In recent days, the conversation surrounding immigration and national security has taken center stage once again. This time, it’s due to a heart-wrenching incident in Washington D.C. involving a shooting by an Afghan national previously vetted only for military collaboration. President Trump has responded with a strict stance on immigration, halting visas and asylum decisions for individuals from third-world countries. It’s a move that underscores his administration’s focus on prioritizing American safety – something that arguably shouldn’t even be a subject of debate.
This tragic situation unfolded when a 29-year-old Afghan suspect, not properly vetted for entry into the U.S., was involved in a violent attack in D.C. He was part of an elite Afghanistan counter-terrorism force working closely with the CIA. While he had been vetted to serve as a soldier against America’s enemies, this vetting didn’t cover the suitability for relocation to the U.S. It’s a vexing oversight that puts into stark relief the lax procedures that were supposed to ensure America’s security. The call for the death penalty could not come soon enough for this horrific act.
The real tragedy here is the loss of a young National Guard member. At just 20 years old, she was pridefully serving her country when her life was abruptly ended in an ambush. As mourners lined the D.C. streets, one can only reflect on how preventable this tragedy might have been with more stringent vetting processes in place. It becomes harder to stomach the chaos introduced by a refugee program seemingly more concerned with volume than with careful scrutiny of entrants into the country.
Critics, such as Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, have levied blame at the Trump administration for deploying National Guard units, absurdly suggesting it incites such violence. Yet, pointing fingers at those working to protect the homeland feels tragically misguided. The focus should instead be on understanding why inadequate vetting allows potential threats to slip through the cracks, endangering the very lives meant to be safeguarded by these military deployments.
This scenario serves as a harsh reminder of past errors in refugee processing during chaotic periods like the Afghan withdrawal. At that time, thousands of Afghanis were hastily brought into the U.S. under Operation Allies Welcome, where apparently minimal vetting—or vetting for entirely wrong criteria—was discovered. The country is still grappling with the long-term consequences of these hasty decisions. It may be time, as suggested by some, to reassess the entire process, ensuring that America doesn’t have to continuously bear the consequences of these missteps. Operation Allies Welcome might need a revamp to mean what it should—welcoming true allies, not just opening the floodgates indiscriminately.
