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

The Palantir app helping ICE raids in Minneapolis

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 977 posts

Re: The Palantir app helping ICE raids in Minneapolis

#791

Post by potato3732842 »

embedding-shape wrote: post #584
potato3732842 wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, this tends to be really effective, especially when you're fighting the upper-class, which is more or less what's happening here as far as I can tell. You're not fighting the upper class. It's the blue collar workers and the people who hire them who support ICE and strict immigration.

That's true, when workers are not aligned with each others, some get confused who is actually on your side vs against you, and frequently they believe the upper-class will protect them and provide them with support and wealth. I don't think I even have to share examples of how this works out in practice, yet for every revolution it keeps happening with the same results more or less. You are fighting the upper-class,…

Framing this as "literally anyone who works" vs "everyone above that" is a dishonest slight of hand to distract from the fact that the top slice of that category spent decades peddling policy that made things worse for the bottom half (and in many cases kicked them into the non working dependent/welfare class) because it made asset values go up and those whiny blue collar types were just backwards and dumb anyway (or whatever they told themselves to justify it).

Re: The Palantir app helping ICE raids in Minneapolis

#792

Post by alex43578 »

willmarch wrote: post #647
alex43578 wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Drawing on the thoughts of the founding fathers to argue “the government is violating the rights and protections enjoyed by Latino and African illegal immigrants” would certainly be a unique position, given who and what the constitution protected. 2) Even setting that aside, what current actions violate the Constitution? The First Amendment has seen time, place, and manner restrictions, particularly when it crosse…

The “founders didn’t intend to protect X” argument is more about history than law. Whatever the founders personally believed, the Constitution they wrote and endorsed (as interpreted for well over a century) restrains government in its treatment of “persons,” not just citizens. Non-citizens (documented or not) still have due process protections, and law enforcement still has to stay inside Fourth Amendment limits. On…

>…the Constitution they wrote and endorsed…restrains government in its treatment of “persons,” not just citizens.

Sure, it does now, but your original statement was “You should read more of the thoughts of America’s founding fathers”. But, do remember the founding fathers didn’t seem very concerned about the early government’s treatment or protections of many groups of people. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have needed: The Bill of Rights Amendments 13,14,15, and 19 The civil rights act Title 9, etc

>Non-citizens (documented or not) still have due process protections, and law enforcement still has to stay inside Fourth Amendment limits.

Sure, and those protections aren’t being violated, as evidenced by the Supreme Court holding that doesn’t even find enough risk to the plaintiffs to temporarily pause these enforcement actions. Just like they also agreed that TPS could be ended, parole could be ended, 3rd country deportations were allowed, etc.

At a certain point, when Congress doesn’t care to legislate against it, the Supreme Court via rulings/shadow docket allows it to continue, and the President authorizes it, the action is legitimate.

You can not like it, and you’re welcome to vote against it in the midterms and in 2028, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional.

Just as emergency order doesn’t equal constitutional, complaints about enforcement of existing laws does not equal unconstitutional.

Re: The Palantir app helping ICE raids in Minneapolis

#793

Post by ethbr1 »

v0id24 wrote: post #744
embedding-shape wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think any rioters in countries like Spain go to a protest with a bet real chance on their minds that they might die. That's the thing, they do, and have in the past too. Some might even recall riots ~70 years ago that kind of spiraled out of control and led to a civil war. Looking at what's happening in Iran as we speak might be a good idea as well, where they've had enough, know that th…

Democracies are vulnerable to many things: populism, vote-rigging, importing migrants to vote for a given party, and much more. Without a reboot, many democracies slide into autocracy. First, the government bans weapons, then curtails civil rights under the guise of child protection, offending religious sensibilities, blocks websites, and gradually tightens penalties for free speech. It all happens gradually. And sud…

> Unarmed people are doomed to change things not only in authoritarian countries, but even in nominally democratic ones. Examples include peaceful and not-so-peaceful protests in Iran, Belarus, and Russia in the struggle against the authorities. Peaceful protests without the support of the army and the elite always end in failure.

I'd take issue with that, because once it becomes an armed conflict then the full power of the state military will be deployed.

And modern nation-states of mid-size or above all have militaries than can crush any civilian armed resistance, simply because of the lethality and capability gap between civilian and military weapons.

The only winning move for a populace, then, is to try and keep resistance sub-armed conflict (and avoid being bated into armed resistance).

Re: The Palantir app helping ICE raids in Minneapolis

#794

Post by unethical_ban »

Amezarak wrote: post #760
NonHyloMorph wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term to consider here is >extrajudical killing< As in: Someone wotking for the executive kills another citizen, without 1) a need to do so for selfdefense 2) any justification from the judicary for it, and that without being charged for murder/aggrevated manslaugther. The argument: they are not doing what this law enforcement person wants do do of them (whether that obstruction is legal or not), so they are free…

The argument is that people recklessly driving their vehicles with a total disregard for the lives around them are a danger to the people in front of their car and anyone else on the street, which is recognized by the Supreme Court even when nobody is directly in front of the car. They don’t have to wait until you kill someone and get tried for it. They can legally just shoot you under current law. That’s what the co…

>The argument is that people recklessly driving their vehicles with a total disregard for the lives around them are a danger to the people in front of their car and anyone else on the street

And my argument is that no matter what SCOTUS law one cites, or hand-waving about self-defense that is said, that shooting her in the head from the side of the car was not only tactically unnecessary, but objectively made the situation worse in a way that a competent person should immediately recognize.

One does not need slow-mo to see she wasn't trying to kill anyone.

>The minute you choose to endanger people around you in the presence of people with guns, you’ve rolled the dice on your life.

This is shorthand for "comply or die". Welcome to the free world. I wonder if Europe and Australia and New Zealand and the rest of the world know what they're missing by not having LEO as qualified as ICE running their streets.

Re: The Palantir app helping ICE raids in Minneapolis

#795

Post by willmarch »

v0id24 wrote: post #751
embedding-shape wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all those things happened in Spain where I live, I'm 99% we'd have actual riots on the streets, together with a lot of other unpleasant-but-needed civilian action, until things got better, like we've done in the past (sometimes maybe went slightly overboard with it, but better than nothing). Why are Americans so passive? You're literally transitioning into straight up authoritarianism, yet where are the riots? How…

Why then don't people unite against the dominance of not very friendly and culturally alien migrants, Muslims?

Because your premise is untrue.

Re: The Palantir app helping ICE raids in Minneapolis

#796

Post by alex43578 »

deeg wrote: post #724
15155 wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the most compelling case: > Gibson is a 38-year-old Liberian citizen, who has a final immigration removal order dating back to 2009. > Statistically immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born citizens Legal ones, yes - they have a lot to lose. Can you please cite any study positing the same for illegal immigrants?

> Not the most compelling case: Does not matter one bit. Law enforcement may not break down doors without a warrant except in limited cases. This was not one of them. They violated the constitution and our way of life. > Legal ones... I'm guessing you didn't read the cite. It clearly shows that undocumented immigrants commit significantly less crime. Once you read it I'd be interested to know if it changes your opini…

The majority of illegal immigrants did commit a crime by virtue of being illegals, violating 8 U.S.C. 1325, so the crime-rate for illegals is certainly higher than non-immigrants right out of the gate.

For the less-than-half who have “only” committed civil immigration violations, the point still remains that they are here illegally and are subject to civil immigration proceedings.

Re: The Palantir app helping ICE raids in Minneapolis

#797

Post by [deleted] »

willmarch wrote: post #647
alex43578 wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Drawing on the thoughts of the founding fathers to argue “the government is violating the rights and protections enjoyed by Latino and African illegal immigrants” would certainly be a unique position, given who and what the constitution protected. 2) Even setting that aside, what current actions violate the Constitution? The First Amendment has seen time, place, and manner restrictions, particularly when it crosse…

The “founders didn’t intend to protect X” argument is more about history than law. Whatever the founders personally believed, the Constitution they wrote and endorsed (as interpreted for well over a century) restrains government in its treatment of “persons,” not just citizens. Non-citizens (documented or not) still have due process protections, and law enforcement still has to stay inside Fourth Amendment limits. On…

[deleted]

Re: The Palantir app helping ICE raids in Minneapolis

#798

Post by willmarch »

alex43578 wrote: post #792
willmarch wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “founders didn’t intend to protect X” argument is more about history than law. Whatever the founders personally believed, the Constitution they wrote and endorsed (as interpreted for well over a century) restrains government in its treatment of “persons,” not just citizens. Non-citizens (documented or not) still have due process protections, and law enforcement still has to stay inside Fourth Amendment limits. On…

>…the Constitution they wrote and endorsed…restrains government in its treatment of “persons,” not just citizens. Sure, it does now, but your original statement was “You should read more of the thoughts of America’s founding fathers”. But, do remember the founding fathers didn’t seem very concerned about the early government’s treatment or protections of many groups of people. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have needed: The…

You’re conflating three different things: (1) founders’ personal moral failures, (2) the legitimacy theory they articulated, and (3) what an emergency posture from SCOTUS actually proves.

On (1) vs (2): yes, the founding generation tolerated massive injustice. That doesn’t refute the point I was making. The Enlightenment idea they leaned on is that rights pre-exist government and government power is delegated and limited. The later amendments you list aren’t a rebuttal to that framework, they’re the country painfully applying it more consistently over time via the mechanisms the Constitution itself provides.

On the Court point: “SCOTUS didn’t temporarily pause X” does not equal “no constitutional violation.” Emergency stays/injunctions turn on things like posture, standing, likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and deference; not a full merits finding that the challenged conduct is constitutional. “Shadow docket lets it continue” is not the same as “the Court blessed it.”

And the biggest issue is your last paragraph: legitimate does not equal constitutional.

Congress failing to act, the President authorizing something, and courts not immediately stopping it may show the government has the power to do it right now; it does not show the action is within constitutional limits. If that were the test, then any coordinated abuse across branches would become “legitimate by definition,” which is exactly what checks and balances are meant to prevent.

If you want to argue “these protections aren’t being violated,” then argue the specifics: what’s the standard being used for stops, entries, detentions, and removals, and how is it being applied? “It’s enforcement” is not a constitutional analysis.

Re: The Palantir app helping ICE raids in Minneapolis

#799

Post by Erem »

framenotre wrote: post #755
Erem wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, if there is good faith effort to minimize that impact on citizens and legal immigrants. Please, please take the time to read that article. Share if you think the administration is making those good faith efforts based on your read.

[flagged]

Two reactions:

1. ProPublica is a multi-Pulitzer investigative reporting group led by former WSJ managing editor Paul Steiger. He is not a socialist, nor is WSJ, nor ProPublica.

2. In the article you will find verifiable claims, records, and quotes which can be easily distinguished from opinions by any discerning reader

Re: The Palantir app helping ICE raids in Minneapolis

#800

Post by footy »

fourseventy wrote: post #725
footy wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICE has only existed since 2003 which I'd argue is not "before Trump" and regardless is not a long time.

It was 13 years before Trump was president. Before ICE existed other agencies handled immigration enforcement. Everyone in this thread is acting like illegal immigrants have never been deported before Trump was elected.

Yeah, my point is that 13 years (or frankly, 23) hardly counts as "a long time". That's less than 10% of the history of the United States! ICE is less old than The Matrix or the iPod or the complete decoding of the human genome.
Post reply on HN