I read a news headline: Trump administration plans to pay citizens to snoop on immigrants. I had to ask AI: “The govt is now paying people to spy and report on immigrants. Has any country done this since Germany in WW II?”
Since I asked MS Copilot, and I normally use it as an assistant for high-level research and writing (helping with – not writing everything you read) it’s got a history of the kinds of things I write about.
the govt is now paying people to spy and report on immigrants. Has any country done this since Germany in WW II
What you’ll see below is how the conversation went, and how AI can help.
Trump administration plans to pay citizens to snoop on immigrants
Its initial response was:
Direct Answer: Since World War II, no democratic government has openly replicated Nazi Germany’s model of paying ordinary citizens to systematically spy on immigrants. However, there have been partial parallels in other contexts: authoritarian regimes, Cold War surveillance states, and modern immigration enforcement programs have sometimes incentivized or deputized civilians to monitor migrants or neighbors. These efforts differ in scope and intent but echo aspects of Germany’s wartime informant culture.
It then proceeded to add more, not because I asked for it, but because it “remembers” how the interaction usually goes.
📜 Historical Context After WWII
Nazi Germany (1933–1945): Citizens were encouraged and rewarded for denouncing Jews, immigrants, and political dissidents. This was a hallmark of totalitarian control.
Post-War Europe: After 1945, countries like West Germany and Poland dealt with mass migration and refugee resettlement. Surveillance existed, but it was primarily state-run rather than incentivizing ordinary citizens.
United States (Cold War era): Immigration enforcement tightened, but programs focused on exclusion (e.g., the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, Refugee Relief Act of 1953) rather than paying citizens to spy.
🕵️ Examples of Civilian Surveillance Programs
East Germany (Stasi, 1950–1990): The Ministry for State Security recruited hundreds of thousands of informants, including neighbors and coworkers, to report on suspected “enemies of the state.” While not focused on immigrants, it was a massive citizen-spy system.
China (1950s–present): The Communist Party has long relied on “neighborhood committees” and informant networks to monitor residents, including migrants from rural areas. Rewards or privileges were sometimes given for cooperation.
United States (modern era): Programs like “Secure Communities” and local deputization of police under Section 287(g) of immigration law allowed local actors to aid federal immigration enforcement. These did not pay ordinary citizens, but they blurred lines between civilian and state surveillance.
⚖️ Key Differences
Scope: Nazi Germany’s system was totalitarian and universal. Modern democratic states have avoided mass citizen-spy programs, though authoritarian regimes have continued them.
Target: Post-WWII surveillance often focused on political dissidents or suspected spies, not immigrants specifically.
Payment: Few examples exist of governments directly paying citizens to spy on immigrants. Most programs rely on deputization, cooperation, or ideological loyalty rather than cash incentives.
🌍 Conclusion
The Trump administration’s reported plan to pay private contractors and “skip tracers” to track immigrants (Trump administration plans to pay citizens to snoop on immigrants) is unusual in democratic history. While authoritarian states like East Germany and China institutionalized citizen informants after WWII, no major democracy has openly paid ordinary citizens to surveil immigrants since Nazi Germany. The closest parallels are Cold War informant networks and modern immigration enforcement partnerships, but those lacked the direct bounty-style payments now being proposed.
My (chris’s conclusion)
There’s one more paragraph in Copilot’s AI response. Another way AI can be helpful – or scary – depending on your viewpoint. I find it helpful. I was going to do this anyway, but getting the extended response without having to ask for it was nice – and only having to type “yes” instead of spelling out what you’re about to read is also nice.
Reflective Insight
Chris, given your interest in the moral weight of governance, this moment resonates with biblical warnings about secrecy, corruption, and the misuse of authority. It raises the same accountability questions that animated your writing on Josiah and modern forgetfulness: when the state outsources its power, abuses become harder to trace, and trust erodes. Would you like me to help you frame this development in theological terms for your editorial series?
And so, there will be an article coming that will do just that. What we just read is, or should be, shocking, scary, and concerning to every person who considers themselves to be Christian.
Others as well.
But I’m directing this to those who call themselves Christians but have no problem with this.
Even worse, to someone who claims to be Christian and supports this, or still worse, takes part in it.
This exchange highlights deeper theological concerns — not only about secrecy and authority, but also about the danger when Christians fail to see clearly. I will reflect on those themes in an article I’ll write next and post a link here.
You can also subscribe to the site and receive an email whenever something new is published using the “Subscribe” button below.
Discover more from Which god can save?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.