After the D.C. Ambush: Why America Needs an Immigration Freeze

The recent shooting of two National Guard soldiers in Washington, D.C., with an Afghan immigrant facing charges for the crime, has sent shockwaves through the nation, reigniting a long-overdue debate on America’s immigration policies.

The day before Thanksgiving, 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal allegedly ambushed Spc. Sarah Beckstrom and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe near the White House, resulting in Beckstrom’s death and leaving Wolfe in critical condition.

The shooting, which authorities described as targeted and possibly linked to radicalization within the U.S., is indicative of a deeper problem: decades of excessively permissive immigration have strained our country’s fabric, allowing potential threats to slip through while overwhelming our capacity to integrate new arrivals.

In response, the federal government must consider a complete pause on all immigration to allow for reform and assimilation. This tragedy is not an isolated incident, but a symptom of policies that have prioritized quantity over quality for far too long.

The roots trace back to the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, which shifted immigration toward chain migration, that is, initial immigrants sponsor numerous relatives over time, who sponsor their relatives, who in turn sponsor their relatives, ad infinitum. Sold by its backers at the time as a way to end purported racial and national origin discrimination without significantly increasing the number of immigrants, the law dramatically increased inflows from Third World countries, transforming the demographic landscape.

Prior to 1965, immigrants primarily hailed from Europe, sharing cultural affinities with America’s Western liberal traditions. After Hart-Celler, the share from Asia, Africa, and Latin America surged, with annual legal immigration averaging over a million since the 1990s. This influx, often from regions with strikingly different cultures and social norms, has weakened the U.S.’s ability to maintain cohesion.

Afghanistan demonstrates the pitfalls of this shift. A nation ravaged by decades of conflict, its culture often clashes with American values in profound ways. In Afghanistan, women’s rights are limited, with practices like forced marriages and honor killings persisting in some communities. The government restricts speech under strict interpretations of Sharia law, and freedom of religion is nonexistent.

These elements are in direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equality, expression, and freedom. Importing individuals from such an environment risks creating an ascendant voting bloc for such antiquated beliefs.

The Afghan evacuation alone brought in over 76,000 individuals, many processed hastily amid the Taliban’s takeover. While most may be law-abiding, the sheer volume overwhelmed screening resources. Former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas admitted vetting challenges, yet he and the Biden administration continued prioritizing humanitarian optics over security. The Biden era’s lax approach eroded public trust in immigration controls and released untold numbers of security threats to live among us.

Vetting immigrants from underdeveloped states like Afghanistan is problematic. Lacking modern record-keeping systems, verifying identities, criminal records, or affiliations is nearly impossible. Biometric data is scarce, and corruption in local governments further muddies the waters. Even U.S. agencies acknowledge these limitations. A 2022 Government Accountability Office report highlighted gaps in screening Afghan evacuees. Lakanwal was flagged for mental health concerns by case workers, yet he remained in the country.

No amount of “enhanced vetting” can fully mitigate these risks. As President Trump noted in response to the shooting, pausing migration from high-risk regions is a prudent measure.

Successful integration of immigrants requires time and manageable numbers. When waves arrive too quickly, as they have since Hart-Celler, enclaves form where old-world values persist, resisting American norms. A pause would provide time to bolster border security, reform asylum laws, and invest in integration programs like English classes and civics education. It would allow current immigrants to fully adapt, reducing cultural frictions and fostering greater national unity.

Critics will decry this as xenophobic, but Trump’s desire to halt immigration has precedents. The U.S. enacted moratoriums in the 1920s, leading to a golden era of assimilation where earlier arrivals became quintessential Americans. Today, with over 45 million foreign-born residents, a pause is simply responsible stewardship of the nation. It also honors the sacrifices of service members like Sarah Beckstrom, who defended a nation worth preserving.

In this moment of grief, we should choose prudence over politics. An immigration halt represents a reset button for a system long broken. By pausing, we reaffirm our commitment to a secure, cohesive America, one that welcomes the world on our terms, not at the expense of our values or safety.

Dale L. Wilcox is executive director and general counsel at the Federation for American Immigration Reform in Washington, D.C.