It seems these days the topic of border security can ignite a fiery debate faster than a Fourth of July barbecue. Such is the case with some recent headlines about several Iranians having been arrested within our borders. One might wonder, how did they even get here? Well, the answer might just lie in the immigration policies, or lack thereof, that have been set in motion over recent years. Critics, including the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ryan Mast, have been quite vocal that current policies sway in favor of open borders, which has, unfortunately, led to some unsavory characters making their entrance.
Mast, who knows his way around a bomb as well as a committee meeting, pointed out the past administration’s inclination to welcome individuals who might not have received an invitation otherwise. When known or suspected terrorists can waltz across the border, it’s a wake-up call for stricter immigration controls. The concern is not just about keeping unwanted visitors out, but also about ensuring those who do enter contribute positively to the social and economic fabric.
As if this weren’t enough, there’s a new policy push to work as little with ICE as possible, create more sanctuary cities, and astonishingly, offer second chances to folks who should have been shown the exit door. This isn’t just inviting trouble; it’s guiding it to the red carpet. Cities being encouraged to turn their guns on ICE? It sounds like a plot twist from a satirical novel, yet here we are, having this discussion, face to palm.
Then the conversation swerves to sleeper cells and their threat to national security. Of course, the potential for such threats can’t be understated. With recent military operations and geopolitical tensions, like the robust-sounding “Operation Midnight Hammer” in Iran, there arises the possibility of retaliatory actions within our borders. Some fear these actions could be spearheaded by individuals already here, awaiting the nod to shake things up.
No doubt, the supporters of the previous administration miss those more rigid immigration policies that boasted of deporting such risks with fanfare. Aggressive collection of intelligence on these non-compliant individuals arguably led to a trove of information that could safeguard the nation. If ever there was an argument for buttoning up the borders and tightening checks, it certainly finds its strength in the need for a safer America—one without foreshadowing what feels like an all-too-real game of geopolitical chess. Is it too much to ask for a little peace of mind and security within one’s own borders? Apparently, that’s something not every party sees eye to eye on.
