How 9/11 Turned Immigration Enforcement Into a Surveillance State

When Stephen Miller told ICE officers in January 2026 that they have "immunity to perform your duties" and that no "illegal alien, leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist" can stop them, it sounded like dangerous rhetoric from the political fringe.

When ICE agents started using facial recognition software to monitor not just immigrants but also citizen protesters, it felt like an unprecedented invasion of privacy.

But here's the uncomfortable truth: neither development is particularly surprising. Both Miller's inflammatory language and ICE's surveillance tactics are the logical endpoint of changes that began 25 years ago.

The Day Everything Changed

September 11, 2001, didn't just kill nearly 3,000 people. It fundamentally rewired how America thinks about immigration. Within months, the entire enforcement apparatus was reorganized around a single premise: immigrants are potential national security threats.

The Homeland Security Act of November 2002 created DHS in what officials called "the single-largest government reorganization since the creation of the Department of Defense." ICE followed a few months later. Immigration enforcement was no longer a civil matter handled by immigration courts—it became a national security priority.

To be sure, the criminalization of immigration predates 9/11. President Bill Clinton's1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act had already expanded automatic deportation offenses and limited judicial review. The very title framed undocumented immigrants as lawbreaking criminals.

But 9/11 added a new dimension: counterterrorism. Suddenly, immigration wasn't just about civil violations—it was about existential threats to the homeland.

From Civil Courts to Secret Hearings

The changes were swift and dramatic. Immigration trials moved to closed hearings where the government's evidence remained secret from the accused. People arrested for border crossings faced criminal prosecution and imprisonment. Expedited deportations became routine, even for immigrants who'd lived in the U.S. for years.

The most telling example was the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), launched in 2002. The program required immigrant men from 25 countries—almost entirely in the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa—to register with the federal government, even if they were already living legally in the U.S.

The results? Of approximately 80,000 people who registered, not a single terrorism prosecution resulted. Instead, about 14,000 were placed in deportation proceedings for minor visa irregularities. UN human rights experts later condemned NSEERS for racial and religious profiling.

NSEERS was suspended in 2011 and terminated in 2016. But its logic lived on.

The Surveillance Infrastructure Grows

Post-9/11, federal investment in facial recognition technology exploded with bipartisan support. The stated goal: identify potential terrorists in airports and cities. Today, that same technology helps ICE identify not just immigrants for detention but also citizen observers monitoring enforcement activities.

Private detention centers expanded to handle mass arrests. Human rights advocates document "abuse, solitary confinement, and medical neglect" at these facilities. ICE detention centers face similar criticism.

Programs like NSEERS created what policymakers euphemistically call "self-deportation"—fear so pervasive that immigrants voluntarily leave. Self-deportation is now official government policy.

Research shows that heightened enforcement led many immigrants, even those with legal status, to withdraw from public life, avoiding schools, hospitals, and work. ICE produces the same chilling effects today.

The Logic of Limitless Power

This is the framework that makes Miller's language and ICE's surveillance seem not just permissible but necessary. If the homeland faces existential threat, then those who challenge immigration enforcement become "domestic terrorists." Officers protecting against such threats deserve immunity from investigation. Severe tactics become not just acceptable but advisable.

Technical reforms—requiring ICE agents to wear body cameras or obtain judicial warrants before home raids—might limit some abuses. But they don't address the underlying premise that has governed immigration policy since 9/11: that immigration is primarily a national security issue.

The Global Export of American Surveillance

The implications extend far beyond U.S. borders. American surveillance technologies and enforcement models get exported worldwide. The facial recognition systems ICE uses today were developed by companies that sell similar products to governments across the globe.

Other democracies watch American innovations in immigration enforcement with interest. When the U.S. normalizes certain surveillance practices, it provides cover for similar measures elsewhere. The "homeland security" framework has proven remarkably adaptable to different political contexts.