The Evolution of Immigration Enforcement in the U.S.
Stephen Miller’s January 2026 statement to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, where he claimed they had “immunity to perform your duties” and that no “illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist” could stop them, might seem extreme outside the political mainstream. However, when ICE agents use facial recognition software to monitor immigrants and protesters, it raises serious concerns about privacy. While these cases may appear extreme, they are not entirely unexpected. Both Miller’s statements and ICE’s monitoring practices stem from a framework of immigration enforcement that emerged after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
From Criminality to Terrorism
In November 2002, the Homeland Security Act established the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Shortly after, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency was created. As the agency notes, this marked “the single-largest government reorganization since the creation of the Department of Defence.” Immigration enforcement was restructured into a national security priority, with the primary goal of defending “homeland security.” The idea of immigrants as potential criminals was already widespread before the creation of DHS.
For example, in 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act. This law expanded the number of offenses that could lead to automatic deportation, including those involving legal residents. It also limited judicial review of deportation cases, while the law’s title framed undocumented individuals as lawbreaking criminals.
After 9/11, the link between immigration and law enforcement intensified, taking on a new dimension: counterterrorism. Immigration was no longer seen as a civil issue but as a matter of national security. Immigrants were evaluated as potential threats, and immigration trials—such as for overstaying visas—increasingly took place in closed hearings, with the government using secret evidence. Those arrested for crossing the border illegally were imprisoned and faced criminal prosecution. Expedited deportations occurred at the border and across the country, even for immigrants who had lived in the U.S. for years.
The Role of NSEERS
The federal government also connected immigrants to terrorism through programs like the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), introduced in 2002. This program required immigrant men from 25 countries—mostly in the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa—to register with the federal government after already residing in the U.S. It was framed as a homeland security measure, leading to the detention of hundreds of people who had overstayed their visas by less than a month. United Nations human rights experts later criticized NSEERS for racial and religious profiling. Of the approximately 80,000 people registered, not a single terrorism prosecution resulted. About 14,000 were placed in deportation proceedings for visa irregularities, none for terrorism-related activity. NSEERS was suspended in 2011 and terminated in 2016.
Lessons Learned
If the purpose of NSEERS was to identify terrorists, it failed. However, it succeeded in treating immigrants as potential terrorists. This connection has only intensified over time. Federal government investment in facial recognition technology grew substantially after 9/11 with bipartisan support. The goal was to identify possible terrorists in American airports and cities. Today, facial recognition has become a common tactic used by ICE officers to identify not just immigrants for potential detention but also citizen observers.
Additionally, privately owned detention centers expanded in response to mass arrests of immigrants. Human rights advocates have reported issues such as “abuse, solitary confinement, and medical neglect” in these facilities. For years, ICE detention centers have been criticized for similar conditions. Programs like NSEERS generated fear and led to what policymakers called “self-deportation,” where immigrants voluntarily left the U.S. Today, self-deportation has become a government-endorsed program. Research shows that heightened immigration enforcement after 9/11 caused many immigrants, even those with legal status, to withdraw from public life, avoiding schools, hospitals, and work. ICE today continues to produce the same kinds of fear.
Going Beyond Technical Reforms
The immigration enforcement response to 9/11 set the stage for Miller’s language and the collection of data on everyday Americans. Under this way of thinking, if the homeland is under threat, then those who challenge immigration enforcement are labeled “domestic terrorists.” Investigations into ICE officers are often muted, as the officers are seen as protecting the homeland against existential danger. Severe tactics to detain immigrants and condemn protesters become not only permissible but also advisable, according to some advocates.
Perhaps technical reforms, such as requiring ICE agents to use body cameras or obtain judicial warrants before entering homes, may limit some abuses. However, these measures do not address the underlying premise since 9/11—that immigration has become primarily viewed as a national security threat.
