[tomrod]

I think you might be accidentally or willingly misunderstanding the context if that is your takeaway -- no one, neither immigrant nor innocent bystander, should be killed because administrative warrants are being enforced. And ICE doesn't require hundreds of individuals deployed to one place. There simply was never a reason for such a surge.

EDIT: to the dead comment below -- your comment doesn't have to meet my approval -- the comment is simply at odds with reality and is a thought terminating cliche.

Feel free to take it in a more general framing: if you don't want people you don't support, while they are in power, killing people, take time to understand why others might be upset. Not only is it your civic duty, its also part of being in society.

[fastball]

Is the idea that with worse technology, DHS will kill fewer people?

[tomrod]

Is it binary? I don't think the technology is the core issue, the concern is over the people enforcing and the policies governing their actions -- the technology becomes a flashpoint when the prior two are issues. Scaling bad actions and actors even though the tech itself is neutral.

TFA's point is really getting at that -- who is accountable for scaling bad actions and actors?

[fastball]

But the scaling needs to be relevant to the actual actions you are concerned about.

It's a stretch that any software Google/DeepMind/etc is selling to DHS is allowing / helping them to scale the murder part of their operations.

In fact, usually software translates to "less boots on the ground" which one could then assume would decrease the number of encounters like those highlighted in the article.

[Chance-Device]

What would you do instead?

[tomrod]

Honestly? A few ideas

1. US aid abroad to help stem the conditions that drive many of the migrants to flee their homes. Build up institutions, enforcement, and anti-corruption frameworks so these nations can better build themselves. I'd even be open to hawkish approaches -- frankly it's been surprisingly to see the positive responses to Venezuelan interference by the US.

2. Immigration enforcement needs use-of-force accountability and less lethal approaches. The specific clashes between protesters and ICE come from actions that appear practically designed to encourage confrontation. Agents that kill innocent people should also be held accountable, meaning civil liability reform is necessary.

3. Ensuring we have a shared reality -- hold organizations accountable when they lie or disinform. Example - the majority of immigrants aren't actually criminals, nor are they "stealing jobs" in any coherent way -- studies show that many immigration policies have been net positive on communities. So when Fox News or similar organizations bring up random anti-immigrant commentary, dressed as news instead of entertainment, there really should be consequences for misinforming.

4. Targeted investigations instead of street sweeps. While Kavanaugh stops may be legal, like many enforcement policies over the years they are less effective unless the goal is "enforce stereotypes broadly."

[Chance-Device]

I mean, you have an immigration policy or you don’t have one. If you have one, you need to enforce it. The unfortunate truth is that any attempt at law enforcement sometimes leads to deaths, and it doesn’t matter what you’re enforcing. The US should not have responsibility to solve all of the rest of the world’s problems to justify enforcing it’s borders.

[questionableans]

Third option: realize the effect of the policy is undesirable and change it.

[tomrod]

If we are just talking about "enforcing policy" then which specific policy was being enforced when Renée Good and Alex were killed? Renée was a U.S. citizen driving her six-year-old to school in Minneapolis -- far from the border. Firing into a moving vehicle as it drives away isn't "border enforcement". Rather, it's a severe violation of standard police protocol.

You can believe in secure borders without accepting the extrajudicial killing of civilians in American suburbs as just an "unfortunate truth."

The idea that "any law enforcement sometimes leads to deaths" is a cop-out that excuses bad policing. Professional law enforcement operates on strict rules of engagement to prevent unnecessary deaths. When a federal agent shoots through the side window of a car steering away from them, they aren't "enforcing the law". They are breaking it. We don't accept lethal recklessness from local traffic cops, and we shouldn't shrug it off as "collateral damage" just because the agents belong to ICE.

No one is arguing that the U.S. has to solve the world's problems, but Minneapolis is 1,500 miles from the southern border. The deaths of Renée and Alex didn't happen while defending a boundary. They happened because the federal government deployed militarized, chaotic street sweeps into residential neighborhoods. Justifying their deaths by talking about "enforcing borders" completely ignores where this happened, how it happened, and who was killed.