Google DeepMind Staffers Ask Leaders to Keep Them 'Physically Safe' from ICE(wired.com)
wired.com
Google DeepMind Staffers Ask Leaders to Keep Them 'Physically Safe' from ICE
https://www.wired.com/story/google-deepmind-staffers-ice-office-questions-safety/
73 comments
There was a recent secret internal ICE memo stating that they determined they were free to essentially engage in unconstitutional home invasions[1]. If they decided to batter down the doors at Google there is nothing stopping them.
The only thing keeping them in check is the courts, and that practically operates in geologic timeframes compared to the rate they are breaking laws.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-...
The only thing keeping them in check is the courts, and that practically operates in geologic timeframes compared to the rate they are breaking laws.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-...
"Immigration officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge’s warrant, memo says":
https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-...
Search and Seizure > United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...
Search and Seizure > United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...
Doesn't apply near a border.
The word "near" doesn't appear in the constitution you say? Well, I guess your next of kin will have to wait for the court to decide what near means.
The word "near" doesn't appear in the constitution you say? Well, I guess your next of kin will have to wait for the court to decide what near means.
> The only thing keeping them in check is the courts, and that practically operates in geologic timeframes compared to the rate they are breaking laws.
There are years of precedent and common practice that makes police and police like entities basically unreachable by law. Between qualified immunity, presumption of regularity and generally all the roadblock and convoluted technical rules supreme court placed between possible judgement and police ... courts can do only so much.
There are years of precedent and common practice that makes police and police like entities basically unreachable by law. Between qualified immunity, presumption of regularity and generally all the roadblock and convoluted technical rules supreme court placed between possible judgement and police ... courts can do only so much.
What do you think it would be reasonable for Google to do here?
Should they try to put security staff in harms way attempting to resist ICE entry?
ICE are thugs doing illegal things, but I also think that these things are for the courts to resolve, not something that should be handled with physical force.
The only other policy I can really think to have is to call the local police and tell them that ICE are executing an illegal search and hope.
Should they try to put security staff in harms way attempting to resist ICE entry?
ICE are thugs doing illegal things, but I also think that these things are for the courts to resolve, not something that should be handled with physical force.
The only other policy I can really think to have is to call the local police and tell them that ICE are executing an illegal search and hope.
A company with a four trillion dollar market cap has some leverage in this country’s affairs. This isn’t the local mom and pop getting pushed around. They could decide it’s in their interests to flip Texas with the money in their couch cushions.
> ICE are thugs doing illegal things, but I also think that these things are for the courts to resolve, not something that should be handled with physical force.
"The rule based world order is over. America first. Bad things are going to happen (We must invade now)." Donald the XIV
"The rule based world order is over. America first. Bad things are going to happen (We must invade now)." Donald the XIV
911 is going to tell you to comply with the federal officer.
[deleted]
That’s where they will use an “administrative warrant” to arrest someone with a final order of removal.
So not citizens’ houses but one where someone is in the country illegally with a final order of removal.
So not citizens’ houses but one where someone is in the country illegally with a final order of removal.
But you're wrong. The memo says they can use an administrative warrant - which is to say, a warrant signed by an immigration official, part of the executive branch - to enter a house and arrest someone. The executive branch is authorizing an executive branch official to enter a home, bypassing the judicial branch.
The CRUCIAL thing to note is that ICE gets stuff wrong. Their info is often stale or flat wrong - so even though they say "this is only for illegal immigrants, don't worry about it ;)", it can ABSOLUTELY affect citizens.
Note also that, since it's ICE and immigration officials (again: all executive branch) making these determinations, the executive is also deciding whether there's probable cause to think that an illegal immigrant is in a particular house. This damage to due process is ostensibly only aimed at immigrants, but it affects all of us.
The CRUCIAL thing to note is that ICE gets stuff wrong. Their info is often stale or flat wrong - so even though they say "this is only for illegal immigrants, don't worry about it ;)", it can ABSOLUTELY affect citizens.
Note also that, since it's ICE and immigration officials (again: all executive branch) making these determinations, the executive is also deciding whether there's probable cause to think that an illegal immigrant is in a particular house. This damage to due process is ostensibly only aimed at immigrants, but it affects all of us.
I see the issue raised with the process owner being all Executive --but on the other hand due process frequently inadvertently affects non-criminals (i.e. not all suspects are the guilty party in a given case; however many suspects go through a process where they are finally eliminated as a suspect --but that sometimes can carry on for many years as in the Ramsey case and people spend tens of thousand and millions while they are under suspicion (i.e. not cleared of wrongdoing). So due process doesn't guarantee an innocent person is not inadvertently "dragged though mud".
I don't think it's valid to deflect by saying "well, due process isn't perfect" - no one ever said it was. But due process is there to protect you from arbitrary persecution, and it's much better to have it than to not have it.
> people spend tens of thousand and millions while they are under suspicion (i.e. not cleared of wrongdoing)
You managed to hit the nail on the proverbial head... "not cleared of wrongdoing" means "guilty until proven innocent" and turns the promise of the justice system on its head - spending millions to prove innocence is just a mundane consequence of that perversion.
> So due process doesn't guarantee an innocent person is not inadvertently "dragged though mud".
And, not quite accidentally, it allows to drug anyone though mud regardless of guilt - both purposefully or inadvertently.
I've said this before but the type of argument you use is quite common and it boils down to the following fallacy: If something is already happening somewhere, sometimes - it's the right thing to do everywhere and all the time.
The fact that the government can excuse and routinely do something while getting away with it doesn't mean that the getting away or the action itself are right or justified.
The discussion here is about the compatibility of government's actions with the spirit of the Constitution which doesn't provide an exemption for habituated wrongs.
You managed to hit the nail on the proverbial head... "not cleared of wrongdoing" means "guilty until proven innocent" and turns the promise of the justice system on its head - spending millions to prove innocence is just a mundane consequence of that perversion.
> So due process doesn't guarantee an innocent person is not inadvertently "dragged though mud".
And, not quite accidentally, it allows to drug anyone though mud regardless of guilt - both purposefully or inadvertently.
I've said this before but the type of argument you use is quite common and it boils down to the following fallacy: If something is already happening somewhere, sometimes - it's the right thing to do everywhere and all the time.
The fact that the government can excuse and routinely do something while getting away with it doesn't mean that the getting away or the action itself are right or justified.
The discussion here is about the compatibility of government's actions with the spirit of the Constitution which doesn't provide an exemption for habituated wrongs.
Authorities have to conduct investigations. Their voters demand that as part of a civilized society those deputized to keep the peace pursue and solve violations to the public order. Since investigators can't consult a magic ball, their investigations will necessarily involve people who are later cleared. One can attempt the ideal, knowing the ideal is not attainable and that reality is messy. It's a balance. It's not perfect. Some innocent people get caught up in the messy parts.
> Some innocent people get caught up in the messy parts.
What's the number of innocents you're willing to sacrifice to get the outcome you desire? Would you be okay if you or your loved ones are caught up in the messy parts?
Are you willing to spend 37 days in jail to solve violations of public order like this person did? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/18/tennessee-ch.... Would you be willing to go further and undergo torture and bodily harm?
What's the number of innocents you're willing to sacrifice to get the outcome you desire? Would you be okay if you or your loved ones are caught up in the messy parts?
Are you willing to spend 37 days in jail to solve violations of public order like this person did? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/18/tennessee-ch.... Would you be willing to go further and undergo torture and bodily harm?
Which is why there are rules, due process, and a strong bias toward not killing people without evidence.
I don't think it's out of reach to not murder people then lie about it to make them looks like they somehow deserved it.
Implying this is an ok way to serve the "demands" of a "civilized society" is pretty disgusting.
I don't think it's out of reach to not murder people then lie about it to make them looks like they somehow deserved it.
Implying this is an ok way to serve the "demands" of a "civilized society" is pretty disgusting.
> Authorities have to conduct investigations.
There's more than one way to do that, some a lot better than the current practice which, as of now, involves shooting suspects in the head.
> Since investigators can't consult a magic ball
That's what the shooting perpetrators claim too - "we weren't sure if this woman was going to try to wipe us all out, we've got no magic ball, thus, head meet bullet seemed like a reasonable thing to do... repeatedly".
> One can attempt the ideal
There's no evidence that anything close to that has been attempted since at least 2001.
> It's a balance.
It's not. Nobody's punished, no consequences for errors, not even a hint of admission - replaced by blame the victim in the worst crimes imaginary - before looking at the evidence and without even consulting a dictionary to see what the words mean.
There's more than one way to do that, some a lot better than the current practice which, as of now, involves shooting suspects in the head.
> Since investigators can't consult a magic ball
That's what the shooting perpetrators claim too - "we weren't sure if this woman was going to try to wipe us all out, we've got no magic ball, thus, head meet bullet seemed like a reasonable thing to do... repeatedly".
> One can attempt the ideal
There's no evidence that anything close to that has been attempted since at least 2001.
> It's a balance.
It's not. Nobody's punished, no consequences for errors, not even a hint of admission - replaced by blame the victim in the worst crimes imaginary - before looking at the evidence and without even consulting a dictionary to see what the words mean.
Only aimed at [illegal] immigrants...
1. With no regard for citizens caught along the way, including outright lies and accusations of terrorism when masked agents murder citizens on camera
2. For now
1. With no regard for citizens caught along the way, including outright lies and accusations of terrorism when masked agents murder citizens on camera
2. For now
Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property.
If they find a illegal immigrant on public streets, they can be detained, but still cannot enter a private residence (even if occupied by an illegal immigrant) as it would violate the 4th amendment.
If they find a illegal immigrant on public streets, they can be detained, but still cannot enter a private residence (even if occupied by an illegal immigrant) as it would violate the 4th amendment.
> Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property.
Even an actual judicial arrest warrant doesn't (legally) allow them to enter private party on suspicion that the target might be there. Search is a separate thing from seizure, and you need a judicial search warrant to search a private residence or the non-public areas of a business for a person, no matter what authority you might have to arrest them should you find them.
Even an actual judicial arrest warrant doesn't (legally) allow them to enter private party on suspicion that the target might be there. Search is a separate thing from seizure, and you need a judicial search warrant to search a private residence or the non-public areas of a business for a person, no matter what authority you might have to arrest them should you find them.
That makes sense. But that raises a separate unrelated question; how do bailbondsmen seem to be able to take their targets in, are they violating the law or are criminals gullible or something else?
Bail agents can usually enter the home of the subject without additional consent due to clauses in the contract of the bail bond, but not (without the owners consent) homes owned by third parties even if the target is present.
Criminals are also frequently gullible.
And bail agents are fairly notorious as a group for having a less than scrupulous attention to legal restrictions.
So, a mix of things, really.
Criminals are also frequently gullible.
And bail agents are fairly notorious as a group for having a less than scrupulous attention to legal restrictions.
So, a mix of things, really.
A single paragraph in Taylor v. Taintor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v._Taintor
Telling the police to come back with a warrant sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't.
And these guys aren't the police.
And these guys aren't the police.
Why did he go there without a warranty in the first place? Was he following someone who entered the building? Would that be weird similar to the weird mustached guy from the 40s?
ICE has been going around without judicial, as opposed to administrative, warrants, relying on threats and coercion to be let in and to arrest people. That's what this probably is.
The story doesn't make sense, tbh ...
One single guy. What was he supposed to do after they let him in? Just start asking people about their legal status? I doubt Google has many illegal immigrants working there ... I doubt there's even one.
Then this guy finds them, allegedly, does he just arrests them and take them out the building? All by himself? With all the cameras and phones on the planet recording it? Inside Google, from all places?
It just doesn't make sense.
From the article:
>Google’s top brass—including CEO Sundar Pichai and DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis—have remained silent on Pretti’s killing even inside the company, sources say.
Why would they, though?
One single guy. What was he supposed to do after they let him in? Just start asking people about their legal status? I doubt Google has many illegal immigrants working there ... I doubt there's even one.
Then this guy finds them, allegedly, does he just arrests them and take them out the building? All by himself? With all the cameras and phones on the planet recording it? Inside Google, from all places?
It just doesn't make sense.
From the article:
>Google’s top brass—including CEO Sundar Pichai and DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis—have remained silent on Pretti’s killing even inside the company, sources say.
Why would they, though?
I think you are maybe approaching this from some rational place with some kind of assumption of good will. ICE on the other hand invaded Hyundai and arrested a bunch of people on various visas without knowing what was law enforcement and what was kidnapping. Big mistake maybe, for who? Met their quota. Only one guy? Can call others as soon as they have found a suspicion and then it is not reasonable to deny other enforcement. It is potentially as illegal as blocking backup to an active crime scene.
I am not saying it is related, but the SS police was famous for solving their personal problems while using the uniform too.
They also escorted politicians and stuff on events although it was completely unrelated to their role. Later on, the SS became what they became.
They also escorted politicians and stuff on events although it was completely unrelated to their role. Later on, the SS became what they became.
I agree, I don't need to hear my CEO's opinions on whatever controversy is big today. Run the company, focus on that.
I'd like to hear my CEO say that he won't allow goons into the building to drag me away to a concentration camp.
What concentration camp? They're sending people home. Do I have a right to just show up and stay indefinitely in any country on earth just because I don't like my home country? Obama supported deporting people all day long, especially criminals, but now believing the existence of borders supposedly makes one "MAGA."
Are you shitting me? Which Venezuelans call CECOT home? What about all the other Latin American and African torture camps people are getting sent to? https://refugeerights.org/news-resources/trump-administratio...
> What concentration camp?
https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-...
https://www.propublica.org/article/ice-detentions-immigrant-...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/27/us-witnessed-many-i...
https://refugeerights.org/news-resources/trump-administratio...
> They're sending people home.
https://www.amnestyusa.org/blog/third-country-deportations-a...
> Do I have a right to just show up and stay indefinitely in any country on earth just because I don't like my home country?
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/16/nx-s1-5366178/trump-deport-ja...
> Obama supported deporting people all day long, especially criminals, but now believing the existence of borders supposedly makes one "MAGA."
Ignorance, wilful lying, no respect for due process, support for illegal state-sponsored terrorism, lack of empathy are some of the things that makes one MAGA. Not belief in the existence of borders.
https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-...
https://www.propublica.org/article/ice-detentions-immigrant-...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/27/us-witnessed-many-i...
https://refugeerights.org/news-resources/trump-administratio...
> They're sending people home.
https://www.amnestyusa.org/blog/third-country-deportations-a...
> Do I have a right to just show up and stay indefinitely in any country on earth just because I don't like my home country?
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/16/nx-s1-5366178/trump-deport-ja...
> Obama supported deporting people all day long, especially criminals, but now believing the existence of borders supposedly makes one "MAGA."
Ignorance, wilful lying, no respect for due process, support for illegal state-sponsored terrorism, lack of empathy are some of the things that makes one MAGA. Not belief in the existence of borders.
I guess no one questions about illegal immigrants being deported, but actually being physically attacked, abused and havr authorities blatantly denying wrongdoing even when they are caught (besides using AI for editing images to create certain narratives and supporting such actions when they are found doing that)
But anyway. That's not my problem. I hope all ends well for everyone
But anyway. That's not my problem. I hope all ends well for everyone
There's not much a CEO can do about that ... (nor it should).
CEO are among the few people who can actually do something about that.
I don't follow.
Do you have a concrete example?
Do you have a concrete example?
CEOs restructure. Haliburton for example seems to have head quarters psychizophrenia.
Google headquartered in the US is weak. Google headquartered in Ireland can play the negotiation farce and will either win in the end or will be able to write off the US in a better position.
Similarly they can move anyone who is uncomfortable to other GEOs individually. Kind of a weak move that may be enough if the current administration falls apart.
Google headquartered in the US is weak. Google headquartered in Ireland can play the negotiation farce and will either win in the end or will be able to write off the US in a better position.
Similarly they can move anyone who is uncomfortable to other GEOs individually. Kind of a weak move that may be enough if the current administration falls apart.
None of this makes sense to me.
>No.
A classic.
A classic.
But consider: they're all really fucking stupid.
[deleted]
The thing is, they are required to have a warrant, but I don't believe they are required to show you the warrant. In which case what exactly should they do?
Not a lawyer, but I think this is common knowledge: They are required to not only show it but provide a copy of the warrant on request. Furthermore the warrants are scoped, if the warrant specifies searching for firearms and the search your hard drive it can't be used in court unless you verbally allow it. Don't resist, but don't consent.
It's pretty common to treat unauthorised entry attempts as a serious security incident.
The minimum follow-up actions I'd expect would be filing a police report, sending all-staff emails reminding people to be on the lookout for tailgaters, and reviewing security at reception.
If there was a specific risk of ongoing intrusion attempts, then I'd also expect legal action (eg. injunctions or restraining orders) to be taken in mitigation.
It's perfectly reasonable for staff to want to seek assurance that those sort of basic measures to ensure their safety are underway.
The minimum follow-up actions I'd expect would be filing a police report, sending all-staff emails reminding people to be on the lookout for tailgaters, and reviewing security at reception.
If there was a specific risk of ongoing intrusion attempts, then I'd also expect legal action (eg. injunctions or restraining orders) to be taken in mitigation.
It's perfectly reasonable for staff to want to seek assurance that those sort of basic measures to ensure their safety are underway.
Great job Sundar, way to stand on the wrong stage.
Its a bit strange why a single newsworthy incident with the ICE has GDM's attention in this manner? There has been no interaction between ICE and Google other than a single agent trying to enter and then leave.
It’s so hard to understand that the foreign staff are now afraid for their safety and their lives?
After the killing of Pretti (execution is probably the more correct word), I guess even some US staff can not be so sure about what would happen to them.
__“But are there not many fascists in your country?"
"There are many who do not know – but will find it out when the time comes.”__
After the killing of Pretti (execution is probably the more correct word), I guess even some US staff can not be so sure about what would happen to them.
__“But are there not many fascists in your country?"
"There are many who do not know – but will find it out when the time comes.”__
simianwords(1)
I mean, I dunno, I live in a less, ah, exciting country than the US, so maybe standards are different, but "someone who works for an unaccountable paramilitary organisation that randomly kidnaps people and does the odd bit of murder, as a treat, tried to enter" seems _fairly_ alarming to me, even if it _was_ only once.
There is, actually, a lot that Google can do here, in terms of making itself a hard target.
There is, actually, a lot that Google can do here, in terms of making itself a hard target.
[deleted]
[deleted]
https://archive.is/GYoyc to get around the paywall
USA has turned into Iran and Israel.
Murdering innocent people and lying about it.
100%
Yah like Ruby Ridge, Phila MOVE, Malheur, etc…
iberator(1)
[deleted]
I don't believe Google would is hiring illegal immigrants.
This seems like a very reasonable way to handle it.
Edit: Disclosure: I'm not an American.