and a reaction.
It's also their preservation mechanism. expect some of the people investigated to be "anti tech extremists" https://www.wired.com/story/us-law-enforcement-warns-of-anti...
Okay, who here doesn't read this $100M and think something along the lines of Dr. Evil...
Let's add some levity to the situation, and here's the link: https://youtu.be/EJR1H5tf5wE?si=lGJ7_L0IN31WNMKE
Most un-American 142 intelligence operatives to ever exist.
Don't let the US shove this down to other countries' throats. Because, that's what they do, and they're very good at it.
As flawed as the civil service is, it's the notion of "contractors" which concerns me most.
(un)fun fact, Deloitte currently staffs what looks like a smaller version of this contract, that this may be intended to replace based on the timing. Example, award ID 70CDCR21FR0000022 on USAspending.gov
This was once known as Gestapo and Stasi.
It is tiring to hear law enforcement be described as a weapon. Law enforcement keeps society functioning. Journalists and public figures who rule up people to be against the law are the real bad actors here trying to subvert American society.
I thought the NSA already was the internal spy agency?
Why have one when you can have two?
NSA has a culture of at least sort of following the laws that govern them. This needs to be ICE to land with people who will happily ignore court orders.
NSA has a culture of technically following the law while blatantly subverting them.
That seems like a strict improvement over ICE still lmao.
Genuine question for people here who still like Trump...does this kind of stuff not scare you?
It doesn’t, because they think he’s on their side. As long as he keeps hurting the right people, they’ll tolerate anything he throws at them.
Sure, but I would actually like to hear what a Trump supporter has to say here. I suspect you and I have a lot of overlap on our opinions, which is great but sort of tangential to what I want to know.
[delayed]
You are extremely unlikely to actually get someone to chat with your earnestly about this on this site. They will get downvoted, flagged, and mobbed by ten other people who want to vent their righteous indignation at your interlocutor.
You will have to know someone personally or read sites that don't just reflect back your existing world view.
Good luck.
> Sure, but I would actually like to hear what a Trump supporter has to say here.
(Sometimes called The Narcissist's Prayer.)You’re replying to a comment that is re-iterating that they are asking for the opinion of actual Trump supporters. Presumably you are not yourself a Trump supporter, and what you posted is not your opinion.
It’s frustrating seeing people’s genuine questions being mocked.
Because it's pointless. 10 years into the experiment, there's nothing to learn. People are economically anxious but vote against their own interests so they can reinforce a caste system? People are gullible or hypocrites? People are willfully ignorant enough to want to ask the mob their agenda?
If you really want their viewpoint, plenty of sob stories at https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/hot/
> It’s frustrating seeing people’s genuine questions being mocked.
It's more the belief that a genuine answer will come I'm chuckling at.
As a matter of intentional political strategy, I and many other people do not want to see or hear the opinions of actual Trump supporters. I feel it's important to communicate to them that they're bad people with shameful opinions who don't get to have a voice in my circles. In the modern US, this is unfortunately an effective and important component of politics; Trump himself routinely deploys this strategy to great effect.
I really do hope that in the future this strategy will stop being necessary, or that we can at least restore the norms against it. But I'm not going to unilaterally disarm.
I doubt I like trump any more than you do, but if we accept what you said as true, wouldn't that suggest that the entire concept of "free speech" doesn't work?
I think you're mixing up the right to speak with the right to be listened to. "Shut up, fascist, get out of my house" is free speech, too. (And free association.)
I don't think so? "I support this evil person, I think he's the best guy to run the country" and "That's shameful, you should not support evil people and I won't listen to your arguments in his favor" are both core examples of free speech. I don't think that this shameful speech should be illegal or banned from web forums. I don't even think it justifies shunning, necessarily; I'm personally happy to maintain friendships and family relationships with Trump supporters as long as they don't support him anywhere I can hear it.
It is just crazy to me that people traded their rights away just because they got mad at some DEI programs and trans people.
Keep people in “system 1” thinking to control them. Given the palpable shift in online conversation since a couple of Russian datacenters got blown up, it’s clear that although these fault lines always existed in US society, fringe opinions have been massively signal-boosted by bots for quite some time. I suspect there’s been a psychological Cold War going on online for at least the last decade or two, with a whole ecosystem of grifters and ragebait view farmers bottom-feeding off of state sponsored PsyOps, leading a corrupt inner circle of elite opportunists to take advantage of the resulting anger for personal gain. We’ll probably never get to tease apart what was a natural side effect of social media and what was engineered deliberately but I bet the story would be every bit as fascinating as the Manhattan project.
> Given the palpable shift in online conversation since a couple of Russian datacenters got blown up
Forgive me, but hacker news is the only social media I participate in. Is this a pretty commonly held sentiment? Like are other social media users commenting on this trend? Any news articles? Thanks
This was an early rumor, but it’s been debunked. See https://bsky.app/profile/antibot4navalny.bsky.social/post/3m... and https://cybernews.com/news/yandex-data-centers-bot-traffic-d... and here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50042416
> Given the palpable shift in online conversation since a couple of Russian datacenters got blown up
This was a rumor based on a misunderstanding and has since been debunked. It was Yandex search crawler traffic that was reduced.
We do plenty of manipulation and divide-and-conquer on ourselves, which is heavily documented at least since the Cold War. No need to blame it all on outsiders, although certainly some of that is present as well.
If you oppose them, it'd be good to understand them instead of being shocked about straw men. If you'd like to understand them, it's very easy to find their media and thought leaders sharing eg. demographic data. "Remigration" is the key term, now.
> If you'd like to understand them, it's very easy to find their media and thought leaders…
You can't really understand a hypocrite by taking their public utterances at face value.
Look what the Europeans did from their antisemitism in the 1940s. We need to criminalize hate politics like we've banned other antisocial behaviors such as assault and rape. This just feels so obvious to me. Political hatemongering isn't some mystifying slippery ghost.
But no we're like "oh so we have one candidate that wants to adjust the budget to fund some libraries and this other one that wants to build concentration camps and imprison transgendered people. Alright, let's allow both on the ballot"
Being a violent hateful ignorant bigot isn't a qualifying condition for administering civic life.
Its been a bad habit since 9/11 and the disgusting mess that is the PATRIOT act.
Never underestimate how much most Americans will gladly shit on their freedoms if they're told it will hurt someone slightly different than them.
So, a Stasi more or less? Or perhaps KGB is more accurate
Guess is where Kash is right now and what dictators our dear leader really likes.
YCombinator and their lackies in Big Tech have promoted these types of abuses to occur. The comment section here will be filled with people who lack any substance but will gladly provide lip service. The stories of the modern day Gestapo cannot be told without Silicon Valley.
YC loves domestic spying. They can't get enough of it. Flock, Conntour, Lexius, Protent, Ornadyne, AvairSense, etc.
Now the submission has been flagged off the main page. Imagine that.
US of A fone fully rogue. With the help of the tech bros.
Hot take: This is a grifting and jobs program, not an actual solution to a real problem.
Whats the "real" problem? People working for roofing companies? American citizens commit more crime than immigrants by an order of magnitude.
People doing illegal things is the problem. Change the law if you think it's wrong but it's the executive branch's duty to enforce the law.
You can't sit back here and be upset that Trump decides to selectively enforce the law in the ways he sees fit while approving of the exact behavior when there's a different executive.
This is why the problem of executive power exists, people only care when they disagree and actively approve when they agree.
Nope, I can distinguish between what is right and "wrong" without arbitrary laws decided by <1k corrupt politicians (Ds and Rs).
I dont make judgements about what a problem is based on whether a law says it is. You should be experiencing the world outside the framework of imaginerary legal constructs.
If America tends to create laws that are antithetical to common sense and goodness, maybe its the problem. Maybe we need to do away with the whole system, not patch it.
I think you've misjudged me, I think Biden, and Trump should be sharing the same jail cell. I dont approve of basically any US politician, they're all morally corrupt and outright evil.
> If America tends to create laws that are antithetical to common sense
That isn't the root of the problem at all. The root of the problem is we have certain laws that, under some administrations, are barely enforced. Then, under another administration, there are a large group of people who have been flouting the law because it wasn't being enforced.
You've now created huge class of people who have very tenous legal status, based on the whims of the executive. That's the problem.
US immigration laws are some of the most relaxed in the world. There's plenty of debate on whether that should change or not (and how). But circumventing the legislative process might make you feel good about the immediate problem but it creates a side effect of having an underclass of non-citizens that live under constant threat of deportation and have limited access to social programs.
The only judgement I've made of you is that you seem to think not enforcing the law based on personal feelings is right and you've only confirmed that.
In a democracy, the law isn't just some words on papers, it represents the collective moral judgement of the voting population. It is inherently antithetical to democracy to ignore laws you don't agree with.
> Maybe we need to do away with the whole system, not patch it.
Pretty ironic considering this entire situation is caused by people ignoring the system rather than patching it.
The starting people will have top secret security clearance. =(
I think it's a Curtis Yarvin take that political power is based on a party's jobs program. In that sense this is never surprising.
Grifting, purchasing loyalty, and building a police state panopticon in case of inconvenient election results. A real dystopic trifecta!
I'd rather my tax money wasted on get US people watched and silenced, than bombing schools and killing children in Middle East.
I mean if I can choose, I want my tax money spent on making Americans healthier, but I don't get to choose. ICE has $70B to spend, this is just 1/700. I'm sure they will do more before next congress trying to crawl back their money.
If the people in the US get watched and silenced, how will they effectively pressure the govt to not bomb children in the Middle East?
I can’t fathom this kind of thinking. It’s not a case of having to choose between the lesser of evils, it’s a case of having some principles and making decisions based on them.
You can say no.
It's the same forces doing the bombing and the spying. Want to object to Israel/the US murdering a school full of girls? Guess what, now you've got a Palantir tag on you. Push hard enough and maybe Bill Ackman will jump on Twitter and get you blacklisted.