Maybe you missed it. This week, moved from its original appointed date, the Lords held the second reading of what would be the sixth immigration act in a decade: the borders, citizenship and immigration bill. You might well have heard of some of the proposals involved, because the government has made a song and dance about the fatuous concept of making new citizens earn their naturalisation by doing officially approved community activities.

What almost nobody has noticed, and which was not made public until the bill was printed, is that the Home Office is to be enabled to appoint a new class of officials, with powers greater than the police, who are directly under political control. Can that be right? After all, didn't Jack Straw say in relation to the Damian Green affair:

We are not in a police state. A police state would be where ministers were directing a police operation.

It has been made clear time and again – or at least whenever any embarrassing errors are made – that the home secretary does not control police forces. HM Revenue & Customs are insulated from political intervention in the exercise of its powers by being a non-ministerial department. It is accepted that they should not be used in pursuit of political policy. And yet …

Part I of the new bill sets out how the home secretary may appoint an immigration officer or any other Home Office official as "a general customs officer", without revenue collection functions, but with all the powers of one of Her Majesty's customs officers, and (cl 5):

A general customs official must comply with the directions of the Secretary of State in the exercise of functions in relation to a general customs matter.

Customs officers have enormous powers. They can arrest people, search and seize property on suspicion, and recently acquired the capacity to take fingerprints and DNA. They can (like police) seize cash under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and demand the owner prove it was acquired lawfully. They have surveillance powers from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and data-acquisition and sharing powers under the Identity Cards Act 2006, UK Borders Act 2007, and Serious Crime Act 2007. They have resort to "writs of assistance", an ancient form of arbitrary search specifically outlawed in the US constitution. And under the Finance Act 2008, schedule 36, there are new information gathering powers, yet to be activated, which arguably broaden and build upon even that.

If the home secretary had openly resolved to create a new national police force – call it the national identity police – equipped with the same powers as the Dorset constabulary, say, but reporting directly to her and used for the enforcement of departmental policy there would be, if not public outrage, certainly public interest. I doubt the existing police would be pleased to be so usurped.

But what's being done here, ostensibly in order to create a "combined border force", is actually more dangerous than that. It's a super-powered, semi-secret police, calculated partake of the renowned charm of the immigration service. There's no provision for general customs officials to be identified or even distinguished from other Home Office officials, nor do they appear to have any specific duties associated with their powers, except to obey the secretary of state.

We're not living in a police state. But by Jack Straw's definition, we might soon be living in a general customs official state.