By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Donald Trump is considering the deportation of the family of Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the suspect in the shooting of two National Guard members. Trump also announced that his administration will “permanently pause” migration from all “Third World Countries” in response to the shooting. Lakanwal, an Afghan national, reportedly entered the U.S. in 2021 through Operation Allies Welcome. One of the National Guard members, Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, has died from her injuries.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump Says He’s ‘Looking at’ Deporting Wife and 5 Kids of National Guard Shooting Suspect – it’s a phrase that instantly conjures up a whirlwind of reactions, doesn’t it? The sheer weight of the words, the casual way they’re strung together, sparks a mixture of disbelief, outrage, and a growing sense of, perhaps, grim familiarity. This isn’t just a policy proposal; it’s a statement reflecting a certain mindset, a worldview that seems to value retribution and collective punishment over fundamental principles of justice.
The idea of deporting the wife and children of a suspect is, to put it mildly, problematic. It strikes at the very core of what a just society should stand for. We’re talking about holding individuals accountable for their own actions, not punishing innocent people for the alleged crimes of a relative. It’s a concept that’s often associated with authoritarian regimes, not the democratic ideals we supposedly cherish. The fact that this is even being considered, let alone uttered by a prominent political figure, raises some serious questions about the direction we’re headed.
Some might argue that this is a tough-on-crime stance, a way to send a message that such actions will not be tolerated. But what message is truly being sent? Are we saying that we’re willing to sacrifice the well-being of vulnerable individuals – in this case, a wife and children – to achieve some perceived political goal? The potential for this to be seen as a form of revenge, rather than justice, is undeniable. And what of the children? Imagine the trauma, the fear, and the utter chaos of being ripped from your home and everything you know, simply because of your father’s alleged actions. It’s a chilling thought.
And, of course, the hypocrisy of it all. Many people immediately consider Trump’s own family. If we’re going down the road of collective punishment, then what about the ramifications for *his* family? The implication is that if one commits crimes, then all family should be punished, this immediately brings up questions of equity and fairness. This is a point that underscores the selective nature of this approach – a sense that it’s being used as a political tool rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.
The immediate reaction to this is that it seems like a move straight out of a playbook we’re not supposed to be using. It’s a reminder of past injustices, of times when guilt by association was a common practice. We’ve supposedly evolved beyond that. The idea that families can be used as leverage, as pawns in some larger political game, is disturbing. It suggests a lack of empathy, a willingness to inflict pain on innocent people for purely political gain.
This kind of talk also fuels a sense of division and animosity. It creates an “us versus them” mentality, where certain groups of people are painted as inherently dangerous or deserving of punishment, regardless of their individual actions. It is a dangerous path, one that erodes the foundations of a fair and just society. It’s the kind of approach that undermines trust in government and fuels cynicism about the political process.
The response to this kind of statement highlights a broader trend in political rhetoric. It’s a willingness to say or do anything to appeal to a particular base. It appears more and more that the goal is not to address the root causes of crime, but to exploit fear and anger for political advantage. It’s a dangerous game, one that can have devastating consequences. The comments are full of comparisons to what dictatorships do.
It’s easy to dismiss these comments as just another headline, another soundbite, another example of political grandstanding. But it is important to take them seriously and to understand the implications of such statements. We cannot afford to become desensitized to this kind of rhetoric, because it chips away at our values and erodes the very foundations of our society.
The phrase “We’re looking at it” has become almost a signature Trump response, a way of avoiding a direct answer while still implying that something is being considered. It’s a tactic that can be both frustrating and revealing. It allows him to avoid taking a definitive stance, while also signaling his willingness to entertain the idea. It’s a way of testing the waters, of gauging public reaction before making a final decision. It’s a practice that should be monitored and questioned at every turn.
And finally, it’s essential to remember that words have power. They can be used to incite fear, to spread hatred, and to justify injustice. It’s the responsibility of all of us to call out this kind of rhetoric and to stand up for the principles of fairness, justice, and human dignity. Because, ultimately, the way we treat the most vulnerable among us is a reflection of who we are as a society.