This isn't families getting deported. This is cameras, on the border.

Or do you believe that border crossings are inherently immoral?

Today's border cameras are liable to be deployed all over in the future. Watch what you build because it's very hard to un-build things.

I'm not sure if the 100 mile thing is a new convention or not (https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone) but it's 100 miles from the border as the crow flies, not via highways. That means the entire state of Vermont is somehow inside that zone.

I think the 200 mile figure that was reported, though I can't find the citation, involved the driving distance. Vermont, for example, is 159 miles end to end, and somehow the southern tip is in the border zone.

What if they decide this entire zone is worth putting up cameras in? What if that software that recognizes "illegals" is so bad that it simply tags anyone who looks vaguely Mexican? These systems are only as good as their data, and the data is astonishingly thin in areas where it counts.

A recent story covered three people that were treated as "identical" in the police database because they had the same first/middle/last names and birthdates. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/03/identity-the...

Or someone without a ~~personal tracking device~~ cellphone

The overwhelming majority of the country lives within 200 miles of a border (since ocean borders count as borders). 66% of the country lives within only 100 miles of the border.

So even if you're talking about something that "only" applies to the 200 mile region, you're still talking about something that applies to the vast majority of people actually living here.

He's developing a technological alternative to "full-scale border walls." He also explicitly positions it as a "defense" technology to protect citizens from threats. A substantial amount of the money to be made here is made possible by anti-immigrant hysteria.

I wouldn't want any of my technology preventing people from improving their situation. So yes, in this instance, I would not work on this project.

Trump's travel ban or lidar-based border control wouldn't even have prevented 9/11 as most came from a country that is of economic importance.

Maybe Luckey can sell its technology to Saudia Arabia and Trump can then boast of the big money deals he made. In the mean time SA can fund European mosque's that calls not to integrate, to resist western society/ideals or democracy. That is big part of the problem.

I don't believe for one bit that this has to do with "security" or "keeping troops save". There are easier things you can do that would improve that.

There has to be a solution

I do. It's not OK to do immoral things just because someone is paying you to do them.

That's like refusing to build security cameras because you oppose the death penalty.

The implication of your argument is that cameras make borders more secure and therefore it's a good idea to have them. Cameras obviously don't stop people crossing a border physically like a wall would, so the only possible way they'll improve security is by providing evidence of who crossed. Your assertion that "No one's getting deported" is obviously wrong - if that were the case there'd be no need to have the cameras in the first place.

Some are prevented from entering very near to the time and place of entry. Most people can see a difference.

I can deeply respect anyone who would refuse to aid the current government's immigration policies in any way, and I would refuse to do so myself.

Not paying taxes would help.