In the course of the recent terrorist attacks in Europe and in the United States, the discourse over the role of terrorism shifted in the direct that the immigration leads to the consequential terrorist attacks. In order to prevent these terrorist attacks on the political level, certain governments undertook the steps that are aimed to prevent the risk of terrorist attacks in a variety of forms. However, the reality is different. The immigration does not have a direct consequence on the increased risks of terrorist attacks, instead the insufficient security measures may lead to the consequences.
First and foremost, the phenomenon of terrorism is such that one cannot simply predict the action. At the same time, an often used argument claiming the responsibility of foreigners for the terrorist attacks implies that 88% of the terrorist attacks or their attempts on the American soil between 1975 and 2015 were carried out by the foreign-born individuals. Moreover, when the terrorist attack took place on 9/11, the Muslim population felt an immediate negative reaction from the US government, and the arguments on restricting travel to the individuals from the Middle East were widely in use.

However, a different data suggests that followed by 9/11 Americans were responsible for the 80% of the terrorist attempts in the country. For instance, the US citizen Omar Matteen delivered the horrific massacre that took lives of 49 people. In that regard, it is important to shift the discourse to the accessibility of guns throughout the United States instead of focusing and politicizing the role of immigrants in orchestrating terrorist attacks in the country.

Additionally, there are other ways for detecting the increase of terrorist attacks globally. The recent terrorist attacks imply that the phenomenon of terrorist takes place throughout the world. However, there has been a limited effort of governments of the most powerful global actors to unite their efforts in the fight against terrorism. Against, the governments as the key actors take the lead in their domestic politics and present the argumentation on how to prevent terrorism internally. The United States is one of the most explicit examples in that regard. In particular, the current President of the United States used the narrative of banning immigration to the country and blaming immigrants for various existing issues in the United States. However, his arguments were not justified with statistics and contained a lot of manipulation. If one analyses the scope of immigrations on the global level, the risks of terrorist attacks brought by immigrants remain low. What is needed, in fact, is the thorough and unified procedure of the security checks that will be approved by the majority of countries on the global level, as well as consent for sharing the information on the potential suspects for terrorist attacks. That way, the issue will have a much more limited impact on the individuals who have nothing to do with terrorist attacks.

A similar rage was recently directed towards millions of refugees who were fleeing Syria and other parts of the words from the internal turbulences. The influx of refugees to Europe brought an additional scope of uncertainty over the risks they may bring to the countries. However, one shall not forget that refugees are primarily the individuals who are forced to leave their homelands due to impossible living conditions. In that regard, the risk of terrorist attacks should not be the primary concern when it comes to the assessment of immigration. Hence, the immigration does not lead to the increased risk of terrorist attacks if the security background checks will be conducted appropriately by the potentially concerned governments.