By Morris Wambua

In a Fox Newstown hall, former President Donald Trump asserted that more terrorists have entered the United States through the southern border in the last three years than in the previous 50 years combined. As the nation reflects on the 23rd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Trump's statements have sparked widespread debate and scrutiny.

The claim raises critical questions: Are terrorists truly exploiting the southern border to enter the U.S., and if so, what should be done about it?

While Trump's comments have faced criticism, this discussion provides an opportunity to examine the broader context of border security, considering the perspective that prioritizes stringent measures to protect American citizens.

Trump’s Claims on Terrorists at the Southern Border: Analyzing the Evidence
Trump’s rhetoric on the southern border and the associated risks of terrorism has been a cornerstone of his political platform. His statements about terrorists crossing into the U.S. touch on genuine concerns regarding national security and the integrity of American borders.

Even though critics argue that his claims lack robust evidence, it’s vital to dissect the facts, look at the data, and explore why Republicans continue to emphasize the need for heightened border security.

The Southern Border: A Critical Vulnerability or Exaggerated Threat?
Historical Context of Terrorist Entries into the U.S.

While the southern border has often been portrayed as a weak point in U.S. national security, historical data does not provide strong evidence linking it to significant terrorist activities. The 9/11 attacks, one of the most devastating acts of terrorism in U.S. history, were carried out by 19 hijackers, all of whom entered the country legally through airports, not via the southern border.

This fact underscores that terrorists have historically used legal means to enter the U.S., which weakens the argument that the southern border has been a frequent route for terrorists.

However, the potential for terrorists to exploit weaknesses in border security still exists. As the nature of global threats evolves, terrorists may seek out more unconventional routes, including the southern border.

Although no major terrorist attacks have been directly linked to this route, the possibility remains that bad actors could attempt to exploit it in the future. The debate surrounding Trump’s claims, therefore, centers on the potential vulnerabilities rather than past occurrences.

Recent Data on Terrorist Encounters at U.S. Borders

Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) provides some insight into the presence of individuals flagged for security concerns at U.S. borders.

In 2024, there were 43 encounters with individuals on the terrorism watch list at the southern
border. While being on this list does not confirm someone as an active terrorist, it signals a potential risk. For context, the northern border with Canada saw a significantly higher number of encounters—281 individuals—during the same period.

This disparity may seem surprising, but the high volume of crossings and challenges associated with patrolling the southern border make it a focal point of national security discussions. Critics often point to the relatively low number of terrorist encounters compared to other threats, such as drug trafficking and human smuggling.

However, Republicans maintain that even a single terrorist slipping through the cracks could result in a catastrophic event, making robust security measures imperative.

The Reality of Terrorist Threats via the Southern Border

Despite the focus on potential terrorist threats, no recent terrorist attacks have been directly attributed to individuals crossing the southern border. Critics of Trump’s claims argue that the data does not support the idea of a flood of terrorists entering the U.S. this way.

However, Republicans argue that the absence of past attacks does not mean the threat is non-existent. Proponents of stronger border security emphasize the need to address vulnerabilities before they are exploited, not after a tragedy occurs.

In this view,the presence of individuals on terror watch lists, regardless of their intentions, serves as a warning. It highlights the potential for terrorists to use the southern border as a gateway, particularly as security at more conventional entry points like airports and seaports has been significantly tightened since 9/11.

Republicans see this as a call for preemptive action, arguing that border security is not just about reacting to past events but about safeguarding against future risks.

Domestic vs. Foreign Terror Threats: A Balanced Perspective

Rising Concerns About Domestic Extremism

While the debate over border security often focuses on foreign threats, domestic terrorism has been a growing concern in the United States.

Over the past three years, domestic far-right extremists have been responsible for 22 deaths, with
high-profile incidents occurring in places like Buffalo, New York, and Allen, Texas. These tragic events have led some critics to argue that domestic extremism poses a more immediate threat than foreign terrorism.
However, Republicans contend that addressing domestic terrorism does not negate the need for strong border security. Instead, they argue for a dual approach: combating homegrown threats while also securing borders to prevent foreign terrorists from entering the country. The two issues, they argue, are not mutually exclusive but are part of a broader strategy to protect national security.

Comparing Threats:Foreign Terrorists vs. Domestic Extremists

The threat of domestic terrorism is undeniable, but Republicans stress that foreign terrorists continue to pose a significant risk. Border security, in their view, is the first line of defense against external threats, including terrorism, drug cartels, and human traffickers.

The focus on border security does not minimize the threat of domestic extremism; rather, it reflects the belief that the U.S. must defend itself from a variety of threats, both internal and external.

Republicans argue that national security should not be framed as a choice between addressing domestic or foreign threats. Both must be tackled simultaneously, and securing the southern border is a critical component of that comprehensive approach. A failure to secure the border could leave the nation vulnerable to external attacks, even as efforts to combat domestic extremism continue.

The Republican Perspective: Why Border Security Matters

The Case for Stronger Border Controls

Republicans have long argued that a secure southern border is essential for national security. The volume of illegal crossings, coupled with the challenges of monitoring such a vast and varied landscape, has made the southern border a focal point for Republican policy.

They emphasize that without strong border controls, the U.S. risks allowing not only illegal immigration but also criminal organizations, drug traffickers, and potentially terrorists to cross
into the country unchecked.

The Republican platform supports a multi-faceted approach to border security. This includes physical barriers like a wall or fencing, increased funding for Border Patrol agents, and the deployment of advanced surveillance technologies. These measures, Republicans argue, are necessary to close the security gaps that could be exploited by terrorists and other bad actors.

The Broader Implications of a Secure Border

Beyond preventing terrorist entry, Republicans argue that a secure border is crucial for tackling other pressing issues like drug trafficking, human smuggling, and illegal immigration.

The southern border has become a major entry point for fentanyl and other dangerous drugs, which have contributed to a rise in overdose deaths in American communities.

Stronger border security measures, Republicans argue, would help to stem the flow of these substances and reduce the influence of violent drug cartels.

In addition, secure borders are seen as vital for maintaining the integrity of the legal immigration system. Republicans advocate for a system in which those seeking asylum or better opportunities enter the U.S. through legal channels, ensuring a fair and orderly process. By securing the southern border, they believe the U.S. can better manage immigration and address humanitarian concerns while maintaining national security.

Addressing Criticisms of Trump’s Border Security Claims

Media Scrutiny and Political Rhetoric

Donald Trump's statements about terrorists crossing the southern border have faced intense scrutiny from the media and political opponents.

Critics have argued that his claims are exaggerated and not fully supported by available data. Fact-checkers often point out that while individuals on terror watch lists have been encountered at the border, the actual number of terrorists who have successfully entered the U.S. remains low.

Republicans, however, defend Trump’s broader point, arguing that the focus on discrediting his specific claims misses the larger issue: the need for stronger border security to prevent potential threats from materializing.

They assert that even if the numbers are smaller than Trump suggested, the presence of individuals on terror watch lists at the border highlights real security risks that should not be ignored.

The Importance of Proactive Security Measures

Republicans argue that waiting for a catastrophic event to occur before taking action on border security is a dangerous gamble.

Proactive measures—such as building physical barriers, deploying more Border Patrol agents, and utilizing advanced surveillance technologies—can help prevent potential threats before they have
the chance to cause harm.

From their perspective, border security should be a top priority, not just for today’s threats but for the unknown risks of tomorrow.

The Role of Border Security in Republican Policy

Immigration Reform and National Security

Border security is a key pillar of Republican immigration policy. They believe that enforcing strict border controls is essential to maintaining the integrity of the U.S. immigration system.

Republicans argue that without a secure border, efforts to reform immigration policy and establish a fair system will be undermined by illegal crossings and the potential entry of bad actors.

Immigration reform proposals from Republicans often include provisions for stricter entry requirements, more thorough vetting processes, and the completion of the border wall. The goal is to create an orderly system in which those who wish to enter the U.S. do so legally, while minimizing the risk of individuals who might pose a threat to national security slipping through the cracks.

Balancing Security with Humanitarian Concerns

While Republicans emphasize the need for strong border controls, they also recognize the importance of balancing security with humanitarian concerns.

The U.S. has long been a beacon of hope for refugees and those fleeing violence or
persecution, and Republicans argue that a secure border does not preclude a compassionate immigration system.

By securing the southern border, Republicans believe the U.S. can better manage asylum requests and ensure that those entering the country are doing so for legitimate reasons. A secure border, in their view, allows the U.S. to fulfill its humanitarian obligations while protecting its citizens from potential threats.
Looking Beyond the Numbers: The Strategic Need for Border Security

Anticipating Future Threats

For Republicans, border security is not just about addressing past incidents but about anticipating and preventing future threats. The dynamic nature of global terrorism means that vulnerabilities, once identified, can be exploited quickly.

A secure southern border, therefore, is seen as a strategic necessity, not just a reactive measure. Republicans argue that the U.S. cannot afford to be complacent when it comes to national
security.

By investing in border infrastructure and technologies now, the country can position itself to respond more effectively to future threats, ensuring that its borders remain secure in the face of evolving challenges.

The Economic and Social Costs of Inadequate Border Security

Inadequate border security has far-reaching consequences beyond the immediate risk of
terrorism. Illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and human smuggling place significant strains on local resources, law enforcement, and healthcare systems.

Communities along the border, in particular, often bear the brunt of these issues, facing increased crime rates and overburdened social services. Republicans argue that securing the border is essential to alleviating these pressures. By preventing illegal crossings and disrupting criminal networks, stronger border security can help create safer, more stable communities and reduce the economic and social costs associated with illegal activity at the border.

FBI and Homeland Security: Aligning Efforts with Border Security Priorities

Federal Agencies’ Role in Border Protection

Federal agencies such as the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) play a critical role in border security. These agencies are tasked with identifying and intercepting potential threats, including individuals with ties to terrorism.

Republicans advocate for increasing the funding and resources available to these agencies to enhance their capabilities in tracking and preventing terrorist activities at the border.

Republicans also emphasize the importance of cooperation between federal agencies and border security personnel. By sharing intelligence and coordinating efforts, these agencies can create a more comprehensive and effective approach to securing the southern border and addressing potential threats.

The Importance of Intelligence and Surveillance

Advanced intelligence and surveillance technologies are seen as key components of a successful border security strategy. Republicans argue for the expansion of drone surveillance, sensors, and other technologies to monitor difficult-to-patrol areas along the southern border.

These technologies can provide real-time data, helping Border Patrol agents and federal agencies respond to potential threats more quickly and effectively. In additionto physical surveillance, Republicans stress the need for enhanced data-sharing between federal, state, and local agencies. By pooling resources and intelligence, these agencies can better track individuals on terror watch lists
and prevent them from entering the U.S. through the southern border.

Moving Forward: A Republican Vision for Secure Borders

Policy Recommendations for Enhanced Border Security

Republicans propose several measures to enhance border security, including:

• Building a Physical Barrier: Completing sections of the border wall to deter illegal crossings and enhance security.
• Increasing Border Patrol Personnel: Expanding the workforce to ensure that the border is adequately monitored and patrolled.
• Deploying Advanced Technology: Utilizing drones, sensors, and surveillance systems to cover difficult-to-monitor areas and improve real-time intelligence.
• Streamlining Legal Immigration: Improving the legal immigration process to reduce the incentive for illegal crossings and ensure that individuals entering the U.S. are properly vetted.

Engaging with Border Communities and Stakeholders

Republicans also emphasize the importance of engaging with border communities and other stakeholders to ensure that border security policies are effective and responsive to local needs. By working closely with law enforcement, local governments, and residents, Republicans believe they can craft solutions that not only secure the border but also address the unique challenges faced by
those living in border regions. This collaborative approach, Republicans argue, will lead to more practical and sustainable border security measures that benefit both the nation and the communities directly impacted by border policies.

Conclusion

Trump’s claims about terrorists crossing the southern border have sparked a necessary debate about the state of U.S. border security. While critics argue that the claims are exaggerated, Republicans maintain that the underlying concern—securing the border against potential threats—is valid and urgent. As national security threats continue to evolve, so too must the U.S. approach to
border security. By investing in stronger infrastructure, increased personnel, and advanced technologies, Republicans believe the U.S. can effectively safeguard its borders and protect American citizens from both current and future threats.