In the wake of a violent incident in Washington, D.C., former President Donald Trump has intensified his rhetoric on immigration, reigniting a debate that cuts to the heart of America’s identity as a nation built by migrants. The catalyst was the shooting involving Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan citizen who allegedly opened fire on two U.S. National Guard members.
The attack resulted in the death of 20-year-old Sarah Beckstrom and left 24-year-old Andrew Wolfe in critical condition. According to official sources, Lakanwal entered the United States in 2021 under a special protection program created for Afghans who had assisted U.S. forces during the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He had reportedly collaborated with the CIA in Kabul.
Although the incident is tragic by any measure, analysts warn that it should not be generalized into broad conclusions about millions of immigrants or refugees. Yet Trump’s response — calling for sweeping, categorical restrictions targeting what he labeled “Third World countries” — has raised concerns about a resurgence of fear-driven policies aimed at entire populations rather than individual threats.
As of June 2025, an estimated 51.9 million immigrants lived in the United States, representing 15.4% of the national population, according to the Pew Research Center. This remains the largest immigrant population in the world in absolute terms. In his posts on Truth Social, however, Trump emphasized that, according to U.S. census projections, the number of foreign-born residents surpasses 53 million, or nearly 14% of Americans — a figure he insisted is “actually much higher.” He went further, claiming that “this refugee burden is the primary cause of social dysfunction in the United States,” arguments that analysts widely reject as unfounded and unsupported by evidence.
Trump framed the Washington attack as proof that the immigration system is failing and declared he would “permanently pause migration from all Third World countries to allow America’s system to recover.” He did not specify which nations fall under this label, though the term traditionally refers to a broad and diverse group of low- and middle-income countries across Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia.
What Trump’s narrative reveals about his approach to the global south
Interpreting Trump’s message requires looking beyond the words themselves. His use of the phrase “Third World” — a Cold War term criticized for its vague and derogatory connotations — suggests a broad categorization of countries he associates with economic instability, security threats, or cultural incompatibility with the United States. The message plays directly into a worldview in which migration from the global south is not viewed as a humanitarian process or a normal demographic phenomenon but as a danger to national stability.
The ambiguity surrounding which countries would be banned allows Trump to appeal to voters who fear immigration without providing a clear or legally defined framework. This raises immediate concerns: How could a measure of this scale be enforced without violating anti-discrimination laws? Who decides which nations qualify as “Third World”? And what standards determine who is a “net asset” to the United States, another term Trump invoked without explanation?
Legal experts argue that a migration freeze based on such sweeping, imprecise categories would face significant constitutional challenges. The current immigration system already conducts extensive vetting of applicants, including background checks, interviews, and security screenings. Targeting dozens of countries indiscriminately risks creating policies that are discriminatory by national origin, an area where both U.S. and international law provide explicit protections.
Trump also announced that his administration would deport anyone deemed a security threat or “not compatible with Western civilization,” a phrase that echoes earlier cultural and ideological rhetoric. The concept of “compatibility” is deeply subjective and vulnerable to political misuse, potentially enabling discriminatory practices under the guise of national security.
A dangerous message in a nation built by immigrants
For many immigration scholars and analysts, the deeper concern lies in how such rhetoric can mobilize nationalist sentiment. The United States is a nation defined by successive waves of immigration. To have a national leader portray foreign-born communities as sources of dysfunction risks stigmatizing millions of residents, regardless of status, background, or contribution to society.
Immigrant rights groups warn that inflammatory narratives can embolden hostile behavior, legitimize discrimination, and fuel divisions at a time when immigrant and undocumented communities already face heightened pressure. Past election cycles have shown that political rhetoric often has measurable impacts on hate crimes, workplace discrimination, and public harassment.
Given that roughly one in seven U.S. residents is foreign-born, Trump’s proposals could affect entire communities, reshape regional labor dynamics, strain family networks, and alter social landscapes across the country. The political implications extend far beyond immigration policy, they touch on the core principles of inclusivity and multiculturalism that have long defined American identity.
Interpreting Trump’s call for ‘Reverse Migration’
Perhaps the most ambiguous phrase in Trump’s statement is his claim that “only REVERSE MIGRATION can completely heal the situation.” In practical terms, this appears to refer to large-scale removals or incentivized departures of undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, or even some legal residents deemed “nonbeneficial” by his administration.
Taken literally, the idea suggests moving migration flows backward, encouraging or forcing people to leave rather than enter. Experts warn that such a policy would be unprecedented in scale, legally contested, and socially destabilizing. Deporting large numbers of immigrants would disrupt families, local economies, and entire industries reliant on foreign-born labor.
The language of “reverse migration” also reinforces a zero-sum worldview. Immigrants are classified as assets or liabilities with no acknowledgment of the complex, multifaceted contributions they make to American society, from entrepreneurship and innovation to essential labor and cultural influence.
The broader implications of a polarizing narrative
As the political climate intensifies ahead of the 2025 electoral cycle, the language used by national leaders becomes increasingly consequential. In the aftermath of the Washington shooting, many analysts argue that focus should remain on investigating the isolated event rather than generalizing it into sweeping national judgments. The danger lies in using individual crimes to justify broad exclusion of entire populations.
Trump’s statements deepen a widening divide in how Americans view immigration: As either a national threat or a foundational element of the country’s identity. With more than 50 million immigrants living in the United States today, the stakes are significant. The coming months will determine whether the country reaffirms its inclusive heritage or moves toward a more exclusionary model shaped by politically charged narratives rather than facts.