America’s Deadly Immigration Gamble

Last month in Washington, D.C., two West Virginia National Guard troops were ambushed by an Afghan national named Rahmanullah Lakanwal. Specialist Sarah Beckstrom was killed, and Specialist Andrew Wolfe remains in serious condition.

Lakanwal was an Afghan evacuee brought into the United States under Operation Allies Welcome, which was the Biden administration’s “feel-good” name for the chaotic 2021 withdrawal and airlift that initially moved more than 80,000 Afghans into America, while creating additional opportunities for more than 200,000 individuals to come here.

At the time, the White House assured Americans that the Afghans brought into the United States had been thoroughly vetted, with former Press Secretary Jen Psaki confidently stating, “I can absolutely assure you that no one is coming into the United States of America who has not been through a thorough screening and background check process.”

Of course, none of that was true.

Shortly thereafter, Senator Josh Hawley obtained an internal State Department email instructing consular officials handling the Kabul airlift to “err on the side of excess” and load people onto planes even when proper vetting had not been completed. Speed and volume were the priority, not security.

Sarah Beckstrom paid for that decision with her life.

This tragedy is not an aberration. It is the predictable consequence of a decades-old immigration philosophy that insists America must absorb a seemingly infinite amount of people from countries with deeply unstable institutions, histories of violence, and anti-Western vitriol. Meanwhile, the elites who push this philosophy assure the American people that it carries virtually no risk.

In fact, according to former President Obama, importing the Third World is what makes America “exceptional.” It would be laughable if the consequences of mass immigration and refugee resettlement weren’t so dire.

Proponents of turning the United States into the world’s refugee camp will insist that refugees undergo “the most rigorous vetting procedures of any individuals entering the United States.”

We are assured that resettlement applicants to the United States are subject to federal prescreening interviews and biographic checks, with all the information collected subsequently verified against UNHCR data.

The Department of Homeland Security then conducts additional interviews, gathers further biometric details, and cross-references this information with law enforcement databases from multiple government agencies. Any links to human rights violations or terrorist groups result in automatic disqualification.

No problem at all, right?

But how “vetted” can a person really be when you are dealing with countries without reliable records, functioning institutions, and standardized databases – not to mention decades of corruption?

Now apply this problem to the millions who have entered the United States under this sham vetting system since 1980.

Prior to the Trump administration’s announced cap of 7,500 refugee admissions for the fiscal year 2026, the average refugee cap was around 92,000 from 1980 to 2025, and was set at 125,000 by the Biden administration for fiscal year 2025.

This means that for decades, the United States took in around 100,000 people a year without biometric histories, without verifiable documentation, and without the ability to confirm basic claims about identity, past associations, or ideological commitments.

Critics of any curtailment to mass immigration will argue that the numbers and risk are small, citing that most immigrants, even from unstable or anti-Western societies like Afghanistan, never commit acts of terror or violence.

But percentages and “per capita” are irrelevant in this case. Even a single attack by a person erroneously allowed into the United States is too many. When the lives of Americans are at stake, our leaders should not be “playing the odds.”

The question is a moral one.

How many murdered National Guardsmen is an acceptable price for an immigration system that prioritizes “compassion” for foreigners over the safety of Americans? How many child sex offenders, domestic abusers, and violent gang members should Americans tolerate within their communities? How many potential mass shootings, like the one planned at the University of Delaware by a refugee-turned-American-citizen, must law enforcement thwart before we accept reality?

The answer for any politician or public figure worth his salt is zero.

The risk of admitting unvetted and poorly vetted individuals from Third-World countries is not limited to America’s refugee system. That risk extends to a variety of pathways the United States allows strangers to enter, such as America’s “Diversity Visa Lottery,” which awards a staggering 55,000 visas annually.

Take, for example, Sayfullo Saipov, the Uzbek national who was “lucky” enough to enter the U.S. in 2010 through the Diversity Visa lottery. Seven years after “winning” this lottery, America lost when he drove a rental truck down a Manhattan bike path, killing eight and injuring 13 in the name of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS).

The risk of unvetted immigrants also extends to their families, who either come along with those seeking asylum or eventually arrive due to chain migration.

The Tsarnaev family fled Russia’s North Caucasus region and arrived in the United States around 2002. Prior to being granted asylum, they lived in Dagestan, which is known to be a major hub of Islamic insurgents connected to Russia’s war in Chechnya.

While the Tsarnaevs were lucky to receive asylum, their children did not share in that gratitude, as brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev later carried out the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing that killed three and injured hundreds.

Thankfully, after all the preventable tragedies, immigration policy is finally shifting toward an America First posture.

President Trump’s recent ban on immigration from approximately 30 high-risk nations represents a critical first step in prioritizing American safety and regaining American sovereignty.

Additionally, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has stated that it will shorten the validity period of work permits for specific groups, including refugees and asylum seekers. As a result, these individuals will be required to reapply more frequently and undergo additional vetting processes.

It’s a start, but we have a very long road ahead.

For too long, America has operated under a dangerously romantic myth: that everyone, everywhere, is yearning to embrace American values and that people from every corner of the earth can not only become American but can be even more American than actual Americans.

The reality is, among the massive flows of migrants from Third-World nations are individuals who carry resentments, cultural incompatibilities, and ideological commitments that are deeply hostile to the American way of life.

The more incompatible cultures America brings in, the more balkanized America will become, and the higher the odds that a newly minted “American” will grow into the next Tsarnaev, or the next truck attacker, or mass-shooting plotter, or the next refugee who turns his weapon on American soldiers.

The United States has the right and furthermore, the obligation to protect its people above all else. One unvetted immigrant who commits a crime is one too many. It is long past time for America to prioritize Americans.

Adam Johnston is a writer and Senior Contributor to The Federalist, whose work has also been featured in The Blaze, and the Daily Caller. He is also the creator of the Substack publication “Conquest Theory,” where he regularly writes about politics, history, philosophy, and technology. You can find him on X @adamkjohnston.