Christmas terror attack should end the immigration debate

A terrorist drove his car into a crowded Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany, killing five and injuring more than 200 just days before the holiday. Given the prevalence of terror attacks in Europe committed by radical Muslims, many immediately assumed the motive was linked to Islam. When authorities revealed the alleged attacker was Arab, the assumption appeared accurate. Investigators later disclosed, however, that the suspect was an anti-Islam activist motivated by his belief that Germany was failing to address the perceived threat of Islam.

Regardless of whether the attacker was a religious radical or a militant atheist, one thing is certain: He could not have slaughtered German children if Germany had never let him enter the country in the first place.

Details surrounding the Magdeburg attack remain unclear, partly due to German privacy laws and the suspect’s unusual online presence. Authorities identified the attacker as 50-year-old Taleb al-Abdulmohsen, a Saudi Arabian doctor who had lived in Germany since 2006. Al-Abdulmohsen maintained an active X account where he frequently criticized Islam and its impact on Arab society. He also accused Germany of failing Arabs by not doing enough to secularize new immigrants.

The Saudi doctor expressed support for Alternative for Germany, the populist right-wing party, prompting media outlets to label the attack as far-right terrorism. However, al-Abdulmohsen described himself as a liberal frustrated with the failures of the political left. Predictably, the press seized the opportunity to blame the attack on their political opponents, despite the complexities of the suspect’s motives.

Vetting won’t save us

Immigration remains a contentious issue across Western nations, driven by the open-border policies of their ruling elites. Elon Musk, who supported Donald Trump in the most recent U.S. election, has frequently described the AFD as the country’s only hope for the future. While Musk has made his opposition to illegal immigration clear, he continues to advocate a significant increase in “high-skilled” immigration. Even after the Magdeburg attack, Musk argued that diversity can work with proper vetting. This stance is perplexing, given the identity and ideology of the terrorist, which should challenge the belief that proper vetting ensures safety.

Trump and his MAGA movement have gained significant momentum by securing the support of Silicon Valley tech elites like Musk, David Sacks, and Vivek Ramaswamy. These figures may not fit the mold of the traditional Christian conservative associated with the Republican Party, but they understand that the woke progressive agenda is a path to societal collapse. These industry leaders, focused on building, innovating, and exploring, recognize that leftist policies obstruct progress.

The infusion of financial backing and elite influence has revitalized the populist movement. It’s no exaggeration to say that Trump’s potential second term may owe much to Musk’s purchase of Twitter and his substantial contributions to Trump’s campaign. This support has provided the MAGA movement with resources it desperately needed to solidify its platform.

The Silicon Valley tech billionaires supporting Trump benefit enough from his policies to back him, but their interests often diverge from those of his average voter. Immigration is the most significant point of contention. Musk and Ramaswamy say they want to slash illegal immigration while streamlining and increasing legal immigration, particularly for high-skilled tech workers through H-1B visas. Like other industries, tech companies benefit from expanding the pool of qualified workers, which lowers labor costs. Instead of investing in training Americans to create a steady supply of skilled workers — a process that requires time and money — corporations prefer to import foreign labor to fill those roles.

Conservative leaders often claim that America is “an idea,” defined by a set of values that anyone can adopt. They argue that once individuals embrace these values, they should be allowed into the country. This perspective is echoed in other Western nations like the United Kingdom and Germany, where governments promote the belief that importing workers for economic benefit is possible if they adhere to certain ideals.

The flaws in this understanding of human nature and national identity are starkly evident in the aftermath of the Magdeburg terror attack. Blind faith in the idea that culture and values can be instantly adopted fails to account for the complexities of integration and the potential risks associated with importing labor without scrutiny.

Time to limit large-scale immigration

For Musk and Ramaswamy, Taleb al-Abdulmohsen might have seemed like the ideal immigrant. A skilled doctor, he abandoned the faith of his home country and embraced the secular ideals of his adopted nation. Al-Abdulmohsen was highly skilled, economically productive, and advocated greater assimilation among his fellow Arabs. Despite these attributes, he still identified collectively with Arabs as his people and ultimately acted in the manner of an Islamic terrorist.

Read the rest at The Blaze.