A noted border security expert who opposes President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall is hoping to bridge a gap with a Republican congressman who attempted to mansplain the issue to her last week.
Juliette Kayyem, a national security expert and former assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, on Monday tried to rekindle her Twitter dialogue with freshman Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), who condescendingly offered on Friday to arrange a security explanation for the expert.
And by the way, as I type this, I am in a vehicle with CBP at the border. Happy to put you on the phone with them so you can learn more about this and properly inform your students.
— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) February 1, 2019
Kayyem promised to respond in detail when she was back from vacation.
Your first tweet is fair and I'll get to it. Your 2nd is ad homenim and condescending and for someone who has tried to elevate the convo, you should read my bio before playing that game. I've dealt with that he man stuff a lot. I'm on vacation so standby. Congressman. https://t.co/7SPm0PLPTS
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 1, 2019
Kayyem finally responded on Monday, first apologizing to Crenshaw for the delay.
Oh hey. Sorry for the delay. Not on twitter all the time, Congressman. This may take a while and I know how busy you must be but let's start with substance then move to process. Shall we? 1/ https://t.co/SUwGMdH43t
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 4, 2019
Then she went into a very lengthy, very thoughtful and very informative series of tweets in which she explained why Trump’s promised wall is neither the most effective nor the most efficient way to protect the border.
On substance, I think you know the answer. And if you listened to the one person who is your colleague and who actually knows the border (and is from your party), you would understand why the dynamics of border security are fluid and require a layered, not static, response. 2/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 4, 2019
That would be Will Hurd so just read this first. https://t.co/Wz0kLrBBA6
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 4, 2019
If viewing better than reading, how about this:https://t.co/bckDsvHkQh 3/
So, why would anyone who lives, works or actually spent a career (I think you know my bio by now. . . ) in homeland security and border management not favor a wall? The alternatives -- man/women power, technology, barriers (yes, lest you forget, the Obama Administration built
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 4, 2019
nearly 800 miles of barriers, drones, dogs, etc. -- are so much better. See unlike a war zone (I'll defer to you on that), a port of entry must permit flow. It is how we function as a market economy. So us "experts" think about it in terms of how do we better "secure flow" 5/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 4, 2019
build a wall. So let's take your example of the fentanyl arrest. Think about it: it was stopped because it wasn't a wall. It was intelligence, man/women power, technology and DOGS that led to the arrest. That's how it should work; it's not a sign that there is a better 6/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 4, 2019
alternative with a static solution. So I suspect you get this but I"m happy to explain. On process, though, you are the congressman. And you know that your job is to weigh priorities with funding. 7/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 4, 2019
So let's assume you have 100 pennies to spend across competing priorities. And so let's say you want ALL of them to be spent on border enforcement (not sure how your constituencies would feel about that). 8/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 4, 2019
How would you spend them? No one, not even CBP until last few months, ever even thought a wall made sense because it would take years (tell me how that solves a crisis, but as you know there isn't one), require eminent domain (your Texas colleagues have thoughts on that), and 9/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 4, 2019
would pull from the dynamic security that does work. So that us "experts" oppose the wall is just an unbecoming comment. Us experts include your Republican colleagues and those of us who have worked border issues in government. And, again, CBP. 10/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 4, 2019
Kayyem then got personal with Crenshaw, and addressed what she called the “mansplaining thing.”
Anyway, I feel silly writing this. You know this and if you don't happy to continue the conversation but one final thing. . . about that mansplaining thing. 11/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 4, 2019
I wasn't going to re-engage it. I don't want to be know as the "expert" who accused you of mansplaining any more than you want to be known for an SNL skit. It's not why we do what we do; it's personal and I took to heart what you said in response to the SNL skit. Civility. 12/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 4, 2019
And as a graduate of Harvard, your odd mentions of it in every tweet to me (this is the first time I have mentioned it) suggests its a dig. I'm sorry you feel that way about what you may or may not have learned here. We try to teach responsible bipartisan leadership. 13/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 4, 2019
Some of us have spent a career in and out of government, or media, or private sector, and the academy (she is me). But I would take your interest in my opinions more seriously if they didn't include such odd personal attacks. 14/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 4, 2019
It's not becoming of your position.
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 4, 2019
I wish you best as you assess this and your role. And you engage with women and men whom you disagree with in a much less personal manner. I believe the facts, history, economics and policy are against building a wall. You don't. 15/
Support your point with facts, history, economics and policy. Not with mocking a woman. Because, well, she is me. And you will lose that one. 16/16
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 4, 2019
Kayyem took a break for about eight hours before taking up the thread again, offering more details on what effective border security would entail.
Hi. So I'm back online and thanks for all these responses. I was rushed when I wrote this so I think I'm allowed to continue because in the responses it occurred to me that the basic tenets of security were relatively new to folks and I"ll try to arm you all with what I know 17/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 5, 2019
to help in this debate. So back to substance. Earlier I mentioned how we want fluid responses to support the (sometimes competing) goal of "secure flow." It's how we think about movement in our homeland. (I'll leave the moral and legal issues about a wall to others). 18/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 5, 2019
But there is also a second tenet for how we think about complex security challenges: layered security. The basic goal here is to ensure that you don't build a system around, what we call, a "single point of failure." 19/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 5, 2019
A "single point of failure" is to be avoided at all costs because if it is penetrated, then the whole system goes down. 9/11 and cockpit doors; Sony hack and a single system administrator; BP oil spill and a blowout preventer. So, ideally we build systems that have multiple 20/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 5, 2019
barriers so that the access point is either avoided (i.e. you can't get into a system through cyber attack because the system is layered and bifurcated) or difficult to access (i.e. lock the cockpit door, but have multiple security layers before entry to plane.) 21/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 5, 2019
So, on substance, the "wall" defeats those two primary tenets of protecting a complex system: balancing security with flow (the border and points of entry) and avoiding the single point of failure (the wall can be overcome by a ladder or tunnel). 22/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 5, 2019
It's just a way to think about the substantive arguments about real security. Moral debates are important; legal ones as well. But it's important that critics of the wall also have the tools to explain why we aren't "soft" on security, but actually take it quite seriously. 23/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 5, 2019
Ok, I think I may have violated some unwritten rule of twitter and threads, but my objection to the wall (even assuming I could get it for free and in a day, which I can't) are not just "that's not who we are" or "immigrants are good for America." 24/
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 5, 2019
I'm not known for being soft on security, border or otherwise. And so in the realm of policy options, the wall fails every standard that we have learned in homeland security for the last 20 years. Now, I say good night. 25/25
— Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) February 5, 2019
Crenshaw hadn’t responded to Kayyem’s thread as of Tuesday afternoon.
Support HuffPost
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
At HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high-quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact-checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.
Whether you come to HuffPost for updates on the 2024 presidential race, hard-hitting investigations into critical issues facing our country today, or trending stories that make you laugh, we appreciate you. The truth is, news costs money to produce, and we are proud that we have never put our stories behind an expensive paywall.
Would you join us to help keep our stories free for all? Your contribution of as little as $2 will go a long way.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you’ll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.
Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.
Before You Go
