Afghanistan – dwkcommentaries

Should the U.S. Modify Its Stance Against the Taliban in Afghanistan?

As discussed in a prior post, on August 22, 2023, the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported that since the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021, it had committed at least 800 human rights violations against Afghans who had assisted the U.S. In addition, that U.N. agency also noted that the Taliban had imposed the most radical gender policies, denying education and employment to millions of Afghan women and girls. [1]

Nevertheless, Graeme Smith, an analyst at the Crisis Group who has worked in that country since 2005 and who recently spent several months there, has said, “Most of the stuff we want to do [in that country] requires working with the Taliban.” In addition, in an article in Foreign Affairs, Smith urged western governments and institutions “to establish more functional relationships with the Taliban” that could include assistance with Afghanistan’s electricity grid, banking system and water management. Other experts and humanitarian groups have urged the U.S. to provide the Taliban with direct economic assistance to alleviate the country’s desperate poverty and hunger.[2]

Some positive points about the Taliban also emerged at a late July meeting of the U.S. State Department’s special representative for that country, Thomas West, and other U.S. officials with Taliban officials in Qatar. There was discussion of the country’s “declining opium poppy production and promising economic and counterterrorism actions and that there was openness to a technical dialogue regarding economic stabilization issues soon.” Note also was made of “recent [Afghan] data indicating declining inflation, growth of merchandise exports and imports.”[3]

At this U.S.-Taliban meeting, however, the U.S. also criticized the Taliban and the country’s “deteriorating human rights situation . . ., particularly for women, girls and vulnerable communities,” and its detentions, media crackdowns and limits on religious practices.

A New York Times columnist, Michael Crowley, also wonders whether the U.S. should modify its opposition to the Taliban while pointing out other positive aspects of Taliban rule: fears of an Afghan civil war have not materialized, and the Taliban apparently have prevented a return of a terrorist group that might threaten the U.S. and have cracked down on corruption and banned opium poppy cultivation. [4]

Reactions

These voices of moderation and practicality deserve consideration, especially if the U.S. could obtain Taliban cooperation on allowing peaceful removal of Afghans who had assisted the U.S. The successful implementation of these ideas might well lead to subsequent adoption of other partial measures of positive change.

============================

[1] U.N. Agency Reports Afghan Human Rights Violations Against Former U.S. Partners, dwkcommentaries.com ( Aug. 26, 2023).

[2] Smith, The World Has No Choice But to Work With the Taliban, Foreign Affairs (Aug. 11, 2023)

[3] U.S. State Department, Meeting of U.S. Officials with Taliban Representatives, (July 31, 2023); U.S. State Department, Thomas West, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs.

[4] Crowley, Two Years After Afghanistan Exit, Biden Resists Calls for More Taliban Contact, N.Y. Times (Aug. 30, 2023).

U.S. Afghan Special Visa Program Still Facing Immense Problems

In August 2023, the U.S. State Department’s Office of Inspector General released its report on evaluation of 2018-22 adjustments to the Afghan Special Visa Program, which was established in 2009 to resettle “Afghans who had worked on behalf of the [U.S.] in Afghanistan and had experienced an ongoing and serious threat as a result.”[1]

The Report’s Findings

“A. The Department Made Efforts To Streamline Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Processing Beginning in February 2021, but Challenges Remain.” More specifically, “as of December 2022, these actions had not eliminated the significant and growing Afghan SIV applicant backlog. Specifically, the Department increased staffing to process emails and determine applicant eligibility; coordinated with the Department of Defense to verify employment; incorporated new software to help process emails; eliminated a portion of the application process; leveraged posts worldwide for SIV interviews; and established remote consular operations in Doha, Qatar. However, because of an increased interest in the program after [the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in] August 2021, the Department experienced an influx of applications causing a backlog for which the Department had inadequate staffing to process. Without additional dedicated resources to address the situation, the backlog in SIV applications will remain a significant challenge.”

“B. COVID-19 Caused Delays to Afghan SIV Processing and Increased the Backlog of Applicants.” More specifically, “the COVID-19 pandemic stalled the Afghan SIV application process, which in-turn increased the number of SIV applicants awaiting in-person interviews….

Embassy Kabul suspended visa interviews twice: from March 2020 to February 2021 and from June to July 2021 because of COVID-19 outbreaks. However, telework allowed the Department to continue some phases of SIV applicant processing.”

“C. The Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program Faces Challenges and Would Benefit From a Strategic Performance Management Approach.” More specifically, “The Department relies on Taliban cooperation for SIV applicant relocation from the country because of a lack of a [U.S.] ground presence in Afghanistan. In addition, the Department has not developed and implemented a strategic performance management approach to resolving the Afghan SIV applicant backlog, and the Department’s Afghan SIV Senior Coordinating Official position has had periods of vacancy and frequent turnover since 2017. Developing and implementing a strategic performance management approach would benefit the Afghan SIV program and help address the SIV applicant backlog.”

“The reliance on Taliban cooperation because of the lack of US diplomatic ground presence in Afghanistan impacts the ability for Afghan SIV applicants to exit Afghanistan and arrive at a US diplomatic post for visa processing.” Indeed, “one of the biggest challenges to SIV applicants departing Afghanistan is the lack of freedom of movement out of Afghanistan, which is dependent on Taliban cooperation. The Taliban’s willingness to approve flights, to allow women to depart Afghanistan alone, to determine the number of aircraft Kabul International Airport can accommodate, and other factors impacted freedom of movement for Afghans.. . .”

As of April 2023, the Department estimates that 840,000 principal applicants and family members remain in Afghanistan with uncertainty where they are in the application process. As of August 1, the U.S. has “issued nearly 34,000 SIVs to principal applicants and their eligible family members while another 80,000 applicants are in process with tens of thousands having begun the applications.

The Report’s Recommendation

The Report then made the following Recommendation: “OIG recommends that the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) Senior Coordinating Official, in coordination with the Bureau of Consular Affairs and the Joint Executive Office for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, develop and implement a strategic performance management approach to improve the outcomes of the Afghan SIV program, including establishing goals and measures of success to evaluate progress against those established goals.”

The Department’s Management responded to that Recommendation as follows: “The Department concurred with the intent of the recommendation and requested that OIG revise the recommendation to read “the [Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) Senior] Coordinating Official, in coordination with the Bureau of Consular Affairs and the Joint Executive Office for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, continue to implement procedural changes and allocate resources in service of meeting the Department’s Afghan SIV processing goals. The Department should use the efficiency improvements, Chief of Mission (COM) decisions, and visa interview sections included in the quarterly Congressional reports on SIV processing to track progress, referencing the Program Design and Performance Management Toolkit as needed.”

“Additionally, Department comments noted that ‘after reviewing the Program Design and Performance Management Toolkit [mentioned in the finding] …, the Department maintains that Afghan SIV … adjudication is a process, not a program. However, the Department is aware of the value in this toolkit and will utilize it as a reference, as needed, while we continue to assess existing [Afghan SIV] processing goals.”

Conclusion

This blog already has discussed the Taliban’s human rights violations against in-country Afghans who had helped the U.S. troops before their August 2021 withdrawal.[2]

============================

[1] U.S. State Dep’t, Office of Inspector General, Evaluation of Adjustments to the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program From 2018 through 2022 (Aug. 2023) Hansler, Challenges to Afghan special visa program remain two years after US withdrawal, State Dept, watchdog finds, CNN.com (Sept. 1, 2023) . See also Atwood & Hansler, State Department review of US withdrawal from Afghanistan includes far more findings than White House document, CNN (April 7, 2023)

[2] U.N. Agency Reports Afghan Human Rights Violations Against Former U.S. Partners, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 26, 2023); COMMENT: Dangerous Life in Afghanistan of Family of U.S. Interpreter, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 29, 2023).

U.N. Agency Reports Afghan Human Rights Violations Against Former U.S. Partners

On March 28, 2002, the U.N. Security Council established the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) to promote peace and stability in that country and thereafter that mandate annually has been renewed and revised to reflect the continued needs of that country. This Mission’s headquarters is in Kabul with a field presence of around 1,187 staff throughout the country.[1]

UNAMA’s Report on Taliban’s Human Rights Violations[2]

On August 22, 2023, UNAMA released its report that the Taliban has committed at least 800 human-rights violations against U.S. partners since the Taliban’s takeover of the country in 2021. Members of the Afghan National Army are at the “greatest risk,” followed by national and local police officers and National Directorate of Security officials. Targets also include prosecutors, judges and national, provincial and district officials who served in the U.S.-backed government.

At least 218 Afghan partners have been murdered, the report says. “Some were taken to detention facilities and killed while in custody,” the report says, while “others were taken to unknown locations and killed, their bodies either dumped or handed over to family members.”

In addition, the report asserts that there have been 144 instances of torture and maltreatment, including beatings with pipes and cables, plus at least 14 enforced disappearances and more than 424 arbitrary arrests.

Reactions to the U.N. Report[3]

The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal reported on the above details of this report.

Their articles also noted that “tens of thousands of such former officials remain in Afghanistan, unable or unwilling to join the scramble of Afghans to flee abroad” after the Taliban takeover and inhabit a “climate of fear.”

These news articles quoted the report as saying, “the abuses it found work against the healing of wounds in society from Afghanistan’s 40 years of war, and contravene the Taliban’s obligations under international human-rights law” and “the de facto authorities’ failure to fully uphold their publicly stated commitment and to hold perpetrators of human rights violations to account may have serious implications for the future stability of Afghanistan.”

The Wall Street Journal also published an editorial claiming that “the Biden Administration wants Americans to forget about Afghanistan” and “continues to offer too few visas for Afghans who helped America. Some Afghan partners told the U.N. that they ‘have gone into hiding’ and ‘live in fear of being arrested or killed by a member of the de facto authorities.’” Therefore, this editorial concludes, “These ugly details add to the disgrace of one of America’s worst betrayals.”

The Taliban government in a statement appended to the UNAMA report said that after the Taliban had seized power, its supreme leader had issued a blanket amnesty to all former government members, that only people acting against the Taliban had been arrested and prosecuted and, “After the victory of the Islamic Emirate until today, cases of human rights violations (murder without trial, arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, and other acts against human rights) by the employees of the security institutions of the Islamic Emirate against the employees and security forces of the previous government have not been reported.”

Although not mentioned in the U.N. report, the U.S. needs to adopt the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would provide permanent legal status for Afghans who have been admitted to the U.S. on temporary parole visas because of their assistance to U.S. troops and personnel before September 2021.[4]

============================

[1] UNAMA, About.

[2] Press Release, U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, Impunity Prevails for Human Rights Violations Against Former Government Officials and Armed Forces Members (Aug. 22, 2023); UNAMA, A barrier to securing peace: Human rights violations against former government officials and former armed force members in Afghanistan: 15 August 2021—30 June 2023.

[3] Pena, U.N. Says Taliban Committed Rights Abuses Despite Blanket Amnesty, N.Y. Times (Aug. 22, 2023); Shah, Afghans Who Allied with U.S. Face Killings, Arrests Under Taliban Rule, U.N. Finds, W.S.J. (Aug. 22, 2023); Editorial: The Fate of America’s Afghan Partners, W.S.J. (Aug. 22, 2023)Response by the de facto Ministry of Foreign Affairs to UNAMA Human Rights Service report, regarding the violation of human rights against the employees and military forces of the previous government, Directorate of Human Rights & Women’s International Affairs, Kabul (Aug. 2023).

[4] Introduction of New Proposed Afghan Adjustment Act, dwkcommentaries.com (July 31, 2023).

Introduction of New Proposed Afghan Adjustment Act

On July 13, 2023, U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (Dem, MN) with five co-sponsoring Democrat Senators and six co-sponsoring Republican Senators introduced a new proposed Afghan Adjustment Act (S.2327). The Democrat co-sponsors are Senators Coon (DE), Blumenthal (CT), Shaheen (NH), Durban (IL) and Menendez (NJ), and the Republican co-sponsors are Senators Graham (SC), Moran (KS), Mullin (OK), Murkowski (AK), Wicker (MS) and Tillis (NC). After two readings the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.[1]

On the same date the identical bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Miller-Meeks (Rep., IA) with 11 Republican co-sponsors and 12 Democrat co-sponsors and was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

At that time, Senator Klobuchar said, “Giving our Afghan allies a chance to apply for legal status is the right and necessary thing to do. This bipartisan legislation will help provide Afghans who have sacrificed so much for our country with the legal certainty they deserve as they rebuild their lives. I will continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance this bipartisan legislation and provide Afghans who sought refuge in the U.S. with the opportunity for a stable future in their new home.”

Klobuchar also said on the Senate floor that many Afghans vouched for by U.S. top military leaders ”took bullets for us, literally. And we must stand by them. The decision we make for them of whether we live up to the covenant we made to our Afghan allies is going to reverberate militarily and diplomatically for longer than any of us will serve in this body.” Klobuchar added that the U.S. did not leave Hmong and Vietnamese people in limbo when they were evacuated. Generations later, Hmong people have become police officers, elected officials, firefighters and “pillars of our community.” These Afghans “can’t go back—they’d be killed by the Taliban.” Noting support from many U.S. retired generals and leaders of congressional armed services committees, she said, “It is really a military priority.”

Republican Senator Graham made a similar statement: “It is imperative that America assist those Afghans who supported our country and that fled the oppressive regime of the Taliban. We must let the world know that we do not abandon those who aid America. This bill works toward that goal while ensuring strong vetting to protect America’s own security,”

The press release by Senator Klobuchar’s office noted that this “legislation has received the endorsement of many groups including The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Blue Star Families, and more.

Senate Co-Sponsors Comments About the Bill

Senator Blumenthal observed, ““I know firsthand about the translators and guards and others who served putting their lives on the line. And now in Connecticut, I’ve had the privilege of calling many of them [and their families] my friends. It is a promise. Great nations keep their promises. These individuals are among our most loyal friends. The test is that they put targets on their back from the Taliban. They knew they and their families would be at risk if the Taliban ever took over. Now the Taliban has done it, and they cannot return. Nor can their families.”

Senator Coon said, ““We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the Afghan people for the ways they supported U.S. forces for almost 20 years, often at great personal risk. The Afghan Adjustment Act is a first step toward keeping our word as a nation and honoring that debt. This bipartisan legislation would provide a pathway to lawful permanent status for certain Afghan civilians, offering them a way out of legal limbo and the looming threat of deportation with great risk to their personal safety, and after failing to pass this bill last year, we should take it up and pass it swiftly now. Congress has a track record of passing similar legislation on humanitarian grounds, and it is shameful that we have not done so yet.”

Coon also observed that this Act was “modeled after bipartisan bills that Congress has passed in the wake of other humanitarian crises and the Vietnam War.” More specifically, the Afghan Adjustment Act would:

“Allow Afghans on humanitarian status who submit to additional vetting – including an in-person interview – to apply for permanent legal status. For these Afghans, the primary options under current law to gain permanent status are through our asylum system or the burdensome SIV process;”
“Expand the SIV program to include previously omitted groups, including the Female Tactical Teams of Afghanistan, the Afghan National Army Special Operations Command, the Afghan Air Force, and the Special Mission Wing of Afghanistan;” and
“Establish a task force to develop and implement a strategy for supporting Afghans outside of the United States who are eligible for SIV status and require the Department of State to respond to congressional inquiries about SIV applications.”

Senator Moran stated the bill would “allow Afghans who sought refuge in the United States to apply for permanent legal residency after undergoing additional vetting.. . . Allowing Afghan allies to apply for permanent legal residency will help provide certainty as they build their lives in the United States.”

Senator Murkowski stated, ““The United States must ensure that we keep our promises to our Afghan allies, and provide certainty for those who fled to the United States and have no place to return. I am proud to join my Senate colleagues in legislation to give innocent Afghans hope for a safer, brighter future.

Conclusion

In the final days of the last session of Congress, the prior version of the Afghan Adjustment Act had strong support in the House and Senate, but Iowa’s Republican Senator Chuck Grassley opposed and prevented its passage because he claimed there were “security concerns” due to purported inadequate vetting of projected beneficiaries of the bill.[2]

Therefore, now is the time to pass this bill!

================================

[1] S.2327, Afghan Adjustment Act (July 13, 2023); H.R. 4627, To provide support for nationals of Afghanistan who supported the United States mission in Afghanistan, adequate vetting for parolees from Afghanistan, adjustment of status of eligible individuals, and special immigrant status for at-risk Afghan allies and relatives of certain members of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes (July 13, 2023); Sen Klobuchar, Press Release, Klobuchar, Graham, Coons, Moran, Blumenthal, Murkowski, Shaheen, Wicker, Durbin, Tillis, Miller-Meeks, Blumenauer Reintroduce Bipartisan Legislation to Allow Afghan Allies in the United States to Apply for Permanent Legal Status, (July 14, 2023); Sen. Blumenthal, Press Release, Blumenthal Calls for Path to Permanent Legal Status for At-risk Afghan Allies (July 21, 2023); Sen. Cooss, Press Release, Senator Coons, colleagues introduce bipartisan legislation to allow Afghan allies in U.S. to apply for permanent legal status (July 17, 2023); Sen. Moran, Press Release, Sen. Moran, Colleagues Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Allow Afghans Allies in the United States to Apply for Permanent Legal Status (July 17, 2023); Sen. Tillis, Press Release, Tillis Co-Introduces Legislation to Protect Afghan Allies (July 18, 2023). Rao, Two years later, a renewed push to help Afghan evacuees gain citizenship, StarTribune (July 30, 2023).

[2] Need To Prod Congress To Enact Afghan Adjustment Act, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 17, 2022). See also prior posts about Afghan Adjustment Act, dwkcommentaries.com.

U.N. Demands Release of Guantanamo Prisoner

In November 2022 (and publicly released on April 28, 2023), the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which has no enforcement powers, urged the U.S. to release immediately a prisoner (Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Husayn) who was captured in Pakistan in 2002 and became the first prisoner at a CIA “black site” (secret prison) where he was waterboarded and thereafter held until he was transferred to the Guantanamo prison in 2006. Ever since then he has been held there without charges. The U.S. has argued that although this prisoner was never a member of Al Qaeda, he allegedly helped jihadists reach Afghanistan for training before the 9/11 attacks.[1]

The U.N. Working Group found that this prisoner “had been denied a meaningful review of his detention and so was being unlawfully held. The appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Zubaydah immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.’” Before his transfer to Guantanamo, he was held in CIA sites in Afghanistan, Poland, Morocco, Lithuania and Thailand; in the last of which he was waterboarded, deprived of sleep and confined in a coffin-like box.

His attorney, “Lt. Col. Chantell M. Higgins, a U.S. Marine, said this condemnation should provide “a greater incentive for the United States to find a place for him to go, and release him.”

Another attorney and specialist in international human rights,, Helen Duffy, who brought his case before this U.N. body, said that he “has a well-founded fear of further violations if sent to Saudi [Arabia, where he was born],and we hope to engage with the United States and other states on alternative sites of relocation.”

Colonel Higgins suggested Qatar might be a suitable location as it “has been generous and successfully taken foreigners detained at Guantanamo.”

============================

[1] Rosenberg, U.N. Body Demands Release of Guantanamo Prisoner Who Was Tortured by the C.I.A., N.Y. Times (May 1, 2023). See also U.S. Should Release All Guantanamo Prisoners and Close Down, dwkcommentaries.com (April 29, 2023).

U.S. Adopts Confusing New Program for Resettling Certain Foreigners

On January 19, the Biden Administration announced an additional program for the resettlement of certain foreigners, i.e., “refugees,” in the U.S. that directly will involve U.S. citizens, acting through the State Department’s U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). This new program seeks to resettle refugees from Latin America and the Caribbean with the assistance of Americans “ranging from members of faith and civic groups, veterans, diaspora communities, businesses, colleges and universities, and more.” [1]

This new program already has its own website—Welcome Corps–which says that more than 200 diverse organizations are signaling their support and that Americans will “work in groups of at least five to welcome newcomers by securing and preparing initial housing, greeting refugee newcomers at the airport, enrolling children in school, and helping adults to find employment.” Most importantly, the individuals in these citizen groups will “offer a sense of welcome, belonging, and inclusion for families.”

The “Welcome Corps” website also describes its training program for “providing core private sponsoring services (e.g., housing, benefits and services access, cultural adjustment, etc.) and an overview of how to help facilitate the long-term integration of refugees, . . . the logistics of forming a Private Sponsor Group, fundraising, developing a Welcome Plan, and resiliency-building.” This training must be completed by at least one member of the Private Sponsor Group.”

Who Will Be Welcomed by the Welcome Corps? [2]

The initial Corps materials repeatedly use the word “refugee” to identify the foreigners it will be seeking to help relocate in the U.S. Those same materials also refer to Latin Americans, Caribbeans, Afghans and Ukrainians as people they want to welcome to the U.S. Those are certainly laudatory goals.

But not all of those groups have been determined to meet the legal requirements for “refugee” status under international and U.S. law as shown by the following:

International Law. On April 22, 1954, the international Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees went into force and became a binding treaty after its ratification or accession by the sixth state. Then after its amendment by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees that went into effect on October 4, 1967, the international definition of “refugee” was the following: Any person who “owing to well- founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who,not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

(Excluded from that international definition of “refugee” was “any person . . . [who] (a) . has committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity . . . ; (b) . . . has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee; [and] (c) . . . has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the [U.N.].”)

U.S. Law. The U.S. did not ratify the previously mentioned Protocol (and by incorporation the previously mentioned Convention) until November 1, 1968, and 12 years later the U.S. finally adopted the implementing federal legislation (the Refugee Act of 1980), which defines “refugee” as follows: “any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” That federal statute also provided, “The term ‘refugee’ does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

It must also be noted that this last Session of Congress failed to enact the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would have provided some temporary legal protection for Afghan evacuees who have not been determined to be “refugees.”[3]

Conclusion

It is utterly dumbfounding that the Departments of State and Homeland Security could erroneously use the important legal concept of “refugee” in this matter of foreign policy.

============================

111 State Dep’t, Launch of the Welcome Corps—Private Sponsorship of Refugees (Jan. 19,2023); State Dep’t, U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, (Jan. 19, 2023); Welcome Corps Website, State Dep’t, U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, (Jan. 19,2023); 200+ Organizations Signal Support for the Welcome Corps, New Service, Opportunities for Private Refugee Sponsorship; The Welcome Corps Essentials Training, Jordan, Biden Administration Invites Ordinary Americans to Help Settle Refugees, N.Y. Times (Jan. 19, 2023); Santana, (AP), Welcome Corps provides a new way for Americans to sponsor refugees, Ch. Sci. Monitor (Jan. 19, 2023).

[2] Refugee and Asylum Law: The Modern Era, dwkcommentaries.com (July 9, 2011); Refugee and Asylum Law: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, dwkcommentaries.com (July 10, 2011); Weissbrodt, Ni Aolain, Fitzpatrick & Newman, International Human Rights: Law, Policy, and Process at 1040-42 (4^th ed. 2009).

[3] Need To Prod Congress to Enact the Afghan Adjustment Act, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 17, 2022); Apparent Failure To Enact Bipartisan Immigration Bills, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 18, 2022); Congress Fails to Adopt Important Immigration Bills, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 28, 2022).

Need To Prod Congress To Enact the Afghan Adjustment Act

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial strongly endorsed enactment of the pending Afghan Adjustment Act to provide changes in U.S. immigration law to protect the 67,000 Afghans relocated to the U.S. after its withdrawal of forces from that country.[1]

However, that editorial did not discuss the reasons why Congress has not done so. A recent column in the Philadelphia Inquirer by columnist Trudy Rubin has done that, as discussed below.[2]

Rubin starts with the basic premise that before the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the U.S. Congress ”had promised special immigrant visas to Afghans who worked with our military or civilians” and “[o]nce our allies were without the protection of American forces, they would surely face Taliban revenge.”

The proposed Afghan Adjustment Act addresses these issues. But this bill “is almost dead because political leaders from both parties have chosen to ignore it. If it doesn’t pass this year, there is virtually zero chance a Republican-led Congress will put it forward next year.”

Led by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa is a key opponent of the measure and claims that he and his Republican colleagues “oppose the measure for security reasons. But the Afghans here have already been vetted, and the act would require additional security checks. In other words, the act is a solution to the security problem, not the reverse.”

Moreover, Grassley’s opposition “makes it impossible to attach the act to the omnibus appropriations bill working its way through to passage by year’s end. That is the only path open to getting the Afghan bill through.”

In addition, one of the advocates for the Adjustment Act, Peter Meijer, a Republican representative from Michigan and a veteran of the Iraq war who worked as a civilian in Afghanistan, said that the Biden “administration is not really lifting a finger” for the Act. . . . Nobody is really opposed to it, but nobody is viscerally advocating [for it].”

Another House colleague, Representative Seth Moulton (Democrat, Massachusetts), sees the failure to enact the Act is a stain on American honor. He said, ““We made that promise to protect the Afghan people who risked their lives to help us. We put our word on the line on behalf of our country. And we know how hard it will be in the future conflicts to find foreign allies if we can’t keep our word.”

Therefore, Rye Barcott, a Marine veteran and cofounder of With Honor, a bipartisan organization dedicated to enlisting veterans in public service, said “Legislators need to feel a sense of urgency from their constituents, who need to contact their legislators. . . . right now.”

Conclusion

Therefore, immediately after publishing this post, I will send it along with the one about the Wall Street Journal editorial to my Minnesota Senators, Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, and Representative Ilhan Omar. As a native Iowan, I also will send these posts to Senator Grassley.

===============================

[1] Wall Street Journal Editorial Supports Afghan Evacuees, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 13, 2022).

[2] Rubin, Will Congress really send 80,000 Afghans back to the Taliban?, Phil. Inquirer (Dec. 14, 2022). See also Stockman, Do Right by Our Afghan Allies. Pass the Afghan Adjustment Act, N.Y. Times (Dec. 16, 2022).

Wall Street Journal Editorial Supports Afghan Evacuees

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial calls for congressional passage of the Afghan Adjustment Act. [1] This is what it said.

“President Biden’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 ended the free choice of countless Afghans, and thousands who fled to the U.S. are now at risk of losing even more. A fix is on Congress’s agenda, but time is running out.”

“As the Taliban regime retook the country, more than 79,000 Afghans were evacuated to the U.S. They have already undergone vetting, and the majority were granted a temporary immigration status known as humanitarian parole, which offers no path to permanent residency. It also expires after two years.”

“That impending deadline weighs on Mohammad Khisraw Noori, 36, who worked for a time as an interpreter for the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan. Mr. Noori fled to the U.S. with his wife, Waghma, daughter Adeeba, now 6, and son Ebadul Rahman, now 4. They’re in California.”

“’Sometimes I feel like I’m dreaming: How is it possible when I wake up that I’m not worried about something bad?’ he says. ‘If you ask my girl, she’ll say, I’m from America,’ not Afghanistan. She’ll say, ‘I’m so happy here, there’s no shooting.’” Yet Mr. Noori can’t reassure Adeeba that they can stay.”

“When humanitarian parole expires, these Afghans can’t legally stay in the U.S., and the risk of deportation looms. They could seek renewal of their parole or temporary protected status, but neither promises long-term stability. They could ask for asylum, but the dysfunctional U.S. immigration system already faces lengthy backlogs. Tens of thousands of Afghan applicants would exacerbate the problem, and it might be years before they know their fates.”

“’A lot of folks are kind of in limbo,’ says Matt Watters, a Green Beret who served in Afghanistan and is a friend of Mr. Noori. ‘It’s hard for them to invest in certifications that are U.S.-specific, or go to college, or buy a home or a car if they don’t know if they can stay.’”

“The solution is a bill called the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would provide a path to a green card for those currently on humanitarian parole. The legislation would put these Afghans through another round of vetting, looking for links to drug trafficking or terrorism. Anyone who committed a crime after arriving in the U.S. would be disqualified.”

“The U.S. already offers a special immigrant visa that gives permanent residence to Afghans who worked closely with the U.S. government and military. The Afghan Adjustment Act would create a similar pathway for those who fought the Taliban by serving Afghanistan’s Army Special Operations Command, Air Force, Special Mission Wing or Female Tactical Teams. Their spouses and children would be eligible as well.”

“Not all Afghans who supported the American mission managed to escape. The U.S. has no embassy in the country today, but the bill would require the State Department to establish an office that could review Afghans’ applications and issue visas, and an interagency task force would work to alleviate constraints.”

“The Taliban takeover was a particular tragedy for Afghans who supported the U.S. mission, fought for the rights of women, or sought to build a civil society and a free political system. The U.S. has a moral obligation to do what it can to mitigate the harm of Mr. Biden’s catastrophic withdrawal, and passing the Afghan Adjustment Act would be a good start.”

Conclusion

This blog has supported the immediate adoption of the Afghan Adjustment Act based, in part, upon this blogger’s involvement in Minneapolis’ Westminster Church’s co-sponsorship of an Afghan family.[2]

==============================

[1] Editorial, Afghan Allies Still Need America’s Help, W.S.J. (Dec. 12, 2022).

[2] Immense Problems Hampering U.S. Efforts To Resettle Afghans, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 22, 2022); More Criticism of U.S. Means of Addressing Immigration Needs of Afghan Evacuees, dwkcommentaries.com (Nov. 3, 2021); U.S. Resettlement of Refugees and Recent Afghan Evacuees, dwkcommentaries.com (Sept. 21, 2021).

More Criticism of U.S. Means of Addressing Immigration Needs of Afghan Evacuees

This blog previously discussed the complexity of meeting the U.S. immigration needs of Afghan evacuees, estimated at 65,000 to 199,000 less than two weeks ago.[1] This analysis has been underscored by John T. Medeiros, an experienced U.S. immigration attorney and the Chair of the Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.[2]

According to Medeiros, this subject was the focus of a recent conference call with nearly 100 immigration lawyers across the U.S.

He noted that he and many other immigration lawyers have been focused on assisting “family members and friends of Afghan allies in applying for humanitarian parole, which the federal Immigration Service says “is used to bring someone who is otherwise inadmissible to the United States for a temporary period of time due to an emergency.”

This conference call emphasized the following current status of this situation:

“Within the past two months there have been over 17,000 applications for humanitarian parole filed with the USCIS.”
“Each application includes a filing fee of $575; in the past two months the USCIS has received an estimated $9.8 million in fees.”
“While there is an option to request a fee waiver, almost all applications filed with a fee waiver have been rejected by the USCIS.”
“For the pending 17,000 applications there are a total of six USCIS adjudicators.”
“Since Sept. 1, USCIS has not processed any applications for individuals still in Afghanistan.”
“Since that same date, USCIS has processed ‘a handful of applications’ for Afghan nationals displaced in a third country.”
“USCIS is expected to soon announce its plans to adjudicate those applications that remain pending, with priority given to individuals who are not physically in Afghanistan. The rationale for this decision is that third-country nationals would be able to obtain the required travel permission in the form of a visa at a U.S. consular post in the third country, while visa services have been suspended within Afghanistan.”
“It is unclear if [U.S.] visas will be issued to displaced Afghan nationals who are not in possession of a valid passport.”

This horrible situation, said Medeiros, caused the participants in this conference call to demand the following actions:

“[We] call on Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to immediately allocate sufficient resources to the USCIS for the swift adjudication of the pending 17,000 applications for humanitarian parole and to approve applications for fee waivers for applicants who meet the eligibility criteria.”

“After these applications have been approved, we call on Secretary of State Antony Blinken to expedite the vetting process and the issuance of visas to displaced Afghan nationals, including those who are not in possession of a valid passport.”

“[We] call on the office of the White House to authorize the U.S. Department of Defense to send military flights to countries with concentrations of displaced Afghan nationals, and evacuate those with valid claims to asylum, Special Immigrant Visas or any other immigration benefit.”

“[We] call on Congress to swiftly pass the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would provide a path to permanent residence for those Afghan evacuees who have risked their lives in support of U.S. military efforts. It is the least we can do to honor the sacrifices our Afghan allies have made for the benefit of American democracy.”

Conclusion

These recommendations are endorsed by this blogger, who is a retired lawyer who did not specialize in immigration law, but who in the mid-1980s learned certain aspects of immigration and asylum law and then served as a pro bono lawyer for asylum seekers from El Salvador and other countries.[3]

This endorsement is also buttressed by my current service on the Refugee Co-Sponsorship Team at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church, which is now co-sponsoring an Afghan family with the assistance of the Minnesota Council of Churches. [4]

===============================

[1] Immense Problems Hampering U.S. Efforts To Resettle Afghans, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 22, 2021).

[2] Medeiros, We’re still failing Afghan allies. Why no outrage?, StarTribune (Nov. 2, 2021); John t. Medeiros [Biography]; American Immigration Lawyers Association, Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter.

[3] Becoming a Pro Bono Asylum Lawyer, dwkcommentareis.com (May 24, 2011); My Pilgrimage to El Salvador, April 1989, dwkcommentaries.com (May 25, 2011); Teaching the International Human Rights Course, dwkcommentaries.com (July 1, 2011).

[4] Schulze, Campbell & Krohnke, Our Sojourners Have Arrived, Westminster News, p.7 (Nov. 2021).

Immense Problems Hampering U.S. Efforts To Resettle Afghans

Since the U.S. evacuation of Afghanistan on August 31, 2021, the U.S. has been engaged in the complicated task of resettling an anticipated 65,000 to 100,000 Afghans in the U.S. Now the U.S. Government is admitting that its initial goal of completing these resettlements by the end of this year cannot be achieved and that it will take through March 2022 if not longer. [1]

Locations of Afghans Evacuated by U.S.

The only somewhat comprehensive accounting of where these people are today that this blogger has been able to find is a Wall Street Journal article vaguely describing Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s October 8 written responses to written questions from Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Here are those approximate numbers:

During August 2021, 124,000 people were evacuated from that country by the U.S., 85% or 105,400 of whom were Afghans.
Approximately 53,000 of these Afghan evacuees were living at eight U.S. military bases in this country; 34% were male adults, 22% were female adults and 44% were children.
Other Afghan evacuees (perhaps 6,000 to 10,000) were at U.S. military installations in Germany, Spain, Italy and Kosovo.
Another 6,000 have been resettled in the U.S.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates have provided temporary space for screening and vetting by Departments of Defense and State and other federal agencies..

U.S. Immigration Status of Afghan Evacuees.

Humanitarian Parole

Most Afghan evacuees arrive in the U.S. as humanitarian parolees with eligibility to apply for work authorization. Such permits are granted on a case-by-case basis permitting them to stay for two years after appropriate screening and vetting and subject to medical screening and vaccination and reporting requirements. Failure to meet these conditions may be cause for denial of work authorization and potentially termination of the parole and initiation of detention and removal.

Moreover, “humanitarian parolees lack a path to legal U.S. residency and the benefits and services offered to traditional refugees, according to U.S. officials and aid groups working closely with the government.” Instead, “Afghan parolees who have arrived at U.S. military bases will be eligible for an ad hoc State Department program that provides limited assistance for up to 90 days, including a one-time $1,250 stipend. But they will not have the full range of medical, counseling and resettlement services available to immigrants who arrive through the U.S. refugee program.”

Afghan Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs)

Some evacuees may qualify for the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) by meeting the following requirements:

“Employment in Afghanistan for at least one year between October 7, 2001, and December 31, 2023, by or on behalf of the U.S. government or by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), or a successor mission in a capacity that required the applicant to serve as an interpreter or translator for U.S. military personnel while traveling off-base with U.S. military personnel stationed at ISAF or to perform activities for U.S. military personnel stationed at ISAF; “and
“Have experienced or be experiencing an ongoing threat as a consequence of their employment.”

On October 21, U.S. Senators Inhofe (R-Okla.), Risch (R-Idaho) and Portman (R-Ohio) sent a letter requesting a joint review and audit of the SIV program to the inspectors general of the Departments of State, Defense and Homeland Security and the U.S. Agency for international Development. These Senators contend that in the “chaotic and haphazard U.S. withdrawal” from Afghanistan “thousands of SIV applicants were shamefully left behind,[putting them] at great risk, vulnerable to retaliation from the Taliban due to their association with the [U.S.].”

The same day (October 21), Senator Inhofe stated that a classified briefing on security in Afghanistan confirmed that after the U.S. withdrawal the U.S. “is now less safe” and that the “Taliban can’t—and won’t –do anything to prevent al-Qaeda from training or launching attacks from Afghanistan” and in fact will only “enable al-Qaeda.” These issues will be probed in an upcoming hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Priority 2 (P-2) Designations

Other evacuees may be eligible for Priority 2 (P-2) designation granting U.S. Refugee Admissions Program access for Afghans and their eligible family members by satisfying on of the following conditions;

“Afghans who do not meet the minimum time-in-service for a SIV but who work or worked as employees of contractors, locally-employed staff, interpreters/translators for the U.S. government, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOXRX-A), International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), or Resolute Support;”
“Afghans who work or worked for a U.S. government-funded program or project in Afghanistan supported through a U.S. government grant or cooperative agreement;” or
“Afghans who are or were employed in Afghanistan by a U.S.-based media organization or non-governmental organization.”

Priority 1 (P-1) Designations

Afghans also could be eligible for “the Priority (P-1) program by virtue of their circumstances and apparent need for resettlement who are referred to the P-1 program . . . by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), a U.S. embassy, or a designated NGO.”

Asylum Applicants

Another option for the parolees is to apply for asylum on proof of “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Such a claim realistically requires the services of a U.S. attorney knowledgeable about asylum law and procedures, preferably a pro bono attorney who serves without a fee. The current horrible backlog in immigration courts makes this a very challenging undertaking.

Green Card Proposal

On September 7, President Biden submitted to Congress a request for authorization of green cards for Afghan s after a year in the U.S. This was part of a request for $6.4 billion for the Afghan resettlement effort.

Other Practical Problems

Another problem causing delays is an outbreak of measles in the Afghan evacuees that prompted military base officials to carry out a broad vaccination effort against measles, Covid-19 and polio.

Yet another problem causing delays in Afghan resettlement is the current U.S. housing shortage coupled with soaring rents and the resulting reluctance of landlords to take on potential tenants with no existing income or credit scores. Moreover, initially the Afghans had to live within a hundred miles of a resettlement agency, the number of which shrunk as a result of the Trump Administration reducing the number of refugees the us. would accept for resettlement.

Resettling them in places that have sizable existing Afghan communities would make a lot of sense except that many of those places like California and northern Virginia are particularly expensive.

There also have been other practical problems. Some of the living facilities on U.S. military bases at least initially were inadequate in many ways, and warmer clothing for the Afghans was in short supply. In addition, travel for the Afghans from military bases to their final destinations was organized by the International Organization for Migration, a U.N. agency that has been understaffed in the U.S.

Conclusion

The issues presented by resettlement of Afghan evacuees are very complex, and this blogger would greatly appreciate comments correcting or amplifying this post’s discussion.

====================

[1] U.S. Dep’t Homeland Security, Fact Sheet on Operation Allies Welcome; Friedman, U.S. Housing Market Needs 5.5 Million More Units, Says New report, W.S.J. (June 16, 2021); Parti & Hackman, Biden Administration Proposes Asylum Overhaul to Reduce Backlog, Speed Deportations, W.S.J. (Aug. 18, 2021); Hackman, U.S. Refugee Organizations Race to Prepare for Influx of Afghans, W.S.J. (Aug. 31, 2021); Hackman & Hughes, Biden Administration Seeks New Law to Ease Afghan Refugees‘ Path to Green Cards, W.S.J. (Sept. 8, 2021); U.S. Resettlement of Refugees and Recent Afghan Evacuees, dwkcommentaries.con (Sept. 8, 2021); McBride & iddiqui, U.S. Suspends Flights of Afghans After Four Test Positive for Measles, W.S. J. (Sept. 10, 2021); Parker, Soaring Rents Makes It a Very Good time to Own an Apartment Building, W. S. J. (Sept. 14, 2021); Hackman, Afghan Refugees in the U.S.: How They’re Vetted, Where They’re Going and How to Help, W.S.J. (Sept. 15, 2021); Kesling, A U.S. Military Base Needs to Make 13,000 Afghan Evacuees Feel at Home, W.S.J. (Oct. 1, 2021); George & Mehrdad, Routes out of Afghanistan dwindle as Pakistan cancels flights, Wash. Post (Oct. 14, 2021); Kesling & Hackman, U.S. Afghan Resettlements Slowed by Housing Shortage, Old Technology, W.S.J. (Oct. 17, 2021); Youssef, Almost Half of Afghan Evacuees at U.S.Bases Are Children, Pentagon Says, W.S.J. (Oct. 20, 2021); Sen. Inhofe Press Release, Inhofe, Risch, Portman request Investigation of SIV Program Shortcomings Amid Afghanistan Withdrawal (Oct. 21, 2021); Sen. Inhofe Press Release, Inhofe Statement on Afghanistan Security Briefing (Oct. 21, 2021).