Thanks for this eloquent argument. I always learn something useful here, this time at least two things: 1) the dual-state framing, normative vs prerogative, is really clarifying; and 2) I spoke at a conference titled Live Not By Lies and didn't even realize those were the words of Solzhenitsyn, so thanks for that as well!
You're welcome, Jenny. I also learn things here that I wouldn't learn otherwise and especially in writing with Michael. I landed on the "dual state" theory recently, and it's also been especially clarifying for me in pondering how "normal life" continues for most of us even as we see alarming developments at the national, or sometimes closer, at the state level, which fly in the face of what I've always thought were the boundaries for governmental action, against citizens or immigrants alike.
The citizens who testified yesterday at the joint Congressional hearing (House Oversight Committee sponsored it) were certainly on the receiving end of the "prerogative state." The two brothers of Renee Good also testified. At least there's been some honesty and clarity, however raw it is, for the public to hear and understand how the damage done to some individuals, not guilty of anything remotely like a crime, is very much damage done to the civic order and the rule of law that we all depend on. It's damage to the country, and in my opinion, to all of us. There's a link to that Congressional hearing in the Appendix to the article for anyone who wants to listen to it.
I am both a librarian and the spouse who was a legal immigrant. She lost her Green Card over asking USCIS a question. She had followed the rules, paid the fees, and waited patiently. She lost it all over a question. Legal immigrants have long dealt with what you call a "prerogative state," where there are no appeals, immigration courts, or "due process" as the term is increasingly misused. My congresswoman (a Dem) certainly used her to "prerogative" to make things worse for my wife.
So forgive me when I read "We are now on the cusp of coming to terms with what some experts call 'democratic backsliding' and in imagining what a diminished civil society will look like" and roll my eyes. It's not just at the overuse of big words and quotes from fancy writers, but what I see as tunnel-vision hypocrisy over the ignorance of how immigration actually functions in the US.
Where were you and the other morally righteous crusaders when my wife was mistreated and screwed over? And where were you when a library coworker--an immigrant--was abused and cast aside because she fell short in the intersectional arms race? Kicking out a tail light and verbose social media posts are a good bit easier than doing the meaningful work to support immigrants.
"Facts known (and documented) by citizens matter." And when do you start to listen to people whose experiences and opinions differ than yours? What do you think a "liberal democratic order" and "shared reality" are exactly? Can you take a step back and recognize your own limited understand and biases regarding immigration?
Sorry for the poorly-worded rant, but I am angry at all of this performative morality and (more broadly) the utter hypocrisy of the library profession on this and so many other issues.
Actually...what's going on is what went on in 2020...Dems mobilized an addled, brainwashed, and simply violent and destructive domestic terrorism force to win an election. They are attempting to do the same again for the 2026 midterms. All the rest follows from that. Homan is reducing the number of ICE personnel because Frey and Walz got the fear of grand jury put into them and are now handing over criminals at the jail to ICE instead of rushing them out the back door to commit further crimes. He can send a few elsewhere, now. Bovino was begging to go back to Cali, 'cause he couldn't continue to act the tough guy in the appalling cold of Minneapolis. He was replaced with Homan, who grew up in upstate New York and can totally tolerate it. Nothing much needs to be explained; it is all pretty obvious.
I noticed the use of "undocumented immigrants". This phrase is similar to "sex assigned at birth"; it sounds neutral but indicates what party or ideology you are really adhering to. Good to announce it in the first sentence, make it clear that you are taking a side.
I understand that you're trying to keep people civil, but I don't understand how my comment can be construed as other than rhetorical analysis, pure and simple.
We referred in this article to the emerging "fact pattern" about the violence of ICE agents in Minneapolis, the violations of civil rights of immigrants and citizens alike there, as well as the mendacity of the federal government during this ongoing crisis--and the coalescing broader public opinion, based on polls, about these realities.
Two recent articles by leading thinkers on this shared reality among the broader public have just been published, and may be of interest:
First, Emily Chamlee-Wright's co-authored article on the importance of civil society norms during times of crisis and authoritarian state violence. Chamlee-Wright is director of the classic liberal Institute for Humane Studies and a strong proponent of understanding contemporary events in the light of our country's history, especially the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s:
Second, Cass Sunstein published a recent post on his substack about the challenges of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias and how endemic those challenges are in public controversies, and how "asymmetrical updating" has occurred hugely in the public's awareness of what is happening in the ICE raids in Minneapolis/St. Paul. But he indicates that the "updating" (with better evidence that's more trusted) is now actually working to reduce the polarized reactions to the ICE raids with their violence and lawlessness--a hopeful sign that a shared reality is also emerging at least about actual facts that are, for sure, "stubborn things."
At the barest minimum, since it's an important issue, libraries should purchase Tom Homan's book "Defend the Border and Save Lives". But they won't...published in 2020 it was officially the most suppressed by libraries book in Massachusetts in 2025, https://insidelowell.com/the-most-banned-book-is/ .
"well-regarded" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I know more about Cato (both) than I know about "The Cato Institute", and I certainly don't have any regard for it.
The only Minnesotan I know that has spoken to me about the situation has said, basically, "Yup. I support this." It would be foolhardy to say that publicly at my workplace, of course, so he said it privately, among a small group.
Thanks for this eloquent argument. I always learn something useful here, this time at least two things: 1) the dual-state framing, normative vs prerogative, is really clarifying; and 2) I spoke at a conference titled Live Not By Lies and didn't even realize those were the words of Solzhenitsyn, so thanks for that as well!
You're welcome, Jenny. I also learn things here that I wouldn't learn otherwise and especially in writing with Michael. I landed on the "dual state" theory recently, and it's also been especially clarifying for me in pondering how "normal life" continues for most of us even as we see alarming developments at the national, or sometimes closer, at the state level, which fly in the face of what I've always thought were the boundaries for governmental action, against citizens or immigrants alike.
The citizens who testified yesterday at the joint Congressional hearing (House Oversight Committee sponsored it) were certainly on the receiving end of the "prerogative state." The two brothers of Renee Good also testified. At least there's been some honesty and clarity, however raw it is, for the public to hear and understand how the damage done to some individuals, not guilty of anything remotely like a crime, is very much damage done to the civic order and the rule of law that we all depend on. It's damage to the country, and in my opinion, to all of us. There's a link to that Congressional hearing in the Appendix to the article for anyone who wants to listen to it.
I am both a librarian and the spouse who was a legal immigrant. She lost her Green Card over asking USCIS a question. She had followed the rules, paid the fees, and waited patiently. She lost it all over a question. Legal immigrants have long dealt with what you call a "prerogative state," where there are no appeals, immigration courts, or "due process" as the term is increasingly misused. My congresswoman (a Dem) certainly used her to "prerogative" to make things worse for my wife.
So forgive me when I read "We are now on the cusp of coming to terms with what some experts call 'democratic backsliding' and in imagining what a diminished civil society will look like" and roll my eyes. It's not just at the overuse of big words and quotes from fancy writers, but what I see as tunnel-vision hypocrisy over the ignorance of how immigration actually functions in the US.
Where were you and the other morally righteous crusaders when my wife was mistreated and screwed over? And where were you when a library coworker--an immigrant--was abused and cast aside because she fell short in the intersectional arms race? Kicking out a tail light and verbose social media posts are a good bit easier than doing the meaningful work to support immigrants.
"Facts known (and documented) by citizens matter." And when do you start to listen to people whose experiences and opinions differ than yours? What do you think a "liberal democratic order" and "shared reality" are exactly? Can you take a step back and recognize your own limited understand and biases regarding immigration?
Sorry for the poorly-worded rant, but I am angry at all of this performative morality and (more broadly) the utter hypocrisy of the library profession on this and so many other issues.
Reminder that all comments must abide by the HxA Way: https://heterodoxacademy.org/resources/the-hxa-way/
Actually...what's going on is what went on in 2020...Dems mobilized an addled, brainwashed, and simply violent and destructive domestic terrorism force to win an election. They are attempting to do the same again for the 2026 midterms. All the rest follows from that. Homan is reducing the number of ICE personnel because Frey and Walz got the fear of grand jury put into them and are now handing over criminals at the jail to ICE instead of rushing them out the back door to commit further crimes. He can send a few elsewhere, now. Bovino was begging to go back to Cali, 'cause he couldn't continue to act the tough guy in the appalling cold of Minneapolis. He was replaced with Homan, who grew up in upstate New York and can totally tolerate it. Nothing much needs to be explained; it is all pretty obvious.
I noticed the use of "undocumented immigrants". This phrase is similar to "sex assigned at birth"; it sounds neutral but indicates what party or ideology you are really adhering to. Good to announce it in the first sentence, make it clear that you are taking a side.
Reminder that all comments must abide by the HxA Way: https://heterodoxacademy.org/resources/the-hxa-way/
I understand that you're trying to keep people civil, but I don't understand how my comment can be construed as other than rhetorical analysis, pure and simple.
We referred in this article to the emerging "fact pattern" about the violence of ICE agents in Minneapolis, the violations of civil rights of immigrants and citizens alike there, as well as the mendacity of the federal government during this ongoing crisis--and the coalescing broader public opinion, based on polls, about these realities.
Two recent articles by leading thinkers on this shared reality among the broader public have just been published, and may be of interest:
First, Emily Chamlee-Wright's co-authored article on the importance of civil society norms during times of crisis and authoritarian state violence. Chamlee-Wright is director of the classic liberal Institute for Humane Studies and a strong proponent of understanding contemporary events in the light of our country's history, especially the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s:
https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/minneapolis-demonstrates-how-to-resist
Second, Cass Sunstein published a recent post on his substack about the challenges of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias and how endemic those challenges are in public controversies, and how "asymmetrical updating" has occurred hugely in the public's awareness of what is happening in the ICE raids in Minneapolis/St. Paul. But he indicates that the "updating" (with better evidence that's more trusted) is now actually working to reduce the polarized reactions to the ICE raids with their violence and lawlessness--a hopeful sign that a shared reality is also emerging at least about actual facts that are, for sure, "stubborn things."
https://casssunstein.substack.com/p/minneapolis
At the barest minimum, since it's an important issue, libraries should purchase Tom Homan's book "Defend the Border and Save Lives". But they won't...published in 2020 it was officially the most suppressed by libraries book in Massachusetts in 2025, https://insidelowell.com/the-most-banned-book-is/ .
Some additional sources or links to sources here that might provide more context.
From the Department of Homeland Security's own internal documents:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-arrests-violent-criminal-records-trump-first-year/
Also, a range of policy documents from very well-regarded research institutes and think thanks who study the immigration issue in depth:
https://www.cato.org/blog/cato-study-immigrants-reduced-deficits-145-trillion-1994
https://www.niskanencenter.org/immigration-beyond-the-extremes-a-blueprint-that-actually-works/
https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/immigration-policy-and-its-macroeconomic-effects-in-the-second-trump-administration/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/macroeconomic-implications-of-immigration-flows-in-2025-and-2026-january-2026-update/
"well-regarded" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I know more about Cato (both) than I know about "The Cato Institute", and I certainly don't have any regard for it.
The only Minnesotan I know that has spoken to me about the situation has said, basically, "Yup. I support this." It would be foolhardy to say that publicly at my workplace, of course, so he said it privately, among a small group.