Listen to the article
The Trump administration has promised to intensify its immigration restrictions following an incident where an Afghan national allegedly shot two National Guard members, focusing particularly on the thousands of Afghans who resettled in the United States after supporting American forces during the two-decade war in Afghanistan.
These targeted measures come despite the fact that Afghan immigrants in the U.S. underwent extensive vetting procedures, often requiring years of security screening before admission. The suspected shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, 29, who now faces first-degree murder charges in the death of 20-year-old Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, had worked with the CIA during the Afghanistan War and was subject to multiple layers of scrutiny.
“He was vetted both before he landed, probably once he landed, once he applied for asylum,” explained Andrew Selee, president of the Migration Policy Institute. “But more importantly, he was almost certainly vetted extensively and much more by the CIA.”
The second victim, 24-year-old Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, remains in critical condition following the attack.
In response to the shooting, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced late Friday that the State Department has temporarily halted visa issuance for all travelers using Afghan passports. This decision affects the resettlement programs that have brought nearly 200,000 Afghans to the United States under Operations Allies Welcome and Operation Enduring Welcome.
These programs initially brought approximately 76,000 Afghans to America, many of whom served as interpreters and translators for U.S. troops and diplomats during the war. The initiatives were designed to protect those who risked their lives supporting American forces and faced potential Taliban retribution following the 2021 U.S. withdrawal.
Former U.S. official Haris Tarin, who worked on the Biden-era resettlement program, suggested the incident reflects deeper issues: “As the investigation unfolds, you will see that this is not a failure of screening. This is a failure of us not being able to integrate—not just foreign intelligence and military personnel—but our own veterans, over the past 25 years.”
The shooting has intensified anti-immigrant rhetoric among Trump administration officials. CIA Director John Ratcliffe claimed Lakanwal “should have never been allowed to come here,” while Trump characterized immigration policies as “the single greatest national security threat facing our nation.” Vice President JD Vance accused the Biden administration of “opening the floodgate to unvetted Afghan refugees.”
These statements quickly translated into policy announcements, with Trump declaring plans to “permanently pause all migration” from nearly 20 countries and “terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions.” However, immigration policy experts note that many of these changes had already been initiated through executive orders issued over the past ten months.
“They are highlighting practices that were already going into place,” said Andrea Flores, a lawyer who served as an immigration policy adviser in both the Obama and Biden administrations.
Lakanwal reportedly applied for asylum during the Biden administration, with his request approved in April 2024 after thorough vetting, according to #AfghanEvac, an organization assisting in the resettlement of Afghans who aided U.S. forces.
Flores emphasized the continuity of immigration procedures across administrations: “You may hear people say, ‘Well, he was granted asylum under Trump. This is Trump’s problem.’ That’s not how our immigration system works. It relies on the same bedding. No asylum laws have really been changed by Congress.”
The incident has created widespread anxiety among Afghan communities in the United States. Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, expressed concern about “the attempt to retroactively tie all of this to one act of violence in a way that casts suspicion on entire nationalities, including Afghan allies who risked their lives to protect our troops.”
Many Afghans now fear their legal status may be revoked. Nesar, a 22-year-old who arrived in America shortly after the fall of Kabul, described how the attack has affected his sense of belonging: “After this happened two days ago, I honestly went to the grocery store this morning, and I was feeling so uncomfortable among all of those people. I was like, maybe they’re now looking at me the same way as the shooter.”
Just days before the shooting, Nesar and his father, who worked for the Afghan president during the war, had received a December 13 interview date for their green card application—a milestone they had been working toward for four years. Now, they’re uncertain whether their application will proceed.
Another Afghan immigrant, who requested anonymity, expressed similar concerns: “It seems that whenever a terrorist commits a crime, its shadow falls upon me simply because I am from Afghanistan.” After escaping Taliban persecution, he now fears facing renewed scrutiny in what he had hoped would be a safe haven.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
The details around this specific case raise many questions. Was the vetting process truly as robust as claimed? Regardless, we should avoid overreacting and instead focus on pragmatic solutions that address legitimate concerns without unfairly penalizing innocent refugees.
While the safety of American citizens is paramount, we should be wary of scapegoating vulnerable refugees. The experts’ insights suggest the current vetting system is robust. Targeted improvements may be warranted, but wholesale restrictions risk undermining core American principles.
This is a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. While increased security measures may seem reasonable, we must be careful not to unfairly target vulnerable refugees who have already undergone extensive vetting. Finding the right balance is crucial.
Tragic that this incident occurred, but we should be wary of knee-jerk policy reactions. Thorough vetting is important, but overly restrictive measures could do more harm than good by further alienating Afghan refugees who have risked so much to support US forces.
Appreciate the experts providing context on the existing vetting procedures. Clearly more work is needed to strike the right balance between security and compassion. I hope policymakers can find a humane way forward that doesn’t compromise American values.
A tragic incident, but we must be cautious about using it to justify overly restrictive refugee policies. The experts raise valid points about the extensive vetting process already in place. Any changes should be carefully considered to avoid unintended consequences.
This is a sensitive and emotive topic. While security is paramount, we must ensure our policies are grounded in facts, not fear. I hope lawmakers can find a measured approach that upholds American values of compassion and justice.
I’m curious to hear more from the experts on the current vetting process for Afghan refugees. Are there specific areas that could be improved without unduly restricting access for those fleeing violence and oppression?