Tragic Attack Highlights Immigration Security Concerns

When an Afghan national, Rahmanullah Rakanwar, allegedly shot and killed two National Guardsmen in Washington, D.C. just before Thanksgiving, it raised significant questions about immigration and trust in those seeking asylum. Rakanwar had previously been vetted by the CIA, worked alongside the U.S. military in Afghanistan, and was granted asylum along with his family.

That he could act against the very nation that offered him refuge is, well, troubling. It’s a stark reminder, maybe, of the deeper issues in immigration policy.

In light of this violence, President Trump expressed intentions to end immigration from all “Third World” countries. Many Americans saw this as a concrete step toward fulfilling a promise from nearly a decade ago: a total shutdown of Muslim entry into the U.S. until proper measures were in place.

On Thanksgiving Day, Joseph Edlow, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, announced a thorough review of green card holders from identified countries of concern. He referenced a prior declaration aimed at safeguarding the nation from external threats.

In that June order, there existed two classifications of restrictions:

• Complete restrictions: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
• Partial restrictions: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.

This week, a White House announcement indicated that immigration from all 19 listed nations would be paused, freezing applications for those already here. However, the reality remains complex. Completely shutting down immigration from these 19 nations won’t significantly impact the overall flow of Muslims coming into the U.S.

Statistics reveal that these countries contribute only about 27% of Muslim immigrants in 2023, and roughly 18% over the past decade. While ten of those targeted are Muslim-majority nations, there are a staggering 39 others that still accept over 100,000 green card recipients annually.

This isn’t just about numbers; it’s about understanding deeper issues. The current approach could overlook larger ideological battles. Many individuals opposed to Western norms may not be affiliated with known extremist groups.

The influx of around 3 million Muslims since 9/11 has created communities that might replicate ideological beliefs from their homelands, which could be problematic. The scale of immigration is certainly significant.

Moreover, hostility isn’t confined to immigrants from enemy states. Individuals from so-called friendly nations can also present risks. Countries like Egypt and Jordan, for example, are focused on containing radicalism within their own borders, even while we may bring in those very individuals they fear.

Several troubling incidents illustrate this trend:

• Akaed Ullah, who came from Bangladesh, executed a bombing in New York supporting ISIS.
• Saifur Saipov arrived from Uzbekistan on a diversity visa before committing a deadly attack in Manhattan.
• There have been reported plots against U.S. leaders from Uzbek nationals sought through diversity visas.

One glaring example of flawed security measures is Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, a Saudi military trainee who, despite being trusted by the U.S. government, killed three servicemen in Pensacola in 2019.

This pattern raises serious concerns: cooperatively engaging with foreign regimes does not equate to trusting their citizens. We often overlook the radical sentiments that may exist beneath the surface.

Countries that have hosted many migrants often fear their own populations. If individuals are considered unsafe in their homelands, why do we assume they would be any different here?

To truly address immigration matters, a complete halt on entries from all Muslim-majority countries should be considered, as well as eliminating the diversity visa lottery altogether. This is especially true considering the upcoming economic challenges as elections draw near. While addressing economic concerns will be tough, limiting entry aimed at bolstering national security is something that could be enacted swiftly.

Trump has already taken measures against individuals from 19 nations; why not see it through entirely?