The external borders of the United States matter to security, but
how and in what ways is neither automatic nor obvious. The current
assumption is that borders defend the national interior against all
harms, which are understood as consistently coming from outside—and that
security is always obtained in the same way, whatever the issue. Some
security policies correctly use borders as tools to increase safety, but
border policy does not protect us from all harms. The 9/11 terrorists
came through airports with visas, thus crossing a border inspection
system without being stopped. They did not cross the U.S.-Mexico border.
Future terrorists would not necessarily cross a land border. U.S.
citizens and residents, and nationals of Western Europe, also represent
an important element of the terrorist threat, and they have unimpeded or
easy passage through U.S. borders. Fortified borders cannot protect us
from all security threats or sources of harm.
Moreover, not all border crossers pose security concerns, even ones
who violate national laws. The hundreds of thousands of unauthorized
migrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border each year have not posed a
threat of political terrorism, and external terrorists have not traveled
through this border. Enforcement of laws against unauthorized
immigration is, in the vast majority of cases, a resource- and
attention-wasting distraction from sensible national security measures.
That does not mean the U.S.-Mexico border is free from risk of harm,
such as increasingly violent drug trafficking organizations operating
nearby in Mexico. But that issue needs to be addressed in different ways
than current enforcement policy does.
Comments