Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The war inside Palantir: Data-mining firm ties to ICE under attack by employees

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 231 posts

Re: The war inside Palantir: Data-mining firm ties to ICE under attack by employees

#201

Post by wang_li »

openasocket wrote: post #192
wang_li wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure precisely what point you're making, but it's possible that you're saying that the intention to apply for asylum provides you with legal rights to enter the US. That's not what the law says. If you're not saying that, then what you wrote is not responsive to the person you replied to.

> the intention to apply for asylum provides you with legal rights to enter the US Sort of, yeah. Check out Akinmade v NIS as an example: https://openjurist.org/196/f3d/951 . Akinmade entered the US with a fake Canadian passport to request asylum. He was granted asylum

Paragraph 8 from your link:

> The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) placed him in detention and commenced exclusion proceedings.

Yes, people can apply for asylum after entering the country unlawfully. No, that doesn't mean you get free reign of the country while your case is decided. Nor does your illegal entry bar you from applying or receiving.

It's notable though that the vast majority of asylum seekers illegally entering the US via the southern border are not refugees and do not qualify for asylum. This is easily seen by the fact that they are crossing from their home country into Mexico and not applying for asylum even though Mexico is largely a safe place to live compared to, for example, Honduras.

Re: The war inside Palantir: Data-mining firm ties to ICE under attack by employees

#202

Post by pacala »

openasocket wrote: post #182
pacala wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That allows the alien to apply for asylum, but does not say anything about whether their act of entering the US was or not breaking the law. We could entertain either or both of: A. Entering the US is not breaking any laws, no matter the manner in which it is accomplished. B. Applying for asylum grants an amnesty for the laws broken while entering the US.

It's (B), in that when applying for asylum things like illegal entry, including using fake documents or false testimony to gain entry, will not be held against you if your reason for doing so was to escape your persecution. See cases like Akinmade v. INS, Turcios v. INS, and Mamouzian v. Ashcroft

Assuming B, the intersection of set I = {people that entered the country illegally} and D = {people who made an asylum claim that was denied} consists of people that broke the law by entering the US illegally. Using fake documents / false testimony to make an invalid asylum request is extra damning. For the central american migrants at the border, this may well be more than 75% of them.

Re: The war inside Palantir: Data-mining firm ties to ICE under attack by employees

#203

Post by d1zzy »

immaway wrote: post #146
zelon88 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry to hear you may have experienced this. But is it really fair to call it "Mexican" heroin? Is that a bonafide statement or an assumption? Lethal drugs don't explicitly come from outside the US, and in the presence of stronger border security the supply-demand curve would just re-balance itself with an all domestic supply. Heroin has always been illegal. Illegally crossing the border has always been illegal.…

Demonizing immigration? How about simply enforcing the law against coming or staying here illegally while others wait in line?

As I understand it, the laws of this country (US) do allow for people to come here (without a visa, etc) and ask for asylum. There's nothing illegal about that. The question is, while you are processing the asylum requests, how do you deal with the people waiting?

The current administration has decided to build detention centers/concentration camps/etc and keep people there and some of the press is pointing out to be rampant with abuse/inhumane conditions. In many cases children are separated from their parents while being held.

Re: The war inside Palantir: Data-mining firm ties to ICE under attack by employees

#204

Post by d1zzy »

immaway wrote: post #149
openasocket wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're a citizen and you commit certain crimes you are separated from your children The overwhelming majority of these cases are people coming to the border and requesting asylum. They passed a credible fear interview administered by CBP, and have been granted entry into the US pending their hearing. They have not committed a crime.

An interview that is easily gamed. If people self deported after getting all their hearing and being determined not to qualify for asylum there would not be as much of a problem. Most of the people claiming asylum do not qualify for asylum, but once they are in the country it is hard and costly to find them.

So how do you propose to handle this in a humane and practical way? (separating children from their parents because the parents failed their asylum application is not humane, just to be clear)

Re: The war inside Palantir: Data-mining firm ties to ICE under attack by employees

#205

Post by jakear »

1111236112347 wrote: post #200
jakear wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a recruiter reach out, and I actually played along with their interview process, but at every step of the way I’d inquire about the company’s ethics. Nailed all the tech questions, but in the end did not get an offer. Maybe I didn’t do as well as I thought I did on the tech, or maybe Palantir recruiting is selecting for people who don’t ask questions.

To add another data point, I interviewed at Palantir and asked questions about ethics and transparency at every reasonable opportunity: during recruiter outreach, during the product presentation given to the group of candidates interview that same day, in my interview with the hiring manager, and with C-level person who did the final interview. Each person I talked to acknowledged that the issues I raised were legiti…

Ah, I never reached C-level interview. Perhaps my technical answers were not as solid as I thought. Or they’ve changed policies since then.

Re: The war inside Palantir: Data-mining firm ties to ICE under attack by employees

#206

Post by word-reader »

fzeroracer wrote: post #196
onepointsixC wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning visas from a list of failed states was not racist. You can say the rhetoric surrounding it was, but not the policy itself.

So if someone was to say, 'We're going to criminalize Marijuana usage because it'll predominately affect black communities' followed by a law that says 'Marijuana is now illegal' are you insinuating that the policy would not be racist? Rhetoric in many cases informs policy and vice versa. You can't just say they exist in a vacuum when the reason why the visa ban occured was on racial pretenses.

Muslims aren't a race, the affected countries were about 10% of global Muslim population, and the countries of concern listed in the travel ban were designated in late 2015 under a different administration.

Re: The war inside Palantir: Data-mining firm ties to ICE under attack by employees

#207

Post by openasocket »

pacala wrote: post #202
openasocket wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's (B), in that when applying for asylum things like illegal entry, including using fake documents or false testimony to gain entry, will not be held against you if your reason for doing so was to escape your persecution. See cases like Akinmade v. INS, Turcios v. INS, and Mamouzian v. Ashcroft

Assuming B, the intersection of set I = {people that entered the country illegally} and D = {people who made an asylum claim that was denied} consists of people that broke the law by entering the US illegally. Using fake documents / false testimony to make an invalid asylum request is extra damning. For the central american migrants at the border, this may well be more than 75% of them.

You're assuming people know in advance whether or not they have a valid asylum claim, and that the court case will determine perfectly whether or not a claim was valid. Regardless, the result of either illegal entry and having an asylum claim rejected is deportation, so the distinction is academic.

Re: The war inside Palantir: Data-mining firm ties to ICE under attack by employees

#208

Post by openasocket »

wang_li wrote: post #201
openasocket wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the intention to apply for asylum provides you with legal rights to enter the US Sort of, yeah. Check out Akinmade v NIS as an example: https://openjurist.org/196/f3d/951 . Akinmade entered the US with a fake Canadian passport to request asylum. He was granted asylum

Paragraph 8 from your link: > The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) placed him in detention and commenced exclusion proceedings. Yes, people can apply for asylum after entering the country unlawfully. No, that doesn't mean you get free reign of the country while your case is decided. Nor does your illegal entry bar you from applying or receiving. It's notable though that the vast majority of asylum seekers…

> that doesn't mean you get free reign of the country while your case is decided

Of course not, that's where bail hearings come into play. The state can't keep an asylum claimee detained indefinitely without providing due process and evidence this person is a flight risk.

>This is easily seen by the fact that they are crossing from their home country into Mexico and not applying for asylum even though Mexico is largely a safe place to live compared to, for example, Honduras.

Seriously? Mexico is hardly a safe place if you are trying to escape gang violence. Hell, the US currently has multiple travel warnings out against various parts of Mexico. The ACLU is currently filing suit fighting back against exactly this mentality.

Re: The war inside Palantir: Data-mining firm ties to ICE under attack by employees

#209

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

nailer wrote: post #197
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICE isn't the border force. All border security operations, stopping people from crossing and customs inspections and such, are done by a different agency called CBP.

OK. Why not change the law, if you want to make undocumented migration legal?

Most people trying to boycott ICE don't think undocumented migration should be legal. They just don't think ICE is a good agency. (Again, ICE is not the only agency responsible for undocumented migration, so undocumented migration isn't automatically legal if they can't do their job.)

Re: The war inside Palantir: Data-mining firm ties to ICE under attack by employees

#210

Post by navigatesol »

navigatesol wrote: post #69
_bxg1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they do stuff like this https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/border-patrol-agent-deta...

> Because they do stuff like this So one border guard does something, and it's okay to say " they do things like this"? Isn't that exactly the argument Trump makes about illegal immigrants comitting crimes?

So can no one explain the logic here? CBP are bad, because some jerk did something bad in Montana. But you lose your minds when the crazy right says the same thing about Muslims or illegal immigrants? Are generalizations and stereotypes acceptable for policy or not? I can't keep up.
Post reply on HN