After the attack on two National Guardsmen, it's time to raise the immigration bar

It’s long past time America’s immigration optimists and restrictionists
came to an arrangement. 

For a decade now, these two groups have been locked in an impassioned,
sometimes vicious battle over how best to preserve the country they both
cherish. 

And for the most part, that fight has taken place within the confines of
the GOP — the only party ready, willing and able to have an honest
conversation about migration and its downstream effects on America’s
very character. 

On Wednesday, that fight resumed in earnest when Rahmanullah Lakanwal,
an Afghan national who came to the United States amid the Biden
administration’s chaotic withdrawal from his country, allegedly opened
fire on two National Guard troops in Washington, DC. 

One of those troops, Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, succumbed to her wounds.

The other, Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, remains hospitalized in
critical condition. 

Though Lakanwal’s exact motive is not yet known, what is self-evident
now is that he never had any intention of becoming an American. 

Well, perhaps in the formalistic sense he did.

After all, American citizenship conveys more benefits than practically
any other title in human history. 

And that’s precisely why the bar for bestowing it upon anyone, from any
country, should be high. 

Spiritually, though, Lakanwal never would have bled Red, White, and
Blue, not even if he had passed a 100 different iterations of the
citizenship test. His heart was never in the American creed. 

Which brings us back to the aforementioned, hard-fought immigration
debate. 

On Friday, President Donald Trump weighed in on the matter in
characteristic fashion. 

“I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to
allow the U.S. system to fully recover,” announced Trump on X. 

It’s a rational sentiment in light of recent events, but not the right
prescription. 

Over the short term, some kind of de facto moratorium might be in order.

But over the long term, America deserves a sustainable immigration
system that keeps the bad apples out, yet also continues to allow it to
benefit from the dynamism — as well as the regular infusions of a
distinctly American spirit — that the right kind of immigrants provide. 

To do that, the Trump administration shouldn’t close the door to all
comers, but must implement a rigorous, multi-layered ideological testing
process to determine their suitability for life in America. 

At the center of the debate is a dispute over whether the United States
is a land or an idea. 

In truth, though, the two sides agree more than they think.

The restrictionists say America is more than a set of principles, and
they’re right. 

The chief reason they oppose mass migration is because they worry that
those coming to our shores have the wrong ethos. 

As a compromise, then, all those who wish to enter the United States
should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their answer to each
of the following questions is “Yes.” 

One: Do you condemn political violence in all of its forms?

At the core of the American experiment is a confidence in our system of
government and each other to reach the right outcomes independent of
intimidation. 

Two: Do you support near-absolute rights to free speech, religion and
assembly? 

There is no spiritual American who would seek to curb their countryman’s
right to think differently than them. 

Three: Do you believe the United States is the greatest national force
for good on the planet? 

This would doubtlessly be the most controversial of these proposed
litmus tests, but it’s no less important than the other two. 

It’s true many natural-born Americans have been deceived by unpatriotic
elites into believing the United States a boogeyman. 

But immigration policy should be geared toward diluting this corrosive,
ahistorical view. 

Anyone who wishes to reside in or immigrate permanently to the United
States ought to believe in its inherent goodness; that’s not a political
view, it’s common sense. 

Every would-be immigrant ought to be subject to a long, arduous,
one-half-strike-and-you’re-out process to prove they want to be
“American” in the truest sense of the word. 

A hesitant answer in an interview?

You’re out.

A single red flag raised by family or friends?

You’re out.

An out-of-place tweet?

You’re out.

Harassing students on a college campus over, say, Gaza?

Don’t even think of staying here.

The rewards Americans would reap from such a system would far outweigh
the costs. 

And more important, ensure that the America long known to its own
citizens would survive for another quarter-millenium. 

Isaac Schorr is a senior editor at Mediaite. 

https://nypost.com/2025/11/28/opinion/after-the-attack-on-two-national-gu
ardsmen-its-time-to-compromise-on-immigration/ 

Southern Transplant
7 hours ago

Somehow the left got the idea that anyone with a sob story that could
cross our border should be let in or flown into our country. They'll
tell you they're just being compassionate and altruistic human beings,
but the real objective is to change the demographics to add population
in blue areas to gain House seats and to bring in future voters to gain
and retain political power. Instead we need to focus immigration on
those who believe in the promise of America, are willing to go through
the legal process, be vetted, support themselves, and add economic value
to the nation 

Ted Zeppelin
5 hours ago

(D)'s are using illegal/immigration to achieve Cloward/Piven strategy.

These were two radical self described communist professor's from
Columbia University from 1966. 

Strategy was to flood state coffers with welfare recipients to break it.