Constitutional limits and risks of a security state

👉 Pitch in on Patreon and fuel the future of free-thinking conversations. https://www.patreon.com/parallaxviews

Also visit our returning sponsor Mike Swanson's Wall Street Window for the best financial and trading newsletter around:
https://wallstreetwindow.com/

On this edition of Parallax Views, J.G. Michael speaks with Jordan Liz — Associate Professor of Philosophy at San José State University and a contributor to Common Dreams — about ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the Department of Homeland Security, and why Liz argues that the “Abolish ICE” movement represents not a radical departure but a necessary response to the post-9/11 transformation of American governance.

Liz contends that ICE is not a longstanding institution but a product of the Bush administration’s Global War on Terror, created alongside DHS in an atmosphere shaped by fear, threat inflation, and national security panic. Rather than emerging as a neutral immigration enforcement body, Liz argues that ICE was embedded from the beginning within a broader security framework that treated immigration through the lens of counterterrorism — effectively recasting migrants as potential internal threats. This, he claims, helped fuel the militarization of policing and laid the groundwork for an expansive surveillance apparatus whose implications extend far beyond immigration policy.

Drawing on arguments developed in his Common Dreams writing, Liz explains why he believes ICE cannot be meaningfully reformed. In essays such as “Abolish ICE — and DHS Too,” he argues that the very concept of “homeland security” fused immigration enforcement with civilizational and cultural anxieties about national identity, encouraging policies that frame immigrants as existential dangers to the nation’s “way of life.” In his view, this logic incentivizes perpetual expansion of enforcement powers, increased funding, and the normalization of aggressive tactics justified by ever-inflated threats.

The conversation also explores Liz’s critique of DHS as an institution born from the War on Terror’s security paradigm. According to Liz, DHS consolidated vast surveillance and enforcement powers under a single umbrella, contributing to what he sees as the growth of a domestic security state capable of undermining civil liberties. His writing frequently warns that technologies such as biometric identification, data integration, and algorithmic policing expand ICE’s reach not only over undocumented migrants but over citizens as well, disproportionately affecting people of color and reshaping the boundaries of belonging in American political life.

Liz connects these concerns to his broader philosophical work on race and the “politics of belonging,” arguing that immigration enforcement reflects deeper questions about who is recognized as fully American and who remains perpetually suspect. The discussion examines how narratives of cultural threat and national decline shape immigration debates, and how these narratives intersect with policy decisions, surveillance practices, and enforcement priorities.

In addition, the episode addresses controversies surrounding ICE since its early years, the role of protest and public witnessing in challenging state power, and the human consequences of immigration enforcement, including the killings of Alex Pretti and Rene Good. Ultimately, the conversation grapples with a larger question: whether the post-9/11 security architecture has pushed the United States toward what critics describe as “Police State USA,” and what alternatives might exist for immigration policy outside the framework of national security.