The Palantir app helping ICE raids in Minneapolis

Authoritarianism, Mission Creep, and “Training Ground” Fears

• Many argue Minnesota raids are a pilot for broader authoritarian control: immigrants are an easy first target, but the same tools can later be turned on citizens, political opponents, or voters.
• Comparisons are drawn to Nazi Germany’s progression from deportation camps to death camps, and to “First they came…”; historical “boomerang” idea that tools used in colonies or abroad come home.
• Some expect ICE or similar forces near polling places under pretexts like preventing “non-citizen voting,” and mail-in voting or USPS rules being curtailed to entrench power. Others call this speculation or “wild accusations.”

On-the-Ground Situation in Minnesota

• Multiple reports describe ICE as effectively an occupying force: masked, heavily armed agents outnumbering local police, shoving officials, ramming cars, breaking windows, running people off the road, and detaining bystanders and legal observers.
• Locals say there is extensive video, rapid-response neighborhood patrols, and widespread but underreported protest.
• Some outside the US ask why there aren’t nationwide riots; responses cite geography, economic precarity, fear of lethal force, and a culture lacking European-style strike/riot traditions.

Palantir, Surveillance, and Tech Ethics

• The ELITE app reportedly maps “targets,” aggregates dossiers from multiple government databases, and assigns “confidence scores” for addresses, enabling dragnet-style raids rather than case-by-case investigation.
• Palantir is portrayed by many as a purpose-built surveillance vendor, analogous to IBM’s role in the Holocaust; employees are said to have “blood on their hands” and should be shunned or blacklisted.
• Others counter that Palantir provides generic data platforms used for many purposes; they argue primary culpability lies with ICE and elected officials, and note that clouds, auditors, and office suites also support enforcement.
• There is broader criticism of Silicon Valley’s evolution from “make the world better” rhetoric to openly aligning with authoritarian or militarized uses of tech.

Law, Constitutionality, and Democratic Breakdown

• One side stresses that ICE is enforcing existing laws that Congress hasn’t changed; selective non-enforcement in the past doesn’t erase the laws.
• The other side argues current operations are “unambiguously illegal,” violating constitutional protections for all “people,” not just citizens (e.g., warrantless entries, indiscriminate stops, extrajudicial killings).
• Some say Congress has effectively neutered itself and courts are enabling presidential impunity, making impeachment or legislation an unreliable check; others insist elections and congressional power still exist and must be used.

Immigration, Public Opinion, and Social Division

• Several commenters argue the sheer scale and visibility of recent immigration, especially in working-class neighborhoods, has driven many (including some minorities) toward harsher enforcement, even if they dislike current tactics.
• Others emphasize that undocumented residents are long-term community members, workers, and families, and that “fixing” immigration should prioritize paths to status and employer accountability over mass raids.
• There is repeated emphasis that roughly half the politically engaged US either supports or tolerates what ICE is doing, often seeing it as necessary law-and-order or “just against illegals,” not the start of wider repression.

Protest, Resistance, and the ‘Passivity’ Debate

• Disagreement over strategies: some call for general strikes, citizen militias, and more confrontational action; others warn that violent riots are exactly the pretext the administration wants for martial law or Insurrection Act deployment.
• Many insist Americans are not passive: millions have protested, especially in Minneapolis; people are filming, shadowing ICE, and organizing neighborhood watches.
• A recurrent thread critiques “no politics” norms in tech spaces (including HN) for allowing engineers to avoid moral responsibility for the systems they build.