Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores

Premise
Michelle Malkin contends that America's immigration system has systemic weaknesses that allow dangerous people, terrorists, violent criminals, and other threats, to enter and remain in the United States. Writing in the wake of the September 11 attacks, she frames immigration as a national-security issue rather than solely a humanitarian or economic one. She argues that lax laws, porous borders, inadequate vetting, and institutional inertia have combined to create an invitation to those who would do harm.
Malkin presents immigration policy as the first line of defense that has been undermined by misplaced priorities and political correctness. Her central claim is that enforcement failures and legal loopholes are not isolated mistakes but predictable outcomes of long-standing practices and decisions.

Evidence and case studies
The narrative is driven by numerous cases meant to illustrate systemic patterns rather than rare exceptions. Malkin recounts instances of visa fraud, identity manipulation, and exploitation of asylum and refugee processes to show how individuals with dangerous intentions have taken advantage of the system. She highlights stories of foreign nationals who committed serious crimes after entering the country, along with examples of known or suspected terrorists who slipped through cracks in background checks and information-sharing.
These anecdotes are used to demonstrate how routine immigration procedures, visa issuance, border inspections, and interior enforcement, can be circumvented. Malkin emphasizes the human costs of such failures, portraying victims and communities left vulnerable when enforcement priorities falter.

Institutional failures
A recurring theme is institutional dysfunction. Malkin asserts that agencies responsible for border security and immigration control have suffered from bureaucratic confusion, underfunding, and conflicting mandates. She criticizes inadequate coordination among the State Department, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and intelligence and law-enforcement bodies, arguing that poor communication and data-sharing left critical gaps that could be exploited.
Political considerations and concerns about civil liberties also figure in her critique. Malkin contends that reluctance to enforce immigration laws rigorously, driven by lobbying, ethnic politics, or fear of appearing intolerant, undermines security objectives and encourages noncompliance.

Policy prescriptions
Malkin advocates a suite of reforms aimed at tightening control and restoring enforcement. She calls for securing land and maritime borders, improving visa screening and tracking, and implementing biometric identification and interoperable databases to close information gaps. Interior enforcement, prompt deportations for serious offenders, and stronger penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers are among the measures she supports.
She also urges elimination of sanctuary policies and reduction of legal loopholes that allow extended stays or repeated appeals. A central thrust of her recommendations is to prioritize national security concerns when designing and administering immigration policy, even if that requires difficult political decisions.

Tone and framing
The tone is urgent and combative, combining investigative reporting with polemic. Malkin writes with clear outrage at what she portrays as avoidable dangers and calls for decisive action. Her approach blends anecdote-driven narrative with policy argumentation, aiming to mobilize readers who share concerns about safety and sovereignty.
The book is unapologetically partisan in its prescriptions and framing, presenting immigration as a matter of survival and governance rather than primarily a humanitarian challenge. It is designed to provoke debate about how to reconcile openness with security and to push for a fundamental rethinking of enforcement priorities.