Is the Biden administration may be deliberately helping terrorists enter the US? Ten US senators suggest as much in a letter to the secretaries of both Homeland Security and the State Department. Earlier this year, the two government entities slipped one past the media by offering a terrorist exemption allowing selected individuals to enter the US. It seems wading across the Rio Grande isn’t easy enough under the Biden administration’s watchful eye.
“(T)he the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of State determined that they will no longer bar individuals who provide ‘insignificant material support’ or ‘limited material support’ to terrorist organizations from admission into the United States,” the senators’ August 22 letter begins. The group, led by Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), is concerned the “June 8 Determination” is overly broad and “open-ended,” allowing persons with prior terrorist associations entrance into the US who would be otherwise prohibited. The DOS/DHS regulation’s exact wording explains:
“(T)he secretaries of homeland security and state, in consultation with each other and the attorney general, authorized an exemption from certain terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds for certain applicants who were employed as civil servants in Afghanistan under the Taliban, specifically, at any time from September 27, 1996, through December 21, 2001, or on or after August 15, 2021.”
Determining How to Apply the Terrorist Exemption
The determination goes on to explain “certain terrorism-related” activities and “material support” to terrorists can be exempted if the perpetrator was “under duress to designated or undesignated terrorist organizations.” The question, of course, is what does under duress mean? To answer that question, DHS then applies a “reasonableness” standard saying, “at a minimum requires that the material support was provided in response to a reasonably-perceived threat of serious harm.” The problem is what is reasonable, what is a threat, and what constitutes serious harm are all very subjective factors. The definition seems to be left up to the immigration official. The determination does provide some additional specificity, however, describing “under duress” as being threatened at gunpoint to transport “fighters and supplies” to terrorist rebel groups. Again, there is a problem, though. If there are no corroborating witnesses or persons who can verify what the immigration-seeking would-be terrorist collaborator says happened, whose word do you take? If the administration’s past actions are anything to go by, the most liberal interpretation of the criteria for immigration will be the standard Biden officials use. Nonetheless, the president’s team argues it stands by the “multi-layered and ‘rigorous’ vetting across multiple databases” in determining eligibility for those seeking exemptions.
However, the DHS vetting system is not universally admired or trusted. For example, according to news reports, a Department of Defense “whistleblower” told Senators Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) that as many as 324 of last August’s Afghan evacuees have appeared on the Pentagon’s terrorist watchlist. These evacuees presumably met the standards of the Biden administration vetting process. But why would anyone expect something different from the same White House that provided the spectacle of bumbling leadership a year ago during the Afghanistan retreat?
Administration Defends Flawed Vetting Process
Alejandro Mayorkas (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
“The administration has defended the use of the exemptions, arguing that it is vital to allow for humanitarian protection for at-risk Afghans,” Fox News reported. Additionally, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas stated in June that professional Afghans like doctors, teachers, and engineers who provide courageous support to the US should be given special consideration. “These exemptions will allow eligible individuals who pose no national security or public safety risk to receive asylum, refugee status…demonstrating the United States’ continued commitment to our Afghan allies and their family members,” Mayorkas said. Yet the same commitment was made not to leave “Afghan allies, and their family members” behind who were, nonetheless, left behind.
With what appears to be an unstoppable flood of illegal aliens crossing over our southern border, skepticism around the intentions of the Biden administration’s immigration policy is warranted. Consequently, Hagerty and his fellow senators have requested the DOS and DHS secretaries provide written responses to their concerns. Americans deserve to know why potential terrorists are being let into the country?
The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliation.
