The Department of Homeland Security is making the homeland less secure

Imagine having a Department of Education that closed all the schools or a Department of Defense that unilaterally disarmed the military. What if the Department of Energy decided to halt power generation or the Justice Department ceased all prosecutions? Americans would rightly conclude that those Cabinet departments were useless and, worse, placed the nation in grave danger.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), formed after the 9/11 terror attacks, has stopped providing security for the homeland. It has intentionally made American citizens less safe, receiving billions of taxpayer dollars to not do what it is supposed to do.

Today’s DHS — under its easily manipulated leader, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — is obsequiously carrying out the political aims of the Biden administration and the Democratic Party. Those aims seem to reflect a cynical operating philosophy: that the illicit admission without due process of nearly 10 million people into the country over the past three years will result in census configurations that will create congressional seats and electoral college numbers favorable to the Democratic Party.

The nation’s security and safety are being placed in peril because of the power lust of a few party-first politicians. These politicians may sanctimoniously argue that compassion motivated them to allow unfettered immigration, but that excuse was exposed by the hypocritical squeals of protest from party-controlled “sanctuary” cities suddenly forced to absorb just a fraction of illegal crossers. Compassion was easy when it was from a distance and didn’t affect the compassionate.

What exactly are the dangers? The first concerns the safety of Americans. While safety and security are closely aligned, safety directly addresses freedom from crime victimization. Since 2021, the number of illegal immigrants with a criminal record encountered at the border has soared by an average of 136 percent. At the same time, the number of assaults, homicides and sexual assaults committed by people here illegally has exploded.

Which murder victim’s life was worth purposefully leaving the border open? Was it the life of the young University of Georgia student suspected of being killed last week by a man here illegally from Venezuela? Was her life or others before her worth the open-border policy? It is a policy that seemingly implies all the added violence is acceptable damage for the additional seats in Congress a political party stands to gain. What kind of conscience dulls itself to such a degree simply for power?

Most people illegally entering the U.S., of course, are not criminals or intent on committing criminal acts. But there is no denying that, had more secure policies been in place, there would be people in this country today who would still be alive. And, sadly, many more will be killed or attacked in the future if the current border policy remains unchanged. When policy tolerates preventable violence against innocents, it is not policy, it is crime.

The second danger concerns national security, a broad term that captures threats from hostile nations or terror groups. It was this type of destructive harm that I and nine other former high-ranking FBI colleagues recently called out in a letter to Congress. (Read it here.) Our 150 years of cumulative experience combatting the most severe national security risks compelled us to draw attention to one of the most pernicious threats in the nation’s history.

Since 2021, there has been a massive surge in the number of single, unaccompanied, military-aged males appearing at our borders. This represents a dramatic shift in the demographics of those attempting illegal entry, as this group now accounts for nearly 65 percent of border crossers — dwarfing the number of families fleeing poverty, who used to predominate.

Significant numbers of these single males originate from countries that are State Sponsors of Terrorism or terror regions. Since 2021, more than 300 individuals on the Terrorism Watch List have been encountered attempting entry into the U.S., compared to just 14 over the four previous years.

There has been a surge in the number of Chinese presenting at the border. China is not known for allowing mass emigration, yet nearly 30,000 mostly young Chinese men have appeared at the U.S. border.

China’s strategy for weakening the U.S. relies on two main actions. The first is a recent discernible shift from simple economic espionage and theft of intellectual property to active malware-driven intrusions into the nation’s critical infrastructure, aiming to catastrophically shut down vital systems should global conflicts warrant.

The second is the flooding of the U.S. with fentanyl in amounts much more than demand can consume. Beyond its devastating effects on the addicted, fentanyl is dangerous enough to be a bioweapon.

China can wreak substantial havoc remotely through cyber intrusions and delivery of fentanyl via Mexican cartels. But the full effects of the potential damage cannot be accomplished entirely remotely. Having “boots on the ground” inside the U.S. could ensure success of particular attacks. Is this sudden incursion of military-aged males from China a coincidence?

An FBI counterintelligence initiative to interview a sizable number of these young men from China would quickly confirm whether there is operational intent behind this surge. If that is not being done, congressional overseers should demand to know why.

Young men now in the U.S. who can carry out an operational plan, whether on behalf of a terror organization or China, are a clear and present danger. The prioritization during the last three years of political party power ahead of the safety and security of the American public is one of the more shameful episodes in our nation’s history. If only the American people had a Homeland Security Department willing to resist shallow politics and actually secure the homeland.

Kevin R. Brock is a former FBI assistant director for intelligence and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center. He currently consults independently.