One of the most common themes in post-9/11 politics is for public figures to campaign based on the public’s fear of terrorism. Candidates from across the political spectrum regularly point to “increased threats from terrorists at home and abroad” as the reason you should elect them so they can keep you safe.

While combating terrorism is important and a crucial part of the nation’s national security strategy, the State Department’s annual Country Reports On Terrorism, which was released late last week, shows that its importance as a leading topic of public concern may be overstated. McClatchy’s Warren P. Strobel notes that the State Department report finds that only 25 American civilians were killed by terrorism worldwide last year:

There were just 25 U.S. noncombatant fatalities from terrorism worldwide. (The US government definition of terrorism excludes attacks on U.S. military personnel). While we don’t have the figures at hand, undoubtedly more American citizens died overseas from traffic accidents or intestinal illnesses than from terrorism.

Matt Yglesias compares the numbers and finds that Strobel’s hunches about traffic accidents are right. He writes, “26 Americans died in vehicle accidents in Mexico between 1 August 2009 and 1 January 2010, so it’s safe to say you’re dramatically likelier to die abroad in a traffic accident than a terrorist attack.”

But it isn’t just foreign traffic accidents that are deadlier to Americans than terrorism. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control, more than 13,000 Americans died from the common seasonal flu between January and April 2009, with “no fewer than 800 flu-related deaths” occuring every single week, meaning that 32 times as many Americans died as a result of the flu in a single week during this period of 2009 than died during the entire year from terrorism.

Yet if Americans want to find a threat more dangerous to their lives than terrorism, they don’t even need to go outside and get into their car or interact with their neighbors and catch the flu. All they have to do is look to their canine companions. DogsBite.org, which compiles press reports of dog bite fatalities, recorded 32 reported incidents of dogs fatally killing humans last year.

Once again, the threat of terrorism is a serious national security concern and should be seen as such. But given its relatively low fatality rate in comparison to other threats to humanity — the State Department’s report found that 58,142 people were killed by terrorist attacks worldwide in 2009, a fraction of the three million children who died from easily preventable malnutrition and hunger a year before — a more reasoned assessment of our priorities is needed.

A couple weeks ago, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) propelled what was formerly a right-wing peripheral movement to change the 14th amendment to prevent the American-born children of undocumented immigrants from automatically receiving citizenship upon birth and moved it into the mainstream. However, despite the fact that Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and Mitch McConnell (R-KT) have backed Graham up, there are also a handful of Republicans for whom the GOP attack on the 14th amendment simply goes too far:

Michael Gerson — Former George W. Bush Speechwriter: “That is the wisdom of the authors of the 14th Amendment: They essentially wanted to take this very difficult issue — citizenship — outside of the political realm. They wanted to take an objective standard, birth, instead of a subjective standard, which is the majorities at the time. I think that’s a much better way to deal with an issue like this.”

Mark McKinnon — Republican political advisor to former President George W. Bush: “The 14th Amendment is a great legacy of the Republican party. It is a shame and an embarrassment that the GOP now wants to amend it for starkly political reasons … Initially Republicans rallied around the amendment to welcome more citizens to this country. Now it is being used to drive people away.”

Cesar Conda — Former assistant for domestic policy to Vice President Dick Cheney: “Innocent children shouldn’t be held responsible for the sins of their parents. [...] Senator Graham’s plan to end birthright citizenship is not only substantively and politically flawed, but it undermines a bedrock principle of modern conservatism — preserving the sanctity of life. Republicans and conservatives ought to think long and hard before embracing such a controversial proposal.”

Lou Dobbs –Former CNN anchor and conservative pundit: “I have absolutely maintained for years that the anchor baby issue is one of law. We have a law in which they become U.S. citizens for being born here. If you are going to insist on the rule of law and order — and I do — I have to insist that we recognize those anchor babies as citizens of this country.”

Mark Krikorian — Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies: “I don’t like illegals having U.S.-citizen kids any more than anyone else, but there’s no evidence suggesting that this “drop and leave” stuff is true. [...] I hope I don’t get in trouble with my friends for this, and there are indeed people I respect who disagree with me, but there’s a sense in which, just as anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools, an inordinate focus on birthright citizenship is the restrictionism of fools — and Lindsey Graham is strong evidence for that claim.”

Zach Howell — National Chairman, College Republican National Committee: “The elimination of the 14th Amendment is not worth considering. This proposal adds fuel to an already overheated debate in which reasoned arguments have taken a back seat to paranoid demagoguery. The idea that people are making a mad dash across the border in order to “drop a child” as Sen. Lindsey Graham put it is mean-spirited and clearly not true.”

The split amongst conservatives is even present organizationally. Former Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) and current Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation maintains, “[w]ith the major problems and expenses we experience due to illegal immigration, it’s [birthright citizenship] a legitimate and necessary debate.” However, his colleague at the Heritage Foundation, James Carafano, disagrees, telling Politico “Why are we debating this now? I don’t see this discussion as part of a rational discourse about how to fix broken borders and a deeply flawed immigration system.” In fact, it does nothing.