4 ms·

“Boot on the neck” is a metaphor for state power being applied to people who can’t meaningfully resist it, not a claim that we’re already living in 1933 Berlin.

• frumplestlatz 9mo ago
  > do you think sweeping citizens into biometric/DNA collection as a condition of filing paperwork is normal and lawful, yes or no? Maybe. If the proposed rule is adopted as-is after the comment period, it will almost certainly face legal challenges. I don’t know what the result of those challenges would be. I suspect it will very much hinge on the specifics of the rules as actually adopted. None of this is relevant to HN — or deserving of breathless remarks about boots, Nazis, or similar.
  • willmarch 9mo ago
    “Maybe” is doing a lot of work here. A few comments ago you were certain: “They’re not [outside the law]. The deportations will continue regardless of the tantrums of the hysterical and mentally ill.” Now that we’re discussing the actual proposal, you’ve retreated to “maybe… probably litigated… depends.” That’s fine (updating your confidence is what adults do) but it also makes the earlier psych-eval routine look like what it was: posture covering for lack of specifics. And the “not relevant to HN” line is especially rich after pages of (a) armchair diagnoses and (b) violence-bait hypotheticals. If it’s “not deserving of breathless remarks,” you could have tried addressing the policy instead of policing tone. One concrete fact remains: DHS/USCIS is proposing expanded biometrics collection (including DNA) for people merely “associated with” an immigration benefit request, explicitly including petitioners/sponsors/signatories (often U.S. citizens), regardless of age. And this isn’t happening in some vacuum of “everything is fine” vibes: Hundreds of U.S. citizens have been detained by immigration agents, including cases where people report being held more than a day. ICE conducts arrests with agents masking/obscuring their identities. DHS labeled people “domestic terrorists” in the Chicago sweeps, and then DOJ dropped the case and it was dismissed with prejudice. This same administration just carried out a military operation that captured Venezuela’s sitting president (Maduro), and publicly refused to rule out using military force to take Greenland. ICE agents shooting and killing a mother on the street and labelling her as a "domestic terrorist" (similar to the pattern in Chicago that was dismissed with prejudice). If you think that scope and pattern are normal and lawful, defend them; quote the authority and explain why it’s appropriate. If you can’t, then what you’re calling “breathless” is just me noticing you don’t actually have an argument, only a vibe and a whistle.
    • frumplestlatz 9mo ago
      The deportations are not outside the law. This particular issue is a proposed rule moving through the standard administrative process. I’m not claiming every proposed rule is beyond challenge or immune from litigation. Proposed rules are debated, challenged, revised, and sometimes struck down — that’s the system working. What I reject outright is the idea that the existence of a proposal justifies breathless talk of “boots on the neck,” “Nazism,” or violent “resistance.” That rhetoric is unhinged, and it gets people hurt. This is what voters chose, lawful policy will proceed, and those who choose to accelerate or encourage attacks on law enforcement, or to cheerlead those who do, will carry responsibility for the predictable consequences that follow. ... and so, while I have no obligation — and no interest — in responding to every item in your gish-galloped grievance listicle, I will address one claim: > ICE agents shooting and killing a mother on the street and labelling her as a "domestic terrorist" (similar to the pattern in Chicago that was dismissed with prejudice). “Mother on the street” is doing an extraordinary amount of rhetorical work. This person repeatedly obstructed federal law enforcement as part of an organized group. She ignored a lawful order to exit her vehicle, then accelerated toward and struck a federal officer with her car. She was shot in self-defense during that act. This was not peaceful protest. It was sustained violation of federal law, escalation toward violence, and a deliberate choice to endanger officers. That chain of bad decisions ended predictably. Many call this a tragedy. It is tragic, but only because it was so trivially avoidable. There were innumerable off-ramps available, including compliance with the final lawful order to exit her vehicle. Instead, she chose confrontation. Her wife shouted "drive baby, drive!", and she did: straight into an armed federal agent. This scenario has never happened to me or anyone I know, for the simple reason that most people do not repeatedly obstruct law enforcement, ignore lawful orders, or attempt to use a vehicle against armed officers. Consequences follow actions. People like yourself, who launder incidents like this through misleading language — while simultaneously invoking “boots on the neck,” “Nazism,” or calls for “resistance” — are not engaging in reasoned analysis. You're encouraging, justifying, and incentivizing reckless, self-destructive lawlessness. This woman would still be alive if she hadn’t been whipped into a frenzy by the outrage pipeline of news and social media, misled into believing that law and consequences no longer apply once you’re sufficiently imbued with self-righteous indignation. Peaceful protest is an American right — but that is not what this was. More people will be hurt if they continue to violate federal law, threaten federal law enforcement officers, and place both officers and themselves in harm’s way. Lawlessness and violence will not deter lawful enforcement.