www.theblaze.com
Clock ticks for Trump’s immigration crackdown
On December 7, 2015, during the Iowa caucus campaign, Donald Trump announced his plan for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Nearly a decade later, the argument for such a shutdown has intensified. Pro-Hamas demonstrations among Islamic immigrants highlight concerns, and Trump’s presidency could represent the final opportunity to fulfill his pledge and prevent what some view as an impending European-style influence by Sharia-adherent invaders. The question remains: Is Trump up to the task?Seven months before Trump’s statement, I wrote a column warning that Islamic immigration had doubled since 9/11 and was the fastest-growing subset of America’s already substantial annual intake. Between 2001 and 2013, the U.S. issued 1,628,854 green cards to immigrants from 43 predominantly Muslim countries.With greater political capital and clearer legal precedent, Trump has an opportunity to expand his ban.Now, nearly a decade later and nine years into Trump’s leadership of the Republican Party, the numbers tell a sobering story. From 2014 to 2023, the U.S. granted 1,453,940 green cards to the same 43 countries, averaging 145,395 per year — higher than the 125,000 annual average of the previous decade. This increase would be even greater if not for COVID-19, which slowed immigration for over two years. In 2023 alone, about 170,000 immigrants arrived from these countries, excluding at least 100,000 foreign students from the same regions.
Since 9/11, the United States has issued roughly three million green cards to nationals of predominantly Islamic countries, along with several million non-immigrant visas. This figure does not account for the significant number of illegal immigrants from these countries, particularly since Joe Biden took office.In comparison, England’s total Muslim population stands at about 3.8 million, yet the country has experienced widespread challenges from incorrigible Islamic subversion. While the United States’ larger size makes assimilation challenges relatively less troublesome, the sheer numbers remain critical when assessing the potential for radicalization and domestic terrorism threats.Shouldn’t we prioritize assimilating those already here and addressing the growing problem of homegrown radicalization before expanding immigration from nations plagued by Islamic supremacism?With a history of Islamic terror attacks on American soil and increasing cultural subversion marked by anti-Jewish hatred and pro-Hamas sentiment, why hasn’t the Trump administration acted with greater urgency to halt immigration? The Trump v. Hawaii decision affirms Trump’s clear authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict immigration categories in the national interest. The lack of decisive action is difficult to reconcile with these pressing concerns.During Trump’s first term, an October 2017 order banned visas from countries including Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, as well as North Korea and South Sudan. The ban on Iraq was later lifted, and restrictions on other countries were limited to specific visa categories or shorter durations. Combined with lower court injunctions and Biden’s subsequent election, these policies had little impact on the overall flow of radical Islamists into the United States.Now, with greater political capital and clearer legal precedent, Trump has an opportunity to expand this ban. The focus should extend beyond countries lacking “vetting” tools or diplomatic cooperation to include any nation with a significant presence of Islamic terrorism and anti-American sentiment. The growing size of pro-terrorist rallies in the U.S. underscores this urgency — these demonstrations grow because the number of immigrants admitted from such countries increases each year.Trump’s use of Section 212(f) immigration authority will serve as an early indicator of his presidency’s direction. Cutting spending and addressing complex domestic issues may lack immediate momentum, and deportations require significant resources to reverse Biden’s immigration surge. However, restricting further immigration from these countries, allowing time to assimilate record numbers already here, is a step Trump can take swiftly and with settled legal precedent.If not now, when? The clock is ticking.
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
