HM2 - Fear, Faith, and Fire: Echoes of the Spanish Inquisition in the Modern World
SCURS Disciplines
History
Document Type
General Presentation (Oral)
Invited Presentation Choice
Not Applicable
Abstract
The Spanish Inquisition and modern U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operate within distinctly different political and historical systems. The Inquisition functioned as a religious judicial institution aimed at preserving Catholic unity in fifteenth-century Spain, while ICE was established in 2003 within a democratic framework to address national security concerns following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Despite these differences, both institutions emerged during periods of perceived instability and relied on narratives of threat to justify expanded oversight. This presentation examines how these two systems reflect recurring patterns in which governments regulate marginalized populations through fear-based governance. Using comparative historical analysis, this study synthesizes historical scholarship, contemporary policy reporting, political communication research, and empirical studies of public attitudes toward immigration. Particular attention is given to surveillance practices, detention structures, public displays of authority, and rhetorical framing that defines certain groups as destabilizing forces. The analysis indicates that both institutions relied on perceived danger to consolidate legitimacy. The Inquisition used public trials, confiscation of property, symbolic punishment, and religious rhetoric to portray heresy as a threat to political and moral order. Similarly, post-9/11 immigration enforcement expanded within a national security discourse characterized by visible raids, detention practices, arrest targets, and publicized enforcement activity. Empirical research further shows that heightened concern about terrorism predicts more negative immigration attitudes, suggesting that perceived threat plays a central role in shaping public support for restrictive policy. While the Inquisition operated within a centralized religious monarchy and ICE functions within a constitutional system with formal legal safeguards, the comparison reveals a shared structural logic: when groups are framed as sources of instability, broader society becomes more accepting of intrusive state control. Situating contemporary immigration enforcement within this longer historical pattern encourages a more careful evaluation of how fear shapes public policy and belonging.
Keywords
Spanish Inquisition, immigration, immigration policy
Start Date
10-4-2026 2:25 PM
Location
CASB 104
End Date
10-4-2026 2:40 PM
HM2 - Fear, Faith, and Fire: Echoes of the Spanish Inquisition in the Modern World
CASB 104
The Spanish Inquisition and modern U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operate within distinctly different political and historical systems. The Inquisition functioned as a religious judicial institution aimed at preserving Catholic unity in fifteenth-century Spain, while ICE was established in 2003 within a democratic framework to address national security concerns following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Despite these differences, both institutions emerged during periods of perceived instability and relied on narratives of threat to justify expanded oversight. This presentation examines how these two systems reflect recurring patterns in which governments regulate marginalized populations through fear-based governance. Using comparative historical analysis, this study synthesizes historical scholarship, contemporary policy reporting, political communication research, and empirical studies of public attitudes toward immigration. Particular attention is given to surveillance practices, detention structures, public displays of authority, and rhetorical framing that defines certain groups as destabilizing forces. The analysis indicates that both institutions relied on perceived danger to consolidate legitimacy. The Inquisition used public trials, confiscation of property, symbolic punishment, and religious rhetoric to portray heresy as a threat to political and moral order. Similarly, post-9/11 immigration enforcement expanded within a national security discourse characterized by visible raids, detention practices, arrest targets, and publicized enforcement activity. Empirical research further shows that heightened concern about terrorism predicts more negative immigration attitudes, suggesting that perceived threat plays a central role in shaping public support for restrictive policy. While the Inquisition operated within a centralized religious monarchy and ICE functions within a constitutional system with formal legal safeguards, the comparison reveals a shared structural logic: when groups are framed as sources of instability, broader society becomes more accepting of intrusive state control. Situating contemporary immigration enforcement within this longer historical pattern encourages a more careful evaluation of how fear shapes public policy and belonging.