Watching From the Outside: Why Some Are Drawing Uncomfortable Parallels With America’s Direction

28 January 2026

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

From the outside looking in, the United States feels tense in a way that is hard to ignore. Recent news has heightened that sense even further. On 24 January 2026, federal immigration agents fatally shot 37-year-old ICU nurse Alex Pretti during an operation in Minneapolis. Pretti was a lawful gun owner and had no significant criminal record, but video footage circulating online shows him recording officers with his phone and attempting to help a woman before being pepper-sprayed, wrestled to the ground and shot multiple times by agents. His death came amid a broader surge in immigration enforcement actions in the city that has sparked widespread protests and national debate about the use of force and accountability.

Police officers in black riot gear stand in formation on cobblestone street, holding batons, creating a tense and serious mood.

The killing of Pretti, who was widely remembered by colleagues and neighbours as compassionate and dedicated to his work, has drawn sharp criticism from civil rights groups, local officials and even former U.S. presidents. Public anger has spread beyond Minneapolis to rallies in other American cities and ongoing demands for transparency and reform.

For many people overseas, including in the UK, this adds a stark, human dimension to long-standing debates about immigration enforcement, executive power, and the use of force by federal agents.

Historical Echoes and Patterns of Enforcement

What unsettles observers most is not a superficial comparison to the worst chapters of history, but the processes that unfold when state power is exercised with increasing visibility and limited accountability. In the early 1930s in Germany, for example, enforcement and security agencies were expanded, rhetoric framed certain groups as threats to public order, and legal mechanisms were adapted gradually in the name of national security. Before the worst atrocities occurred, many citizens still believed institutions would hold firm.

The parallels some are drawing today are about how language, enforcement and public perception can shift over time, not about equating present-day events with the horrors of the Holocaust or claiming that history is bound to repeat itself. Democracies do not erode overnight. They do so when extraordinary measures become normalised and when fear is used as justification for expanding state authority.

Immigration Enforcement and Public Fear

The focus on agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Border Patrol under the current administration has made enforcement part of everyday conversation in a way that was once reserved for national security crises. Actions such as raids, aggressive detentions, and high-profile shootings like the deaths of Pretti and Renee Good earlier this month have drawn comparisons to historical moments when internal policing exerted extraordinary authority over civilians.

From the outside, this visibility of enforcement is unsettling. In situations where armed federal agents are deployed in large numbers to American cities, and when deaths occur in contested circumstances, the tendency is for commentators and historians to look back at how other societies responded to similar shifts in state behaviour and to ask whether existing checks and balances are sufficient.

Rhetoric and the Framing of Threats

Language plays a powerful role in shaping public opinion and policy. In the early 20th century Europe, political leaders increasingly used rhetoric that framed certain groups as dangerous or incompatible with national identity. This language made previously unthinkable policies acceptable to a broad public.

In the U.S. context, political rhetoric around immigration has in some quarters suggested that foreign nationals or dissenters pose existential threats. Critics argue that such language sets the tone for enforcement actions that might otherwise be widely criticised.

The Legal System and Incremental Change

One of the most important lessons from modern history is that authoritarian systems often emerge through the reinterpretation or expansion of existing laws, rather than through the overt suspension of democratic systems. Courts, legislatures, and enforcement agencies remain in place in the United States, but when emergency powers or discretionary enforcement are normalised, the public’s trust in institutions can be eroded.

These concerns are not hypothetical. Critics have pointed out that the legal frameworks governing immigration enforcement give federal agencies enormous discretion. When enforcement is paired with aggressive tactics in civilian urban environments, it raises questions about oversight, accountability and the protection of civil liberties.

Why Observers Abroad Are Paying Attention

The United States has long been seen as a beacon of democratic values, a country where civil liberties and the rule of law are central to national identity. From the UK and Europe, watching developments in Minneapolis and across the U.S. feels significant precisely because it tests that assumption.

Modern communication accelerates polarisation and magnifies every incident. Historical memory informs how we interpret patterns. Europe’s twentieth-century experience serves as a backdrop that makes observers sensitive to early indicators of democratic erosion, such as expanded enforcement powers, heightened rhetoric about internal threats, and the normalisation of force against civilians.

It is not that the United States today mirrors Germany of the 1930s in outcome or intent. The difference lies in context, institutions and culture. What resonates is not the specific ideology, but the processes by which states can extend authority, restrict dissent, and normalise exceptional measures in the name of order.

A Cautionary Perspective

What worries many observers is not that a totalitarian system is inevitable. Democracies are resilient and multifaceted. The U.S. still has strong independent courts, vibrant civil society and free media. But history teaches that complacency is dangerous. Democracies do not disappear because people want tyranny. They erode when early warning signs are dismissed as exaggeration.

From Minneapolis to broader immigration enforcement debates, what is happening in the United States prompts reflection on how democratic societies balance security, liberty and accountability. From the outside, that balance feels more fragile than many expected.

And in a world where U.S. domestic policy often influences global norms, those questions matter far beyond America’s borders.

Current Most Read

Why the ‘Driverless’ Narrative Is Failing the Freight Industry

Two Reasons Why Businesses Are Losing Their Leads

What is a skeuomorph

Gregory Devine
Nov 14, 2024
3 min read

When you go to save a document on Word, which button do you press? There are many ways to do it but chances are you select the floppy disk in the top corner of the screen. Ever consider that this is a little odd? Floppy disks have been obsolete for years now, yet we instinctively know that this is the save button.

This is called a skeuomorph—it’s when something new takes on the appearance of what it has replaced. Once you start looking, you’ll realise they’re everywhere.

Open up your smartphone. When you want to make a phone call, you tap on the app that looks like an old fashioned telephone receiver. When you go to send an email, you tap the app with a letter on it. Despite emails being fully digital and them not looking remotely similar to a physical letter, we still know this app’s function and what it replaced.

Skeuomorphs aren’t always physical, they can also be a sound. If you click on your smartphone’s camera app (which looks like a physical camera,) to take a photo, you may notice a shutter sound when you click the button, despite your phone’s camera having no physical shutter to open and close. Real cameras make this noise. However, it’s useful to have some sort of signal that your phone has captured an image. Otherwise, you’d just have to guess that the phone’s camera app worked, which, if you’re taking a posed picture (especially of a large group of people) or you wish to capture a specific moment in time, isn’t very helpful!

The term skeuomorph was coined by archaeologist H. Colley March in 1889, after he noticed that some ancient artefacts retained the design features of older, similar objects, even if these were no longer necessary. Take a look at classical architecture, such as Greek temples—these structures were once built of wood. When building with wood you, of course, need wooden beams. When building with stone, these beams aren’t necessary, yet they’re still incorporated in the stone’s design. Not only is this a homage to the previous way of doing things, it’s also aesthetically pleasing.

Skeuomorphs are a feature of electric cars. These vehicles don’t require cooling vents nor a grill at the front, yet most electric cars still incorporate these in their designs. We’re so used to seeing combustion engine cars with these features that it looks odd to remove them.

There’s no reason for digital keyboards to make a sound when you type, yet, because they represent laptop keyboards and even typewriters (which were really quite noisy), our brains expect a sound to be there. This gives us the illusion that we’re still using a physical keyboard, despite it being on a screen.

The notes section in our phones doesn’t need to look like lined paper or a sticky note. The lock screen doesn’t need to make the sound of a padlock, but most do. All these things help us locate and understand them quicker because they bear a direct reference to their previous iteration.

The trend is changing though. We’re moving away from skeuomorphism and instead opting for more minimalist design. The original versions of iOS (the iPhone’s operating system) were incredibly skeuomorphic but newer versions have opted for a simpler appearance. We’re now aware of how to use smartphones, so the need for things to look familiar isn’t as strong.

The Instagram logo used to be that of a Polaroid camera, which captured and printed images instantly; now, the logo is a much simpler representation of a Polaroid—to the point where, if you didn’t know what the logo used to be, you probably wouldn’t guess. Either way, it’s still clear that it represents Instagram.

Skeuomorphs divide opinion…for instance, is there still a need for this kind of design style, or should digital design move on and find its own innovations? Many people haven’t even used the objects skeuomorphs represent, so is there any point to them? Personally, I quite like them, but that might be because I’m not a huge fan of the new super-simplistic designs everyone seems to be using.