Commentary
The shocking terrorist attack that took place on March 22 near Moscow is still reverberating around the globe. Exactly who was responsible for the attack and why it happened is not completely clear. One of the many Islamist terrorist factions,
Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISIS-K), has taken “credit” for the bloody massacre, but the details are murky. To add to the murk, the videos that have emerged show large, powerful shooters that some say stand in stark contrast to the videos showing smaller and less robust Tajik suspects confessing to being the shooters. So conspiracy theories are flying.
Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin seems intent on trying to blame Ukraine, but that is entirely predictable. Everything Putin says is now taken with a grain of salt by the international community. Ukraine does not appear to be connected. What is known is that
Putin was warned recently by the United States that exactly such an attack was in the works, but angrily blew off the warning as American propaganda. How Russians will react to this information—or even if they will find out about it—is not known. We don’t know much more than that at this time. Hopefully the details will become clearer with the passage of time.
However, two facts about the incident that do appear to be reasonably certain are that the perpetrators were not Russians, and that the attack was related to an Islamist terror group that hates Russia—and apparently everyone else who does not share their philosophy.
That definitely includes Canada. Should we worry about such an attack taking place here?
At one time the answer would be “probably not.” Canada was a nation with a sophisticated, well-regulated
immigration system that weeded out potential terrorists and tightly controlled borders. A dangerous person might still get in, but chances are that even if he did his movements would be monitored and he would be stopped before committing an atrocity. But
not anymore.
This all changed when Justin Trudeau became prime minister in 2015. Canadians were mystified when
he told the New York Times that Canada was “the first post-national state.” What did he mean?
What he meant began to become clear when he sent out
his famous January 2017 tweet basically inviting any global resident who cared to come to Canada—no questions asked.
“To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada,” he wrote.
And thousands did. Roxham Road in Quebec became internationally famous as a pleasant lane where any global resident with the wherewithal to fly to the United States could get a cab to Roxham Road, and simply walk into Canada. They would then agree to show up at an immigration hearing they had no intention of attending. And that would be it. They would stay as long as they liked.
Canadians
began to understand the implications of being a “post-national state.” Because does such an entity as a “post-national state” even need borders, border guards, border security—or even an army, for that matter? Aren’t concerns about terrorists getting into your country rather silly now if Canada had apparently evolved past that outdated “nation state” stage? And why even be concerned with how many people were entering the country if borders weren’t really relevant any longer?
So people came. Anyone who
raised questions about this radical new philosophy was branded as something akin to a racist or white supremacist. Or worst of all, “like Donald Trump,” who had famously questioned the wisdom of allowing free entry into the United States of people from countries where Islamist philosophy prevails.
This worked. The Conservatives were thoroughly intimidated. So they basically remained silent, while millions of immigrants and foreign “students” flooded into the country,
with little in the way of background checks.
In recent years the number of people coming into Canada as asylum seekers, foreign students, or immigrants in other categories has been astounding. Last year alone, Canada had an additional 550,000 immigrants, but more than
1,000,000 foreign students.
These are staggering numbers. Most of these people are probably peaceful and productive people. But how many of them are not? How many of the million “students,” for example, might have ties to the same Islamic terrorist group that terrorized Moscow?
The fact is that we don’t know. The numbers coming in are too great. They are coming in too fast. And they are not being properly checked. The frightening reality is that if even a tiny fraction of these virtually
unchecked people are terrorists, Canada could see tragedy unfold any day of the week.
Many of these foreign students appear to be involved in the lawless and shockingly anti-Semitic protests now occurring daily in public places, and even in Jewish neighbourhoods—sometimes directly in front of synagogues! In January 2024, the National Post
commented on this frightening phenomenon:
“In recent months, we have witnessed a critical mass of antisemitic Canadians willing to vandalize Jewish businesses, protest relentlessly for a Palestinian nation-state ‘from the river to the sea’ and even threaten police officers with death.”
The Post notes that most of the most violent protests appear to involve new immigrants and foreign students from Muslim nations. It would be a slur on these people to suggest that they are tied to an Islamist terrorist group, like the ISIS-K group claiming responsibility for the deadly rampage in Moscow. And yet, Canadians who are witnessing this alarming anti-Semitism have a right to know with whom they are sharing their country. That is the right of every citizen.
Our neighbours to the south are worried about terrorism as well. Millions of unchecked migrants have simply walked into Texas, Arizona, and California since 2020. If even a
tiny fraction of these unchecked migrants are terrorists there will be major trouble ahead. Recently, FBI Director Christopher Wray
warned about the likelihood of a terror attack occurring because of these lax or completely absent border controls.
Britain, and all of Europe, are also
beginning to realize that the almost unrestricted and unregulated immigration into their countries is placing them at great risk. Because of these understandable concerns, the unwritten taboo about citizens asking candid questions about the backgrounds of newcomers to their countries is starting to break down. Simply put, people
don’t want terrorists entering their countries.
That includes citizens of Russia. We don’t know how events will play out in Moscow. Is this just the first of many similar attacks in Moscow and elsewhere, or is it just a one-off?
But perhaps it will get us all thinking more clearly. Are candid questions about border security and immigration really semi-racist, or are they legitimate self-protection? Are questions about unchecked people entering our countries from parts of the world where Islamists have great influence “Islamophobia,” or are such questions perfectly understandable given the Islamist-inspired attacks that occur with regularity around the globe? Should we continue to write off any political party that dares ask these questions as “far-right” or “anti-immigrant,” or should we listen to the questions that they raise and take these concerns seriously?
Ordinary citizens throughout the Western world are starting to wake up and realize that it is not racist or “far right” to demand to know who is being let into our countries. We all want peaceful, productive immigrants who share our basic values, but we have the right to know that is who they are before we let them in. Who we allow into our country is of vital importance to us, and we should not be afraid to say so. We have a
right to expect that our borders are secure.
Perhaps at some stage in human evolution borders will no longer be necessary, because we will all be living in some peaceful post-national state. But until that glorious day comes, we need secure borders, and we need to have good information about anyone who wants to cross them.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
