Juliette KayyemVerified account

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/

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

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

It's not becoming of your position. 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

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/