250 years ago, American colonists declared their independence from Britain. In their Declaration of Independence, they argued that King George had inflicted “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States” (U.S. Continental Congress 1776). Among these, they lamented that he had “sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance” and that he “has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures” (ibid.). They criticized him for “Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us” and “protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States” (ibid.).

In the last year, we have seen some alarmingly similar abuses in the United States of America. Militarized federal agents, associated with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have occupied multiple American cities. For instance, thousands of agents were sent to Chicago as part of “Operation Midway Blitz” (McTiernan 2026). Thousands of agents were also sent to Minneapolis and St. Paul, and nearby parts of Minnesota for “Operation Metro Surge,” which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) called the “largest DHS operation ever” (quoted in Santana and Balsamo 2026). Throughout these occupations, ICE and CBP agents have harassed, beaten, intimidated, and tear-gassed numerous ordinary people. They broke a 67-year-old man’s ribs in front of children celebrating Halloween (Cavallier 2025). In January of 2026, ICE and CBP agents shot and killed two people in Minneapolis. The first person killed, Renée Good, was shot in her car by ICE agent Jonathan Ross on January 7th. The second, Alex Pretti, was shot by Border Patrol agents on January 24th. Both killings were caught on camera. Rather than waiting for any investigation, officials in the Trump administration lobbed hyperbolic accusations at each victim on the day they were killed. After Good was killed, both DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Vice President J.D. Vance accused her of domestic terrorism (Levinson-Waldman 2026). Similarly, White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security advisor Stephen Miller declared that Pretti was a “domestic terrorist” who “tried to assassinate federal law endorsement” (quoted in Maher 2026). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a statement that declared Pretti “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement” (ibid.). Videos of the shootings circulated widely, and the video evidence did not support these inflammatory claims.

Vice President J.D. Vance declared that ICE agents have “absolute immunity” for actions taken on duty (quoted in Chotiner 2026). In the aftermath of Renée Good’s death, federal officials began investigating her widow (Reilly et al. 2026), which led six federal prosecutors to resign (Londoño 2026). This all looks like a top-down effort to protect federal agents “from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States” (U.S. Continental Congress 1776).

Journalist Radley Balko (2026) argues that there are many parallels between the occupation of Boston by British troops and the occupation of Minneapolis by ICE and CBP. He juxtaposes archival documents about conditions in Boston with news stories from Minnesota during Operation Metro Surge. British troops harassing the people of Boston played a major role in stoking the rage that led to the American revolution. The framers of the U.S. Constitution designed it to prevent these types of authoritarian abuses. So why are we seeing such similar practices today?

The answer relates to a phenomenon that economist Alexander Salter (2017) calls “constitutional drift.” As Salter explains, even when a de jure written constitution remains unchanged, the de facto constitution can be changed by political decision-makers over time. Those who aim to design constitutional rules cannot anticipate future actions, social contexts, or interpretations. In a complex world populated by creative decision-makers, constitutions may be reinterpreted in unexpected ways (Devins et al. 2015).

This paper examines how restrictions on immigration have contributed to constitutional drift in the United States. Immigration restrictions have contributed to substantial growth in the powers of the federal government. Proponents of immigration restrictions and harsh immigration enforcement have often appealed to national security. Courts and the public often grant substantial leeway to national security arguments. This enables leaders to expand their power in this area.

This expansive power threatens the viability of liberalism in America. Enforcing immigration restrictions threatens many fundamental rights that are articulated in America’s founding documents. While immigrants often face the most obvious rights violations under these policies, the rights of citizens are threatened too (Kukathas 2021). Moreover, the enforcement of immigration restrictions has been increasingly militarized, further threatening the liberties of immigrants and native-born citizens alike (Goodman 2024a).

In what follows, I examine the development of American immigration policy and the threat it poses to liberalism. I begin by discussing some of the core liberal principles at the heart of America’s founding vision and how these principles can be undermined through constitutional drift. I then offer a brief history of American immigration policy, illustrating how it has undermined liberal principles. I follow this with a discussion of the ways that immigration restrictions and enforcement continue to threaten liberal values and principles. I conclude by suggesting paths forward, ways that Americans can restore liberty and complete the emancipatory liberal project of the American revolution.

KEYWORDS: American Founding, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Immigration, Border Militarization