Afghan Terrorism Is a Small Threat in the United States
In the 51 years since 1975, Lakanwal is the only Afghan terrorist to have murdered somebody on US soil in an attack. Thus, the annual chance of being murdered in an Afghan terrorist attack is about 1 in 14.2 billion per year. The annual chance of being murdered in a normal homicide is about 1 in 14,000 per year, approximately one million times greater.
That’s no consolation to the victims who deserve justice, but Afghan terrorism on US soil is a rare and manageable threat.
Before Lakanwal, none of the six other Afghan terrorists murdered anyone. They were Najibullah Zazi, Zarein Ahmedzay, Ahmad Khan Rahimi, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, an Afghan juvenile with the surname of Akhi whose name was withheld, and Farhad Shakeri. All were motivated by Islamism. Rahimi was the most serious earlier terrorist, as he injured 33 in a series of bombings in September 2016. Zazi and Ahmedzay entered as refugees, Tawhedi on parole, juvenile Akhi as a green card holder through SIV, Shakeri on a green card, and Rahimi as an asylum seeker.
Lakanwal was a vetted member of an Afghan Zero Unit that was equipped and trained in counterinsurgency. Lakanwal’s choice of weapon (revolver) and method of attack (shooting ambush on the street) were unusual. Lakanwal appears to have carried out an unsophisticated attack, possibly influenced by psychological instability.
The Trump administration is citing Lakanwal’s attack to justify halting the processing of visas for migrants who arrived after January 20, 2021, re-interviewing applicants from the 19 countries banned by the administration earlier this year for terrorism-related reasons, halting naturalizations of some immigrants, and imposing a host of restrictions on legal immigration. Among those 19 countries, only Afghanistan, Sudan, and Cuba have sent terrorists who murdered a total of seven people on US soil, with Cuba accounting for five of the victims.
Terrorists from those countries account for about 0.3 percent of murders by foreign-born terrorists on US soil since 1975. The annual chance of being murdered by a terrorist from those countries is about 1 in 2 billion per year.
In addition to the DC National Guard attack, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem is further justifying additional immigration restrictions on claims that welfare fraud by some Somalis in Minnesota helped fund terrorists overseas, as reported in City Journal by Christopher Rufo and Ryan Thorpe. The welfare fraud reported therein is real. The claimed link to terrorism is evidence-free so far. Despite having no fatal attacks on US soil and only 25 injuries, Somalia remains on the administration’s list. That shows the gap between the actual threat and the current policy.
Low-frequency, low-cost risks cannot justify high-cost restrictions. Punishing innocent people for crimes they did not commit does not deter terrorists. Any incidental reduction in terrorism from closing the border would come the way random arrests reduce crime, by imposing enormous harm on many more innocent people. Terrorism’s infrequency and the ineffectiveness of earlier immigration bans mean the chance of any positive effect is minuscule, but tens of thousands of people will be punished.
A statistically negligible risk does not justify policies that reliably harm tens of thousands of people. Lakanwal’s attack was a serious crime. The shooter deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Rare crimes committed by a small number of disturbed individuals do not justify broad government punishments of innocent people. Anti-terrorism policy in immigration should target actual offenders, not entire nationalities with no demonstrated connection to terrorism.
Alex Nowrasteh is vice president for economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute. This article, originally posted to the Cato Institute website, is published courtesy of the Cato Institute.
