By William Tucker
Chief Correspondent for In Homeland Security
Over the past decade, the debate over terrorists crossing the land borders of the continental U.S. has been loud and vociferous from proponents of border security and critics alike. Unfortunately, both sides of this discussion often wholly link this issue to the immigration debate. I say unfortunately because open source information in the form of court documents and congressional testimony from both the law enforcement and intelligence communities have presented substantial evidence that individuals with links to foreign terrorist organizations have indeed crossed into the U.S. from Canada and Mexico. Linking this to the immigration debate obfuscates the very real issue of known or suspected terrorists entering the U.S. for unknown purposes.
In many ways the U.S. has been fortunate since these individuals seem more inclined to engage in smuggling and fund raising as opposed to orchestrating an actual attack. A few, such as those involved in the millennial bombing plot, have tried to execute an attack, but most come to the U.S. for other purposes. The possibility that this trend will swing to something more violent is certainly a possibility and both sides continually linking this discussion to the immigration debate are glossing over a rather important issue.
Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina recently grabbed headlines by claiming that ten militants from the Islamic State have crossed the shared border with Mexico. Others in congress have made similar claims, but the Department of Homeland Security has denied this. Naturally its safe to assume that one or the other is not being completely forthright in these claims.
What’s more is that the members of congress making these claims seem to be, to the detriment of their argument, solely focused on the southern border though several known or suspected terrorists have entered from Canada. Further complicating the issue is partisanship. Though Republicans have been the most vocal as of late, former Democratic governors in New Mexico and Arizona declared a state of emergency a few years ago in response to drug violence, organized crime, and, of course, concerns related to terrorism. One of those governors, Janet Napolitano, would modify her concerns once she accepted the role of Secretary of Homeland Security. It would seem that the view from Washington is quite different than the view from Phoenix of Santa Fe – another reality that complicates discussions over this issue.
Much to the detriment of the American public and wider U.S. policy, this debate is unlikely to turn towards informed discussion. Currently, the rift between the two parties and the divide between the federal government and the states is too wide to bridge without a desperate impetus. Hopefully that impetus doesn’t manifest in the form of mass violence or even attempted mass violence. Many in congressional debates over legislation look for a single, comprehensive bill that addresses a multitude of issues when such a thing just isn’t feasible.
The discussion of this issue must take place independently of perceived bias using readily available evidence to address the phenomenon legislatively, but also the White House must take a multifaceted approach in allowing the various law enforcement and intelligences agencies more latitude in fostering a robust relationship with their Mexican and Canadian counterparts. Granted, a relationship already exists on many levels, and despite the potential risks that come from such liaisons the benefits are far too important.
Known or suspected terrorists entering the U.S. is an important issue and must be addressed as such before something disastrous takes place.
Comments are closed.