On December 7, 2015, during the Iowa caucus campaign, Donald Trump announced His plan was to “completely and completely block Muslim entry into the United States until our representatives figure out what's going on.” Nearly a decade later, the debate for such closures has intensified. Pro-Hamas demonstrations among Muslim immigrants have highlighted concerns that Trump's inauguration is seen as a fulfillment of a promise and an imminent European-style influence by Sharia-compliant invaders. This may be the last chance to stop the situation. The question remains: Can Mr. Trump be up to the task?
Seven months before President Trump's statement, I wrote a column warning that Muslim immigrants had doubled since 9/11 and were the fastest growing segment of the already substantial annual influx into the United States. wrote. From 2001 to 2013, the United States issued 1,628,854 green cards to immigrants from 43 Muslim-majority countries.
With greater political capital and clearer legal precedent, Mr. Trump has an opportunity to expand the ban.
Nearly a decade later, and nine years after Trump took over as Republican leader, the numbers tell a sobering story. From 2014 to 2023, the United States granted 1,453,940 green cards to the same 43 countries, an average of 145,395 per year, higher than the 125,000 per year average over the previous decade. The increase would have been even higher were it not for COVID-19, which has slowed immigration for more than two years. In 2023 alone, approximately 170,000 immigrants arrived from these countries, excluding at least 100,000 international students from the same region.
Since 9/11, the United States has issued approximately 3 million green cards to nationals of primarily Muslim countries, along with millions of nonimmigrant visas. This number does not include the significant number of illegal immigrants from these countries, especially since Joe Biden took office.
In comparison, although Britain's total Muslim population is approximately 3.8 million, the country is experiencing widespread challenges due to the irredeemable destruction of Islam. Although the challenge to assimilation is relatively less difficult due to the large size of the United States, its sheer numbers remain important when assessing the potential for radicalization and the threat of domestic terrorism.
Before expanding immigration from countries plagued by Islamic supremacy, shouldn't we prioritize assimilating those already here and addressing the growing problem of domestic radicalization?
With a history of Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil and a growing cultural destruction marked by anti-Semitic hatred and pro-Hamas sentiment, why didn't the Trump administration act more urgently to deter immigration? Maybe? of trump vs hawaii This decision affirms President Trump's clear authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit immigration categories consistent with the national interest. The lack of decisive action makes it difficult to reconcile these pressing concerns.
An October 2017 order during President Trump's first term banned visas from countries including Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, as well as North Korea and South Sudan. I was doing it. The ban on entry into Iraq was later lifted, and restrictions on other countries were limited to specific visa categories or short periods of time. Combined with lower court injunctions and Biden's subsequent election, these policies had little impact on the overall flow of Islamic extremists into the United States.
With greater political capital and clearer legal precedent, President Trump has an opportunity to expand this ban. The focus should go beyond countries that lack “scrutiny” tools and diplomatic cooperation to include countries where Islamic terrorism and anti-American sentiment are prominent. The growing scale of anti-terrorism rallies in the United States underscores this urgency. These demonstrations are growing as the number of immigrants from these countries increases each year.
President Trump's use of Section 212(f) immigration authority will be an early indicator of his direction as president. Spending cuts and addressing complex domestic issues may lack immediate traction, and deportations will require significant resources to reverse Biden's immigration surge. But restricting further immigration from these countries and giving them time to admit already record numbers are steps President Trump could take quickly given established legal precedent.
If not now, then when? The clock is ticking.
