The goals and motivation for using these tools, and their broad allowance of access to what should be highly controlled data (or in some cases even not collected at all) is the problem. Don’t give Palantir the bad-boy street cred they crave, focus on the policy decisions that are leading to agencies wanting tools like this in the first place.
I'm not trying to argue Palantir is an ethical company; my views on "company ethics" are nuanced but I wouldn't put them anywhere near my "places I want to work" bucket. But (contrary, perhaps, to their name), they're not some weird deep demonic trove of personal information; that's supplied to them by their customers, which is where change needs to happen.
Anyone in disagreement needs to read about Palintr and what has intentionally been said about it
Well, at least they're paying those consultants a lot of money, since they're charging a lot for them... right? Right?
people think Palantir makes a lot of money. did Palantir make a lot of money? No. Accenture Federal Services, Leidos Defense Civil IT & Services, Booz Allen Hamilton Gov Consulting & Cyber, General Dynamics Technologies, SAIC, and CACI combined made $61.9b in 2024, compared to all of Palantir which made $2.9b. so if you just look at some IT and defense companies' gov IT sales segments - we're not even including Raytheon or Lockheed Martin or Boeing where calculating such a thing is complex - Palantir's revenue looks very, very small.
people think Palantir makes vanilla "consultants" and “typical enterprise vendor vibes" products. does the thing that Palantir make work? we're talking about it! I think the reason we don't talk about Raytheon's version of this app is that Raytheon's (or Accenture's or...) version doesn't work haha
Of course, in contrast to piety all fake evil is also real evil.
I see this theory a lot (sometimes to justify their valuation, sometimes as a moral judgement, sometimes as an alarmist concern) but I genuinely don't see how this line of thought works in any of these dimensions. My understanding is that they're consultants building overpriced data processing products. As far as I know there isn't even usually a separate legal entity or some kind of corporate shenanigan at play; my understanding is that they send engineers to the customer to build a product that the customer owns and operates under the customer's identity as the customer. I certainly see how businesses like Flock are a "loophole;" they collect data which is unrestricted due to its "public" nature and provide a giant trove of tools to process it which are controlled only by what amounts to their own internal goodwill. But this isn't my understanding of how Palantir works; as far as I know they never take ownership of the data so it isn't "laundered" from its original form, and is still subject to whatever (possibly inadequate) controls or restrictions were already present on this data.
The big legal loophole is that the government needs a particularized warrant (per the 4th Amendment) to ask for any user data, but if the government buys commercial data, well, there's no warrant needed.
I would also submit that it's possible that sending everything through a giant computer-magic-bullshit-mixer allows you to discriminate on the basis of race while claiming plausible deniability, but SCOTUS has already constructively repealed the 14th Amendment between blessing Kavanaugh stops and the Roberts Court steadily repealing the Voting Rights Act, Bivens claims, etc.
See also: Parallel Construction (i.e. evidence tampering) and most of the times a "drug-sniffing" dog is called to "test" something the police already want to search.
Right; but as far as I know Palantir don't sell commercial data. That's my beef with this whole Palantir conspiracy theory. I am far from pro-Palantir but it really feels like they're working as a shield for the pitchforks in this case.
1. They provide tech that is used to select targets for drone strikes and apparently also for targeting violent attacks on US civilians. I don't know too much about how the algorithm works but simply outsourcing decisions about who lives or dies to opaque algorithms is creepy. It also allows the people behind the operations to avoid personal responsibility for mistakes by blaming the mistakes on the software. It also could enable people to just not think about it and thus avoid the moral question entirely. It's an abstract concern but it is a legitimate one, IMO.
2. I don't know if this is 100% confirmed but we have heard reports that Elon Musk and DOGE collected every piece of government data that they could get their hands, across various government departments and databases. These databases were previously islands that served one specific purpose and didn't necessarily connect to all the other government databases from other departments. It's suspected that palantir software (perhaps along with Grok) is being used to link all of these databases together and cross reference data that was previously not available for law enforcement or immigration purposes. This could enable a lot of potential abuse and probably isn't being subjected to any kind of court or congressional oversight.
I certainly think that Palantir has ethical issues; as I stated in my parent comment, it wouldn't be high on my list of choices for places to work.
But, when it comes to things like (2), this is a failure of regulation and oversight and needs to be treated as such. Note that this doesn't make Palantir "right" (building a platform to do things that are probably bad is still bad), but there's no reason anyone with basic data warehousing skills couldn't have done this before or after.
Essentially, I think people give Palantir specifically too much credit and in turn ignore the fundamental issues they're worried about. Panic over "dismantle Palantir" or even the next step, "dismantle corporate data warehousing" is misguided and wouldn't address the issues at hand; worry about government data fusion needs to be directed towards government data fusion, and worry about computers making targeting decisions needs to be directed at computers making targeting decisions.
If you couldn't go backwards Palantir wouldn't have a market. So, I would consider that a loophole.
Do they? I don't think they even do this, either.
I have really strong knowledge of this from ~10 years ago and weak knowledge from more recently. I'm happy to be proven wrong but my understanding is that they don't sell any data at all, but rather just consulting services for processing data someone already has.
One of those consulting services is probably recommending vendors to supply more data, but as far as I know Palantir literally do not have a first-party data warehouse at all.
That's how Karp seems to justify these things. Palantir's job is to (in theory) make government better at doing government things. It's up to voters to keep the government in line.
This is along the lines of “If I don’t do it, someone else will get paid to, so it might as well be me that gets paid to do it” which I personally find morally abhorrent.
You’re bringing in something that’s (vaguely and poorly, for no one knows what it actually could be) defined as something that fits the narrative and present it: “see, if we think up a tool that’s inherently evil by definition of it, it cannot be neutral”. We might, but could such tool actually exist?
(And before we joke about building it, we can think up of its polar opposite too, something unquestionably good that just cannot be evil in the slightest. Again, I suspect, no such thing can exist in reality.)
Yes, people choose to make it and people choose to use it. But, like... stop those people, right?
> one of the good guys
Uhhhh...
Feanor drew his sword on his half-brother and threatened to kill him because he was paranoid Fingolfin was trying to usurp his power. He compelled all of his sons to swear an oath to slay any man, elf or being in possession of the silmarils (which led to subsequent needless bloodshed).
Then he ordered and carried out the mass-murder of relatively unarmed Teleri in order to rob them of their ships.
Such actions does not a good guy make.
One can't just ignore that kind of subtext...
that it takes following the... (charitably) uncommon view that Fëanor was a "good guy" in spite of being a psychopathic thieving mass murderer to excuse the actions of Palantir (the company) should be an indicator that they're Bad, Actually.
Worse, that spy apparatus inherently corrupts its users.
When Denethor used Gondor’s Palantir he saw orc armies marching and pillaging, foundaries forging weapons, Southrons marching north with Oliphants, corsairs raiding the coast, wildmen pillaging Rohan, etc, etc. Sauron never let him see allies coming to his aid, or his own troops winning battles.
I mean, that's worse.
Yet.
it's not just that. Alexandr Wang from Scale AI once said in a talk that they had to compete against Palantir for a gov contract. Palantir's salesmen have a high closing rate because they sell the software as if it were written by God itself. It's one hell of a sales strategy
What happens when there's a bug in the software? Would that mean God is fallible after all? Could this be the plot line of Dogma++?
From what I understood they were to read our data and provide some kind of insights. I don't think any of this happened, at least while I was there.
They talk about government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) - it's most likely the reason the company got into this contract, so Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac get some kind of data that they need in their systems.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cdc-and-palantir-pa...
When it's a government system, your issue is not really with the vendor, your issue is with the policymakers.
On of their strengths is the ability of thiel to raise lots of money, and win huge gov contracts by convincing everyone that what he built is magic. it is not.
palantir is regular enterprise software. morally, they are vilains for sure, but their superpower is being excellent at marketing themselves.
But don't people elect their representatives? oh of course!
If your issue is with policymakers, then it is with the people.
This is also very stupid because - essentially when the government is evil you become skeptical of your neighbors, not 538 people who really control your life.
Thats the rhetoric on good ole r/WallSteetBets, atleast. Theil and Karp definitely play into this angle as well, but that doesn't really prove anything other than they're hungry for investors
If next I hear he’s planning to build a fabulous underwater city in international waters, I won’t be surprised. He enjoys his biblical themes, perhaps he can name it Rapture.
Idk...any and every of these companies fielding government contracts with a name from LOTR seem off to me. Palantir, Anduril, Erebor....
Operating Palantir in the way ICE is illegal, full stop. Just the IRS integration alone makes most users in a position where they are committing felonies.
Basically, there is little difference between what they do and what Enron did. It’s all based on criminality, and instead of strippers and cocaine, they signal with weird faux Orthodox Christianity and crazy behavior. The “orthodox” selection is deliberate as it feels exotic but is not catholic, so the modern evangelical types somehow are ok with it.
Had other policies decisions not led about 12 to 20 million illegals in the US in the first place, there'd be less need for ICE. The complete open borders policies signed by Biden's autopen and the millions who came during these four years comes to mind.
I'll also remind everyone that it's estimated that under Obama 3.1 million illegals were deported.
The question is simple: is the US open to anyone without needing a visa?
And if it's not: how do you deal with tens of millions of illegals?
(I'm not saying Palantir ain't evil: I'm saying ICE does its job)
What's so hard about naturalizing or legalizing them, so that they can more easily interact with current power structures on the territory?
Capital city in the country where I live got a 25% population bump over a few months a few years back, of people who didn't even speak the language. Barely anything appretiably negative overall happened.
EDIT: sorry, that was glib. However I want to make the argument that the argument of doing "neutral" physical work is not absolutely morally absolving.
But the point is also that maybe we should take one step back and think about the morality of the people we put in decision making roles. The technology is morally neutral, but the intention is not. And helping to realize that intention is not. And sometimes the things we build can be used in horrible ways unless we also think about safeguarding their use.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is my very real fear that a lot of information has been aggregated into Palantir and other applications and is usable with no restraint. And that even if you just run the build system, across hundreds of apps, you might be culpable as well.
Baking a roll of bread is not immoral. Baking bread as part of a contract to feed the gestapo, is.
Eichmann knew what he was doing and, in any case, forcing dozens of thousands of people to move with less than a week's notice does not soynd quite "amoral".
Without searching for references, it's my understanding that Fritz Haber developed this decades before the war, in conjunction with making synthetic fertilizer. It was later used for the purpose you referenced.
In the case of Palantir, should we allow the federal government to combine databases (which may have been hoovered up by DOGE and held in a private sector company that isn't subject to FOIA)? Should there be judicial review, like for FISA warrants before you can field an application? Should we allow the government to buy that kind of app in the first place? I don't give Palantir a free pass.
But it's not the engineer at Palantir that decides to send poorly vetted and trained people into a home, fully stoked, believing your have complete immunity, and full of anabolic steroids, and praying any of the occupants shows an iota of resistance. 79 million voters chose this. This is the morality of the people employing the tool.
A thing clearly has no intention and it's impossible for us to know every possible use for a product. But at some level we need to feel responsible for what we create, we need to feel responsible for our choices, and we need to see the responsibility others have because of their choices.
A gun has the intent of projecting violence at a distance. No matter if it is used within the frame of the law or not.
A vaccine has the intention of protection against disease. No matter if it is used within or outside the law.
A fence contains the intent of separating things.
A system built to deeply and widely track and catalogue and eavesdrop on people has the intention of being intrusive.
The purpose of a system is what is does. If a system does help the violent actions towards civilians and citizens then that is the purpose of what the engineers at Palantir built.
(I also think I was a bit too confrontational in my earlier reply, sorry about that)
It’s possible to simultaneously believe that ICE has a clear and ethical mandate while also believing that they are going about fulfilling that mandate via bad methods that need to change.
It’s possible to simultaneously believe that people shouldn’t be marked as intrinsically “illegal” while also believing that an immigration queue should exist and skipping it is immoral and should be illegal.
Etcetera, etcetera.
You don’t HAVE to dedicate yourself to a fully polarized set of beliefs. Nuance is possible. What the hell is causing us to lose our minds like this? Is it really just social media? So frustrating to witness.
So you admit you're ok with cheating in elections to get your desired outcome?
At least you're being honest.
In other words, I was saying that the reason for it not coming to fruition could be either legitimate or illegitimate. You assigned your own presumptions to what I said.
Ironically the Democrats deserve much more benefit of the doubt when it comes to election fraud and interference given the glut of evidence of such on the other side of the aisle.
Yes, that it is a set of things that it is possible one could believe.
That is not an argument for it being a set of things that one ought to believe, as opposed to that ICE has a legal mandate that it isn't actually pursuing, and the mandate which it is pursuing is both intentionally murky, unethical to the extent that evidence suggests what it is, and also pursued by methods that are illegal and inhumane even irrespective of the bad ends that they are directed at.
> It’s possible to simultaneously believe that people shouldn’t be marked as intrinsically “illegal” while also believing that an immigration queue should exist and skipping it is immoral and should be illegal.
Again, that it is certainly a set of things it is possible to believe, but it seems pretty silly to believe. A queue is at best an undesirable consequences of particular choices about how to manage concerns about quantitative levels of immigration and particular impacts those levels might have, not an ideal to be pursued.
> Nuance is possible.
“X is possible” is not an argument is that X is, factually or morally as appropriate to the shape of the proposition at issue, justified. And an extended argument that sets of beliefs are possible is something people only engage in when they recognize that they are unable to make the case that they are justified, but nevertheless want to suggest that people are bad for failing to adopt them.
Honestly, There is no queue for poor people, this is their only way, most of these people aren't even eligible for farm worker temp visa. US has created bureaucracy over the years in such a way that these people can never become legal. They are not skipping the line and taking some tech worker's spot or anything.
Both of them are right: unless there's a civil war or moderate president (which probably needs ranked choice voting) the most probable scenario is that one of the 2 extremes succeeds.
I also miss the old HN btw and wish that there wouldn't be any right/left politics, just the old classic libertarian property/privacy/opennes right debates, but it looks like those days are gone.
It would probably help if Trump didn't fantasize about this publicly all the time
> the right thinks that if they don't keep their power now, the left will take it and keep it using immigrants
The left will "take it" by being elected, if they are in fact elected. That's the extremist threat the right is worried about?
What does "keep it using immigrants" mean?
What world do you live in where you would expect equally extreme behavior from a democrat president?
Even smart people are capable of hate.
by definition, groupthink will get more upvotes than mishmashthink.
Not to think to highly of ourselves, I for one am a genuine idiot, but the crowed here likely has more influence than a lot of other online forums. Making it a worthwhile target, especially on the AI front. Plus the site is an easy to integrate into a bots with the minimal website and all.
... "We" (a lot of people, not everyone who posts here) don't believe that. Lots of people disagree with immigration control as a concept period.
The existence of that app is an abomination; the fact tax payer money is being allocated to it is tragicomic. Not spending it and just giving it as tax returns to the population would be so much better than kidnapping people over being born in the wrong place.
I mean sure but you have to acknowledge that is an extremely fringe belief that basically no one in the USA supports. The debate is on "how" it's being done not that we shouldn't have immigration control.
Grab human beings from their homes and detain them thousands of miles away with no due process.
Send human beings to detention camps in another country NOT the one they are from
Please, people, have some decency and maintain the nuance. We're not barbarians here! Sheesh.
ICE at one time was legitimate - their previous purpose had legitimacy... past tense.
ICE will not exist at some point in the hopefully sooner future than later.
No amount of nuance will change fundamental failure to success.
Cleaning up a mess is 1000x messier than making it .
No one will ever care or remember your sophisticated opinion.
That’s why it may be possible to have nuance but it’s just a peacocks feather
I don’t think I ever seen a CV from an ex Pal*ntir employee though. Perhaps they are automatically filtered or working for good morals doesn’t attract them.
Hasn't he accepted donations from many mega corporations? My assumption is that a corporation wont donate money, without the expectation of ROI.
I'm so free, I'm so free
I'm so free, I'm so free
Feel so good, now, I'm so free
Oh oh oh, I'm so freeIs there a specific product line that this app is using? What FOIA laws are applicable to its use? What kind of data does this provide? something else?
Ironically the best solution for this is for websites to start de-anonymizing users to the extent necessary to block fake accounts from polluting the airwaves.
At the time, I remember thinking how extreme that seemed, and how I was "sure" nothing is black-and-white and that, certainly, while Palantir had shady connections, for sure it must bring some good to the world and, so, why boycott this poor man? It felt genuinely baffling to me.
While in many ways I consider myself a more balanced person today (precisely thinking less in black-and-white terms), this is a topic where I do not agree. I would not work for Palantir and, were I to travel back in time, I would join the boycott. Heck, given how I was when I was younger, I'd expand on it greatly and try to rally some form of physical protest.
A friend of mine once threw me the argument of "well, the enemy [presumably China] is doing this kind of stuff, so we have to do it, too". This may seem like a compelling argument at first — and it may be so for many — but it can't, to me. It's ethically disgusting. The solution to world with decaying ethics is not to continue contributing to its decay. It erases accountability, it normalizes atrocity, it strips humanity from our very own flesh and blood — it escalates conflict! It. Just. Can't. be.
We must fight this filth.
https://www.404media.co/elite-the-palantir-app-ice-uses-to-f...
We don't fund out national parks with advertisements. We don't fund our libraries with advertisements. We could create the same structures for the internet as well, where crucial internet resources are protected and stewarded. They don't necessarily need to be in the hands of ad companies.
Sure, I will not deny that having things be "free" (and paying for them in other ways) has been a huge boon from one perspective, but we can also evolve to put "free" things in different places. Because things are never free. Advertisements are funding mass surveillance. They are encroaching our civil liberties and normalizing it. There is a total cost to things that extens beyond money. What we don't pay out of pocket we pay as a society.
I would be willing to lay a bet worth a significant portion of my net worth that this dashboard will end up being involved in multiple wrongful arrests of innocent people.
Anyone working on these products should ask themselves if they believe in what they build or if they are “just doing what they are told”. If the latter, consider the cohort of people who have previously used that justification.
What a huge relief. One of my best moments of foresight.
Didn't know so caching this here for others.
However, my concern with the Palantir conversation (and your comment) is that people are giving them too much credit, essentially: there is a public opinion (stoked by Palantir leadership) that Palantir is some kind of superpowered evil fortress full of data allowing the government to circumvent checks and balances. As far as I can tell, really it's a consultancy with a graph database, and the checks and balances never existed in the first place. These two things are very different problems to solve.
> I guess IBM didn’t tell the nazis who to kill either, they just sold them the punchcards so they could round them up.
As an aside, this is a common talking point but has also struck me as odd because this is the foundational legal and ethical argument by which IBM continues to exist today. It's definitely food for thought but it's also not exactly a hot take.
These are LEGAL immigrants who have done it the right way being denied. That is worthy of protest.
Sorry but there is no scenario where you can strike law enforcement with your car after being repeatedly ordered to exit your vehicle where their wouldn't be a justifiable use of lethal force. Trying to frame it as "shoot U.S. civilians in the face for not listening" is extremely disingenuous.
Do you want to live in a country where an unidentified masked individual with a gun can say “im a fed”, stop a car and force someone out without proper ID? That’s what you’re in support of. I’d say one would have a right to self defense.
Also internal bleeding was literally just a bruise, like the internal bleeding I get from walking into the corner of my coffee table.
So to claim the women didn't know it was Federal law enforcement ordering them to exit the vehicle is baffling to me because that was the entire reason the women were there in the first place.
Based.
> which is why the car was parked perpendicular in the street (to block the ICE vehicles) prior to the incident.
That giant ass street that could fit three of her car across its entire width? The one where she was signaling them to go around her? It doesn't sound like she was very effective at disrupting ICE.
But even if she was the most effective giant-road-blocking ICE inconveniencer Minneapolis has ever seen, she still should not have been murdered by ICE. It's morally indefensible, there's no world wherein she deserved to be shot unless she had a gun and was shooting first.
Describing what she did as "ramming" an ICE agent is extremely disingenuous. She tapped him, probably on accident[†]. He got a bruise, and she got shot in the face.
[†] We'll never know because she's dead.
I find it nonsensical to dismiss an anti-ICE argument because of one word.
> But then again, I find most of the anti-ICE arguments to be nonsensical.
That’s certainly your right and choice. But when we’re spending tens of billions a year on harassing immigrants, you should ask if it is better to just spend the money on supporting them instead. Our economy benefits greatly from immigrants.
> Imagine working for this company, on this product. Every day, you go into work, in what I assume is a beautiful office with pine furniture and a well-stocked kitchen, and you build software that will help to deport people using what you know are extrajudicial means without due process. You probably have OKRs. There are customer calls with ICE. Every two-week sprint, you take on tasks that help make this engine better.
Ah yes, Schrodinger's Nazi. Simultaneously a fascist paramilitary organization, but also capable of being pushed back by policy and protest.
"Everything I don't like is Nazi" is the lefty playbook and like every other word it's completely lost it's meaning at this point.
Just because you are nice to the oppressors, doesn't mean they won't come for you too.
The person saying "Drive, baby drive" was her wife, not an agent.
She was clearly told 4 times to get out of the car in the seconds leading up to her pressing the accelerator. Can you please timestamp where some other agent told her to leave?
You are working so hard to build and manufacture the narrative that fits in your mind, to the point where it can justify the actions of the officer.
There is no justification for shooting a woman point blank in the face, and you know it.
What makes you believe that she had any intent to attempt an attack?
Intent is where this falls apart, as she had no intent to harm with her vehicle. The interaction up until escalation by the agents was peaceful.
Even if the agent was in harms way, "totality of the circumstances" need to be reviewed before it can be said that deadly force was justified (see Barnes v. Felix ruling below)
https://www.shawbransford.com/supreme-court-unanimously-reje...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1239_onjq.pdf
Internal bleeding = a bruise
They are grabbing people day in and day out.
Again, think.
This was the same incident where the administration said they guy was fighting for his life after being struck by the car however:
“Eventually, the agent who shot the motorist approaches the vehicle. Seconds later, he turns back around and tells his colleagues to call 911. Agents blocked several bystanders who attempt to provide medical care, including one who identifies himself as a physician. At the same time, several agents, including the agent who opened fire, get in their vehicles and drive off, apparently altering the active crime scene.”
Think for yourself.
No. Wheels were turned away from the gestapo, gestapo was not hurt, gestapo is lying about injuries.
However it seems crazy to me that even the idea of deporting people who have no legal status in this country is immediately branded Nazi. This just feeds extremism because it is extremism in and of itself
Detaining and/or deporting people here illegally to their home countries with due process: OK
Detaining, deporting, and/or killing people here illegally, legally, and U.S. citizens, without due process, to private detention camps or third countries: NOT OK
That _is_ the extremism. It's here.
It's not just that idea though. Plenty of presidents have done that without pushback. It's that idea combined with:
* Rhetoric dehumanizing the immigrants
* Raiding churches, courts, jobs, etc
* Revoking legal status of immigrants
* Reducing training time for new hires
* Detaining U.S. citizens and threatening them
* Saying it'll help the U.S. citizens, when data shows it doesn't
(2) -- why can't you raid a church? A church is not a special place. America is not a theocracy which gives sacrosanct respect to some portions of land.
(3) The US has every right to revoke legal status with no other reason than it doesn't make sense for the United States. We can talk about how it's done, but that's rarely the issue at hand in these debates.
(4) Not sure what this means
(6) Politicians say incorrect things all the time to appeal to their base.
Because that idea consists of harming someone over their birth circumstances, rather than any objective harm they may have done.
Some people have asked how something like that could happened. Thanks for your comment. Now I can sand them this link as an answer.
And, no, ignoring their existence is not an option, unless you want "millions" to become "tens of millions" or even more. Note also that mass deportations also happened under Biden and Obama - they just didn't attract the same publicity.
2) Check those stats a bit more closely. The vast majority of "deportations" were people turned away at the border.
So if China or some other country decided to send 10 million people here for whatever reason, you think our official policy should be to welcome then in and provide them food, shelter, etc...?
What about 100 million people?
Should they also be given citizenship and right to vote in addition to food/shelter?
You could conquer a country without a single shot fired.
1. Entering a country without proper documentation is a crime. Therefore all "undocumented immigration" is by definition criminal.
2. Removing criminals is paramount to a safe society and a justice system that is respected.
3. "Documenting them and letting them live" undermines legal immigrants who likely worked very hard to integrate culturally, establish themselves, and do the proper LEGAL paperwork. These legal immigrants have stringent reporting requirements, need to be careful about even minor crimes (excessive speeding tickets even!) etc. How is your proposal remotely fair to them?
I don't understand why this is a controversial opinion at all. I have yet to meet a legal immigrant that isn't okay with booting anyone that isn't legal out. A country without border control is NOT a country.
It's a shame those people had to work so hard to be treated like their neighbors. That's not a reason to deny others that treatment though.
> I have yet to meet a legal immigrant that isn't okay with booting anyone that isn't legal out.
Yeah they tend to skew pretty reactionary. That tends to sort itself out after a generation or two.
> A country without border control is NOT a country.
I didn't say we shouldn't have border security. In what universe is a goon squad going door to door checking for undesirables "border control"?
"These people are akin the mold growing upon a rotting city-state economy. They have to be removed." --our poster
"humanity suffers today under Jewish parasitism" --Adolf Hitler
It is this fake injury or mis-assignment of blame for real harm that serves as justification for actual crimes against humanity be they at CEDOT or Dachau
Immigrants aren't hurting us by existing.
Our present admin holds that it can detain anyone it merely asserts is illegal without trial or any due process and ship them to such camps or hold them domestically indefinitely in fetid slums that if we fill with the millions they want picked up will become death camps due to illness, climate, privation, lack of medical care.
They have variously called for imprisoning and even executing law makers who speak up, shooting protesters, killing them and shutting down journalists who run negative press.
I don't think that's a policy that would get majoritarian support in the US. The only people who can and should get deported are those who are not already not authorized to be here. If you don't deport them, it's functionally equivalent to an open-borders policy. Do you want more MAGA? Because open-borders is how you get more MAGA.
What you're proposing is also roughly analogous to a policy of not evicting squatters. If someone breaks into your house and decides to start living in one of your bedrooms, are you going to want them out or give them a key? The squatter is a person too, not a mold outgrowth that needs culling.
Pretending that immigrants are the underlying cause of every societal failure is how you get MAGA. Enabling that big lie bolsters it.
And I don't think I can enumerate the ways in which an occupied house are different from a country and unsuitable for the metaphor you're trying.
What are you going to do, win elections by lecturing everyone about how they're wrong and they need to think just like you? People thought the Biden administration's immigration policy was too lax, and that was a major contributing cause to the second Trump term.
Deporting people who are in the country illegally is a no brainer. If you don't want that, get the law changed. Until then, it's not wrong to deport them.
Now, that doesn't mean deportation should be the only or even the main method of immigration enforcement (personally, I like the idea of putting more burden on employers).
> And I don't think I can enumerate the ways in which an occupied house are different from a country and unsuitable for the metaphor you're trying.
Oh of course, it's always too different if you want it to be. That way, you can continue to feel righteous.
I'm partial to the strategy of selling voters on a set of policies that will improve their lives and address their problems. Unfortunately neither party in my country is keen on that idea.
> People thought the Biden administration's immigration policy was too lax, and that was a major contributing cause to the second Trump term.
People thought that once they were told to think that. It's an easy sell to blame everything wrong on the scary dirty foreigners. When people are dissatisfied populism wins, regardless of whether the talking points are rooted in reality. The responsible thing to do is try to get people on board with populist ideas that help rather than hurt.
It's a seductive idea, but it's the attitude of an authoritarian technocrat. However, the US is supposed to be a representative democracy, which requires being sensitive to the problems voters have, as voters see them. And that's probably a big part of Trump's actual appeal. My understanding is at his rallies and in his rhetoric, he gave the appearance of being responsive to many concerns that had been willfully ignored or denied for a long time (for instance: free trade dogma, which destroyed a lot of things and insisted people be satisfied with the easily-quantified cheap junk they were being given).
> People thought that once they were told to think that.
Don't pretend your thoughts are any more independent than those of the people you're othering.
What the GGP was advocating was much broader than that. What's sympathetic about the Dreamers is the non-consensual nature of their position (their parents took them here) and many of them have little to no connection to the country they'd be deported to.
That logic doesn't apply to, say, the 3.5 million illegal immigrants that arrived between 2021 and 2023 (https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/08/21/u-...), but those are people the GGP would "document not deport."
Ultimately, you have to fix the incentives. Fine the people hiring them, making it uneconomical, and you will remove the main incentive for people to enter the US illegally.
Our politicians have simply seemed fairly uninterested in holding business owners accountable.
Make E-verify the federal minimum standard for ALL employers nationwide.
Fine the shit out of all businesses that don't comply. Fine the shit out of employers that hire illegal labor. We know who they are.
You don't deport them, you give them no reason to stay here because there'd be no work for them.
We could have "solved" immigration decades ago with enough punative treatment of employers but didn't want to.
If you want to actually stop it you could just ramp up punative treatment of employers over the next 5 years while keeping other policies at Obama or Bush era.
Half the undocumented without us family members would self deport gradually whilst jobs dried up. Offer amnesty to productive people with family roots and no criminal record and you end up with a microscopic undocumented pop.
Meanwhile DSHS is tweeting a pic of an island paradise with the caption America after 100M deportations. There are around 12M undocumented but about 100M non-whites if you have trouble interpreting their meaning or intention.
2. Obama and Biden didn't get the same level of attention because they weren't being publicly antagonistic and racist, or using deliberately cruel tactics to accomplish their goals. Or breaking the law / violating the constitution to meet their ends.
How is that currently working out for all of Europe? Hint: not well at all.
> 2. Obama and Biden didn't get the same level of attention because they weren't being publicly antagonistic and racist, or using deliberately cruel tactics to accomplish their goals. Or breaking the law / violating the constitution to meet their ends.
You've made a lot of ambiguous accusations right here. Can you please give specific examples?
* They didn't jack up the budget to a size larger than most countries' militaries
* They didn't target primarily Republican cities and states out of vengeance for how those cities and states voted
* They didn't explicitly target people here legally
* They didn't send bands of masked men house to house to kick in doors without warrants
* They didn't implement Kavanaugh Stops, which makes racial profiling legal
* They didn't implement a "Papers, please" policy
* They didn't crow about their cruelty on social media or make funny memes about immigrant families being destroyed
* They didn't broadcast that agents had "absolute immunity" even if their agents killed people
* They didn't use fascist iconography and phrasing in their press releases and design systems
* They didn't create a situation in which businesses and schools had to shut down because their employees and students were afraid to leave their houses because even though they were U.S. citizens, they had darker colored skin or spoke with an accent
* They didn't try to end birthright citizenship
I mean the list goes on and on. It's not the same at all. That's why they didn't attract the same publicity.
Its extremely easy to do better than they are. Biden and Obama did in fact do this and successfully. They are not trying to do it well, they are trying to do it cruelly. The cruelty is the point.
That's what they say they are doing? Every time I read about them arresting somebody who was "just picking their kids up from school", it turns out to be some professional agitator who was trying to get arrested in exchange for a photo op.
Going several thousand(!) strong into a US city and rolling around town in paramilitary convoys questioning people who don't "look American", to... "support fraud investigations" apparently, LOL, WTF... among other things, is why they're a hot topic right now. If they were doing what they claim to be doing, this would all be boring stuff.
Frankly I don't feel like I should be having to explain why guys in SUVs wearing plate carriers and comically overloaded with blinged out Call of Duty gear driving around a US city and sometimes jumping out literally going "papers, please" to people who "look foreign", all while universally masking up to hide their identities, is extremely fucking bad, to the point that I think that language is way too mild, but here we are I guess.
You're clearly not reading enough and are a part of the problem if you believe what you're saying to be true.
Hardly with president convicted of sexual assault (among other things).
Over the Holidays they even increased the exit bonus to $3000: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/12/22/increased-incentives-dhs...
Yet another reason why I find the haphazard comparisons to Nazi Germany/Gestapo so farcical.