Google DeepMind Staffers Ask Leaders to Keep Them 'Physically Safe' from ICE
wired.com
wired.com
This seems like a very reasonable way to handle it.
Edit: Disclosure: I'm not an American.
And these guys aren't the police.
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?
Do you have a concrete example?
A classic.
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.
But anyway. That's not my problem. I hope all ends well for everyone
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.
They also escorted politicians and stuff on events although it was completely unrelated to their role. Later on, the SS became what they became.
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-...
So not citizens’ houses but one where someone is in the country illegally with a final order of removal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
"The rule based world order is over. America first. Bad things are going to happen (We must invade now)." Donald the XIV
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.
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.”__
There is, actually, a lot that Google can do here, in terms of making itself a hard target.