1111236112347

It's true that most ethical situations are not black and white.

When an organization is doing some good things, and some bad things, is the best course of action to prevent the organization from doing both good and bad things? In the case of ICE, would it not be more effective to pursue a strategy of more targeted reforms that address the unethical immigration enforcement actions without stopping the other divisions pursuing investigations into human rights violations and child exploitation cases?

My concern here is that empathy for children being negatively impacted by immigration policies, while valid, doesn't imply we should act out indiscriminately against the entire ICE organization. Balancing the needs of victims of bad immigration policies against the needs of victims of criminal activity shouldn't be a zero-sum game, and making gains for one group shouldn't come at the expense of the other.

Do we know that Github is being used to enable human rights violations, and that their use of Github for potentially negative actions outweighs potentially beneficial actions, given that ICE has a wide variety of responsibilities beyond immigration enforcement?

For example, it seems reasonable to guess that they might be using their Github deployment to help run the National Child Victim Identification System:

The National Child Victim Identification System (NCVIS), owned by U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), is an application that assists federal, state, local, and international law enforcement agencies, INTERPOL, and other supporting organizations, such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) (hereafter, authorized partners) in the investigation and prosecution of child exploitation crimes, specifically those involving images of child sexual exploitation.

https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsicepia-010-national-child...

Would it be really be good to prevent Homeland Security Investigations, a major division of ICE, from investigating sexual abuse of children, and rescuing children from abusive situations?

And about one of every 10 agents in Homeland Security’s investigative section — which deals with all kinds of threats, including terrorism — is now assigned to child sexual exploitation cases.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-...

https://www.ice.gov/predator

This recently introduced legislation proposes to ensure some level of transparency in the specific context of algorithms used to process evidence used in criminal proceedings:

H.R.4368 - Justice in Forensic Algorithms Act of 2019

To prohibit the use of trade secrets privileges to prevent defense access to evidence in criminal proceedings, provide for the establishment of Computational Forensic Algorithm Standards, and for other purposes.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4368...

> I don't understand why you're being so pedantic about this. You absolutely know that people use the 'misdemeanor' phrasing to make it seem like crossing the border is as innocuous as jaywalking.

It's not pedantic, the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor offense has very real consequences on how a case is processed. ICE ERO officers are dealing with a variety of cases, and the outcome of a specific enforcement action will depend on the severity of the offense.

One common situation is someone came to the country on a visa, and they remained in the country and continued working after the visa expired. This is not a felony, and the person is likely to be released while the legal process plays out. This person might obtain authorization to remain in the country and never be deported, for example by obtaining a different visa.

Another common situation is someone who overstayed their visa as above, but ERO officers also discover a large quantity of drugs and/or weapons in the vicinity. In this case, there is a strong reason to believe the person has committed a felony, and that person is very likely going to remain in custody while the legal process plays out. This person is also very likely to be deported, since a felony conviction would rule out pretty much all pathways to legal authorization to remain in the country.

Whether one would consider the action requested to be rational really depends on the objective of the "mob".

If the objective is to gain some immediate press exposure for immigrants rights issues, it seems totally rational, and it appears to have achieved the goal.

If the objective is to improve conditions for immigrants in ICE/CBP custody in the near term, it's not clear it will help, and it could definitely have unintended negative consequences. For example, ERO agents under increased pressure due to IT systems going down may be less likely to offer DA on humanitarian grounds, if it's just easier and less paperwork to deport en masse. Maybe there's a strong rational argument to be made in favor, but average citizens don't have complete information or authority to investigate, so it really seems to boil down to more of a "gut instinct" decision.

If the objective is improvement in conditions for immigrants in the longer term, it might be rational if it's part of a persistent, steady application of pressure to reform ICE/CBP/ORR through a combination of protests, opening cases to trigger judicial oversight, and lobbying to achieve change through legislative processes. But it's unclear if this kind of boycott is particularly effective use of time/resources towards that goal.

I recently saw this article presented as an example of how ICE mistreats people: https://www.latimes.com/nation/ct-children-border-patrol-fac...

It's totally understandable that people are confused by the distinction between CPB and ICE. I certainly was baffled myself, until I spent a big chunk of time digging into it. And I still don't fully understand the multiple transfers of custody between those agencies, plus ORR which often ends up having custody of unaccompanied minors.

It's hard to imagine how abolishing ICE alone would resolve the humanitarian issues. I think it's reasonable to assume "abolish ICE" is really referring to a broader reform encompassing all of ICE, CBP, and ORR.

Could you elaborate on the "it" you refer to?

ICE has jurisdiction over a large number of federal laws involving immigration as well as laws involving transporting illegal goods across national boundaries (narcotics, weapons, money laundering, child pornography, etc...). Some of these crimes certainly are felonies, whereas others are misdemeanors.

True, but INS, Customs Service, and others that were enforcing laws prior to 2003 were disbanded by the Homeland Security Act that created CBP/ICE.

ICE definitely doesn't only enforce just one type of misdemeanor. Some recent cases:

  - https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/police-officer-arrested-child-pornography-charges
  - https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/arms-trafficker-convicted-anti-aircraft-missiles-scheme-and-other-arms-offenses
  - https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/rwandan-man-sentenced-immigration-fraud-and-perjury-connection-1994-genocide
  - https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/operation-cookout-indictment-charges-39-defendants-heroin-and-fentanyl-trafficking
  - https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/former-fresno-resident-charged-illegally-brokering-sale-military-arms-foreign
  - https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-hsi-investigation-leads-federal-indictment-alleging-scheme-avoid-payment-18

(edited to fix formatting)

I definitely agree this can happen, and I've worked for a company where what you described rings all too true. However, I joined Palantir last year, and I genuinely don't see any evidence of the same kind of dysfunctional power dynamics.

During the interview process I asked a number of questions about ethics and transparency, and the interviewers responded positively and encouraged me to continue asking hard questions, which gave an impression it's a trait they valued.

After joining, I haven't seen any evidence of people fearing to express a dissenting opinion about either technical or ethical subjects. And I've personally witnessed a consistently high level of professionalism and respect, including respect and empathy for the protesters who want Palantir to sever all ties with ICE.

I don't think Palantir continues to work with HSI due to a lack of questioning, on the contrary, I think what's happened is that deeply questioning the ethical and practical implications of continuing or discontinuing contracts with HSI doesn't lead to such a clear-cut, black and white answer about what the right thing to do is.

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 legitimate, and I still received an offer.

This article is about CBP, which is not part of ICE, and ICE is not mentioned anywhere in it.

I'm not raising this point to be pedantic or discount the tragedy. I just think it's important to have an accurate understanding of the organizational structure if one wants to make meaningful changes to it.

> And people often forget that we didn't have these agencies at all before 9/11, and we did just fine.

ICE wasn't created out of thin air, it was formed by merging and reorganizing existing organizations including Customs and INS.

> We're giving people license to commit whatever thuggish, nationalistic fantasies they want, all sanctioned under some vague "rule of law" argument where the letter has far, far outstripped the spirit.

I agree this is happening and we need to do something to stop it. At the same time, I don't believe this is the only thing that's happening in ICE, as it's a large and complex organization.

> if ICE were abolished overnight, I would throw a party.

If that happened but the fundamental issue of nationalism and lack of concern for human rights was not addressed, I think we could end up in an even worse place than we are currently.

I'm not against abolishing ICE, but I don't think it's a solution in itself. The fundamental issue, in my opinion, is a lack of empathy and understanding for people who seem different, and it's happening on a large scale. I believe that is a much harder issue to tackle compared to restructuring our federal bureaucracy, but that's what we should be focusing on to make a real, lasting impact. Restructuring without addressing the underlying issue seems like a placebo that would do more harm than good.

> I suspect there are people in ICE-HSI, who probably hate being lumped in together with the ICE-ERO.

This is definitely a real issue: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/29/17517870/i...

Is this an either/or choice? Does HSI have to not exist in order to prevent reprehensible treatment of migrant families?

Conversely, would eliminating HSI prevent such reprehensible treatment of migrant families? Wouldn't the abuses just pop up elsewhere, given the agenda of the current administration?

Note that the article you linked is about CBP, which is not part of ICE.

Also note that ICE doesn't just enforce immigration laws, they also do things like this: https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/missouri-felon-indicted-se...

Officers executed a search warrant at Lee’s residence and found numerous firearms, ammunition, firearm suppressors, suspected methamphetamine, marijuana, suspected stolen farm equipment, and a large amount of cash. Lee told officers that he received 10 to15 past deliveries of the selector switches, and that he converted and successfully fired a Glock pistol as a fully automatic firearm.

> Palantir's entire business is providing data mining and surveillance software to government agencies.

Palantir has a number of commercial customers, here's a few examples: https://www.palantir.com/palantir-foundry/impact/

The article is about work with HSI, not CBP. The scope of work that HSI does is much broader, here's a quote from wikipedia about it:

HSI special agents investigate violations of more than 400 U.S. laws that threaten the national security of the United States such as counter-proliferation and export violations, human rights violations/war crimes, human smuggling, art theft, human trafficking, drug smuggling and trafficking, arms trafficking, document and benefit fraud, the manufacturing and sale of counterfeit immigration and identity documents, transnational gangs, financial crimes including money laundering and bulk cash smuggling, trade-based money laundering (including trade finance and Kimberley Process investigations), computer crime, including child exploitation, intellectual property rights/trade fraud, import/export enforcement, trafficking of counterfeit pharmaceuticals and other merchandise, mass-marketing fraud, and international Cultural Property and Antiquities crimes.