Trump’s Intensified Anti-Immigration Stance Following Recent Shooting
In the aftermath of a deadly ambush on two National Guard members near the White House, President Trump has seized on the tragedy to harden his already aggressive anti-immigration stance. The shooting, allegedly carried out by an Afghan national who entered the United States through a resettlement program and later received asylum, has become the latest flashpoint in a long-running fight over immigration, national security, and who gets to belong in America. Reuters+1
Trump’s response has gone far beyond condemning the attack. He has called for a “permanent pause” on migration from what he labels “Third World countries,” ordered a halt to asylum decisions, and demanded sweeping reviews of green card holders from multiple nations. Reuters+1 These moves are being sold as necessary security measures, but they also cement an anti-immigration stance that treats entire populations as potential threats.
Context of the Shooting Incident — anti-immigration stance
The attack unfolded in downtown Washington, D.C., just blocks from the White House, when two National Guard members were shot while on duty. One soldier later died, and the second remains in critical condition. Authorities quickly identified the suspect as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan who came to the United States in 2021 during the evacuation from Afghanistan and later obtained asylum. AP News+1
Within hours, Trump described the incident as a “terrorist attack” and claimed it proved that America’s immigration system is dangerously broken. His public remarks framed the shooting as the foreseeable result of what he calls “Biden’s illegal admissions,” even though the asylum grant occurred under his own administration after he took office. AP News+2Reuters+2
From there, Trump moved to formalize his anti-immigration stance in policy. He ordered all asylum decisions paused nationwide, directed the State Department to stop issuing visas for Afghan passport holders, and instructed agencies to prepare what he calls “reverse migration” measures to strip status and deport large numbers of non-citizens. AP News+2ABC News+2
In other words, one violent act has been turned into the central exhibit for a sweeping anti-immigration stance that targets millions of people who had nothing to do with the crime.
From Tragedy to Talking Point: How the Narrative Is Being Framed
Turning a Single Case into a General Rule — anti-immigration stance
Trump’s messaging after the shooting follows a pattern that has defined his anti-immigration stance for years. An individual crime committed by an immigrant becomes proof, in his telling, that the entire system is too lenient. The suspect’s biography—Afghan evacuee, asylum recipient, former contractor for U.S. forces—gets generalized into a narrative that refugees and asylum seekers as a group are dangerous.
By repeating phrases like “Third World migration,” “social dysfunction,” and “unvetted migrants,” Trump uses the shooting to argue that normal immigration debate should be replaced by emergency restrictions. The Times+2The Guardian+2 This framing is central to his anti-immigration stance: it blurs the line between individual guilt and group blame, making it easier to justify blanket bans on entire nationalities.
National Security Branding of an Anti-Immigration Stance
At the same time, Trump wraps this anti-immigration stance in national security language. He presents the “permanent pause” on migration from poorer countries as a defensive shield, not as a political choice. His proposals to review green card holders from “countries of concern,” revoke legal status, and deport people who are not “net assets” to the United States are cast as tough but necessary measures to protect Americans from future attacks. Reuters+2Al Jazeera+2
Critics point out that this security framing is selective. The administration is pouring energy into policies targeting refugees and asylum seekers, while showing far less urgency about domestic extremism, gun availability, or the broad patterns of violent crime that overwhelmingly involve U.S.-born offenders. The anti-immigration stance becomes a kind of political shortcut: instead of confronting complex, homegrown problems, blame is shifted to a relatively powerless group.
Policy Moves Driven by the Hardline Immigration Agenda
Halting Asylum and Freezing Migration — anti-immigration stance in action
Trump’s post-shooting actions extend his anti-immigration stance well beyond rhetoric. Homeland security officials have announced a nationwide halt to asylum decisions, effectively locking tens of thousands of people already in the system into legal limbo. AP News+2ABC+2 At the same time, visa processing for Afghan passport holders has been suspended, and the White House is signaling that similar restrictions could be expanded to other countries.
Separately, the administration is ordering a review of green card holders from nineteen “countries of concern,” raising the prospect that people who have lived legally in the United States for years could face new scrutiny or status changes based solely on their nationality. Al Jazeera+1 These decisions move the anti-immigration stance from the border into the lives of people who have already passed vetting and built families, careers, and communities here.
Long-Term Human and Diplomatic Costs
If carried through, this anti-immigration stance would ripple far beyond the suspects in any single case. Refugees stuck in overcrowded camps, Afghans who risked their lives assisting U.S. forces, and families trying to reunite after years apart are all caught up in the dragnet. International partners that cooperated with the U.S. in Afghanistan or other conflicts could see their citizens suddenly blocked or stripped of status, creating diplomatic strain on top of humanitarian fallout.
Legal experts also question whether some of the proposed measures—such as mass revocations of lawful status based on vague security claims—would survive court challenges. American Immigration Council+1 But even if judges eventually limit the harshest policies, the signal sent by the anti-immigration stance is unmistakable: entire categories of people are considered disposable.
Political Reactions to the Hardened Anti-Immigration Stance
Republican Response and Electoral Calculations
Within the Republican Party, many leaders have echoed Trump’s anti-immigration stance, especially those who rely on his base for political survival. The National Guard shooting gives them a vivid, emotionally charged example they can use in ads and fundraising emails to demand tougher laws, more deportations, and more aggressive policing of immigrant communities.
Some Republicans, particularly in swing districts and suburbs, are more cautious. They know that a relentless anti-immigration stance can backfire with moderate voters, especially those who see immigrants as neighbors, co-workers, and family. But few are willing to confront Trump directly; most choose to either support the stance or quietly look away.
Democratic Pushback and Alternative Vision
Democrats, along with immigrant-rights organizations and civil liberties groups, have sharply criticized Trump’s response as an opportunistic overreach. They argue that using a single horrific crime to justify a blanket anti-immigration stance stigmatizes millions of law-abiding people and feeds a climate in which harassment and hate incidents become more likely.
Advocates point to decades of data showing that immigrants—documented and undocumented—are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens, and that cities with more immigrants often have lower crime rates, not higher ones. American Immigration Council+4American Immigration Council+4American Immigration Council+4 Their alternative vision emphasizes targeted, evidence-based security measures rather than sweeping bans, coupled with pathways to legal status and citizenship.
As the campaign season intensifies, the contrast between a fear-driven anti-immigration stance and a more inclusive, data-driven approach is likely to become one of the sharpest dividing lines in national politics.
Public Opinion, Media Narratives, and the Anti-Immigration Stance
What Americans Actually Think About Immigration
Despite the noise, public opinion does not line up neatly behind Trump’s anti-immigration stance. Recent Gallup polling shows that a record-high 79 percent of Americans now say immigration is a good thing for the country. Gallup.com+2IILA+2 Although concern about border management and unlawful entry remains real, most people do not support shutting down legal immigration or deporting millions of long-term residents en masse.
There is a partisan split: Republicans have grown more negative about immigration in recent years, while Democrats and independents have grown more positive. Gallup.com+1 That division helps explain why Trump believes a hard anti-immigration stance works for him politically, even if it clashes with broader public sentiment.
Media Coverage and the Power of Framing — anti-immigration stance on screen
News organizations are deeply shaping how the public understands both the shooting and the anti-immigration stance that followed. Some coverage foregrounds the suspect’s immigration status and amplifies Trump’s language about “Third World countries” and “reverse migration,” implicitly endorsing the frame that immigrants as a group are dangerous. Reuters+2The Guardian+2
Other outlets focus on the data that contradicts the “migrant crime wave” narrative, or on the voices of Afghan evacuees and other refugees who now fear they will be blamed for something they did not do. Brennan Center for Justice+2Brennan Center for Justice+2 This kind of coverage challenges the anti-immigration stance by showing how rarely immigrants are involved in violent crime and how deeply many are woven into American communities.
The stakes of framing are high. When audiences are repeatedly exposed to stories that link immigration and violence without context, the anti-immigration stance can begin to feel like common sense. When the same events are covered with careful data and human stories, the picture looks very different.
Reality Check: Evidence vs. the Anti-Immigration Stance
Strip away the fear and the headlines, and the core claim behind Trump’s anti-immigration stance—that more immigration means more crime—simply is not supported by the evidence. Research from the American Immigration Council and other groups shows that as immigration has increased over the last four decades, crime has fallen sharply. American Immigration Council+4American Immigration Council+4American Immigration Council+4
Immigrants are less likely than U.S.-born citizens to be incarcerated, less likely to be arrested for violent crimes, and less likely to be behind bars. High-immigration cities and states typically do not have higher crime rates; in many cases they are safer. End FMR Now+3American Immigration Council+3Brennan Center for Justice+3
None of this minimizes the horror of a single violent attack or the government’s obligation to vet applicants carefully. But it does expose how disconnected the anti-immigration stance is from the actual pattern of crime in the United States. A policy built on outliers and anecdotes is a policy built on sand.
Bottom Line: The Risks of Governing by Anti-Immigration Stance
Trump’s response to the National Guard shooting showcases the full force of his anti-immigration stance: a rapid move from tragedy to political weapon, from individual responsibility to group blame, from case-by-case vetting to broad bans and mass suspicion.
The data do not support the idea that immigrants are driving a crime wave. Public opinion does not show a mandate for shutting the door on refugees and asylum seekers. Yet the anti-immigration stance is being used to justify sweeping policies that would reshape lives across continents and redefine what the United States stands for.
The real test for the country is not only how it responds to this one attack, but whether it allows fear to harden into permanent law. Choosing to govern through an anti-immigration stance may deliver short-term political gains, but it risks long-term damage to America’s values, alliances, and basic commitment to equal treatment under the law.
Further Reading
Reuters – “Accused National Guard attacker faces US murder charge, Trump wants to halt ‘Third World’ migration.” https://www.reuters.com/world/us/national-guard-shooting-suspect-face-murder-charges-trump-freeze-third-world-2025-11-28/ Reuters
Associated Press – “Trump wants to ‘permanently pause’ migration to the US from poorer countries.” https://apnews.com/article/d4010ee4846d6e7e4374b38771e76093 AP News
American Immigration Council – “Immigrants Do Not Commit More Crimes in the US, Despite Fearmongering.” https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/immigrants-do-not-commit-more-crimes-in-the-us-despite-fearmongering American Immigration Council
Migration Policy Institute – “Explainer: Immigrants and Crime in the United States.” https://www.migrationpolicy.org/content/immigrants-and-crime migrationpolicy.org
Brennan Center for Justice – “Debunking the Myth of the ‘Migrant Crime Wave.’” https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/debunking-myth-migrant-crime-wave Brennan Center for Justice
Gallup – “Surge in U.S. Concern About Immigration Has Abated.” https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigration-abated.aspx Gallup.com
Chicago Council on Global Affairs – “American Support for Legal Immigration Reaches New Heights.” https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/american-support-legal-immigration-reaches-new-heights Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Connect with the Author
Curious about the inspiration behind The Unmaking of America or want to follow the latest news and insights from J.T. Mercer? Dive deeper and stay connected through the links below—then explore Vera2 for sharp, timely reporting.
About the Author
Discover more about J.T. Mercer’s background, writing journey, and the real-world events that inspired The Unmaking of America. Learn what drives the storytelling and how this trilogy came to life.
[Learn more about J.T. Mercer]
NRP Dispatch Blog
Stay informed with the NRP Dispatch blog, where you’ll find author updates, behind-the-scenes commentary, and thought-provoking articles on current events, democracy, and the writing process.
[Read the NRP Dispatch]
Vera2 — News & Analysis
Looking for the latest reporting, explainers, and investigative pieces? Visit Vera2, North River Publications’ news and analysis hub. Vera2 covers politics, civil society, global affairs, courts, technology, and more—curated with context and built for readers who want clarity over noise.
[Explore Vera2]
Whether you’re interested in the creative process, want to engage with fellow readers, or simply want the latest updates, these resources are the best way to stay in touch with the world of The Unmaking of America—and with the broader news ecosystem at Vera2.
Free Chapter
Begin reading The Unmaking of America today and experience a story that asks: What remains when the rules are gone, and who will stand up when it matters most? Join the Fall of America mailing list below to receive the first chapter of The Unmaking of America for free and stay connected for updates, bonus material, and author news.
