Immigration

Afghan Interpreters Risked Everything To Help American Soldiers. Now They Might Be Left Behind.

"I am currently very afraid," an interpreter tells Reason. "I...have no doubt that I will be targeted and get killed."

|

American troops are scheduled to come home from Afghanistan by September 11. What will become of the Afghan interpreters who have helped those troops is less clear.

Sayed is one of those interpreters. He worked alongside U.S. forces for 10 years, assisting high-ranking military officials with his knowledge of the local language and customs. "I received letters of appreciation, letters of recommendations, and medals," he tells Reason.

Even with this record, Sayed has spent more than a decade trying to acquire a visa to come to the United States. American ties carry grave risks in Afghanistan. Already the recipient of Taliban death threats and anonymous hostile phone calls, Sayed fears his time is running out. 

"I am currently very afraid," he says. "I…have no doubt that I will be targeted and get killed."

In 2009, the U.S. government set up an immigration pathway for interpreters like Sayed. That program is called the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) for Afghans, and it is supposed to reward interpreters for "faithful and valuable service to the U.S. government." Afghans who have completed at least two years of service to U.S. forces are eligible to apply. 

But application backlogs, administrative foot dragging, and bureaucratic errors are making it nearly impossible for Afghan interpreters to access those visas. Unable to take advantage of the opportunity supposedly afforded to them in return for their service, interpreters stranded in Afghanistan face extreme danger. That will worsen as they lose the protection of the U.S. military presence. 

Margaret Stock, an immigration lawyer and 2013 MacArthur genius grant recipient, tells Reason that the program has long been flawed. In addition to an intensive 14-step application process that interpreters have to navigate, "security checks" and a "lack of trained personnel" keep wait times lengthy, she says. While Congress mandates that the application process be completed within nine months, the current processing period is nearly three years long.

"If [the Department of State] actually devoted resources to the processing, each case should only take a couple of months," says Stock. 

Sayed is one of many interpreters waiting on what could be a life-saving answer from the U.S. government. Since December 2014, 26,500 SIVs have been allocated. There are now 18,000 SIV applications pending, though there are more than 10,000 unused visas as of January. If you add the applicants' family members, who do not count toward the visa cap, around 70,000 Afghans are in limbo.

Even when applications are finally processed, government errors may wrongly lead to visa denials.

"I am seeing a lot of [applications] denied because [the Department of State] has made mistakes with the applications," says Stock. Those include "a bad translator at the visa interview" misunderstanding something important, confusion on the State Department's part, and "'revenge' cases"—when an interpreter's enemy plants bad info to get a visa denied.

Sayed says that's why he's been waiting more than a decade for his visa. He "was recommended for termination" from his job in 2012 after other interpreters claimed he was receiving undue pay. Soon after that, his SIV petition was revoked. He reapplied and sought the necessary chief-of-mission approval, which he had received once before, and finally got it again earlier this year. Now his application is one of thousands in the backlog. 

Sayed says he has been forced to avoid tribe and family gatherings because of his ties to the U.S. military. Family members report that he is often called a spy. Once, he says, he found a letter from the Taliban in his yard, threatening to kill him as "a lesson" to other Afghans working with Americans. The U.S. government does not record interpreter deaths, but over 300 Afghan interpreters and family members are thought to have died since 2014. Many of them were waiting for visas.

Janis Shinwari managed to secure one. He served as an interpreter in Afghanistan for eight years and got his SIV after a nearly three-year wait. After coming to the U.S. he co-founded No One Left Behind, a group that assists new SIV arrivals and advocates expedited visa processing. 

He knows better than most that "a visa is not only a visa" but "the beginning of a new life." Part of his mission at No One Left Behind is to convince the government that "we don't have to let [interpreters] die because of their service." 

According to Shinwari, thousands of applicants have "received their approval" and are waiting for their interviews—and thousands have "passed the interview" and are waiting for visas.

"These are the last people we should be pulling the rope away from," says Gil Barndollar, a senior research fellow at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship. As a Marine, Barndollar deployed twice to Afghanistan and relied on interpreters during his tours of duty; he notes that Afghan interpreters have already undergone extensive background checks by virtue of their military service. Because of this, he says, "the odds of an SIV recipient committing an act of jihad or becoming a militant are in the ballpark of being struck by lightning. It effectively doesn't happen." It's "ridiculous" to think that vetted SIV recipients are security risks, he says. Just one out of 70,000 Afghan and Iraqi SIV recipients has tried to join a terrorist group.

Government officials have not responded to these calls with urgency. In early February, President Joe Biden issued an executive order on immigration and called for a review of SIV programs to be carried out within six months. On May 19, Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D–N.H.) and Joni Ernst (R–Iowa) sent a bipartisan letter urging the administration to reevaluate the Afghan SIV program. They recommended speeding up the visa-granting process as well as increasing the number of visas allotted. Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R–Ill.) and Earl Blumenauer (D–Ore.) introduced a bill to that effect on Tuesday. If passed, it would allocate an additional 4,000 visas for Afghans.

But it'll be hard to accomplish meaningful change now, given how long the SIV program has been dysfunctional. "This mess has been going on for more than a decade," says Stock. "Obama couldn't fix it in eight years. Trump made it worse. Biden doesn't have the people in place to fix it, let alone in a few months." 

Because of the program's issues, many are proposing alternative measures. Rep. Michael McCaul (R–Texas) said Afghans may need to be airlifted to safer nearby countries until their applications are processed. Matt Zeller, who co-founded No One Left Behind with Shinwari, says "it's Guam or bust"—a reference to the post–Vietnam War operations that brought over 100,000 Vietnamese refugees to the U.S. territory for visa processing. Standard immigration pathways, like seeking refugee status, are simply too lengthy given the impending U.S. withdrawal. "Your odds drop through the floor once you're in the regular refugee pool," says Barndollar. "You've got a long, long wait if you don't have some kind of workaround like the SIV program."

Without quick action, interpreters and their families will face a catastrophe, says Stock. "We are about to see a repeat of the bloodbath at the end of the Vietnam War, where people were hanging off helicopters in Saigon, only worse." 

Shinwari's life could not be more different since coming to the U.S. "The first night when I slept here in a hotel, that was my first night in my entire life that I slept without any fear," he says. "I slept without hearing any gunshots. I slept without hearing any rocket attacks." It was not just a matter of physical safety: "I finally understood that I have rights in this country." 

Interpreters like Shinwari put themselves in grave danger to serve a country they had never even visited, and those who have made it here are clearly giving back to their communities. "These are young, forward-looking, entrepreneurial people" who are "exactly what you want in new immigrants and people coming to this country," says Barndollar. Sayed, his family, and thousands of other Afghans deserve that opportunity.

If they don't get it, Shinwari adds, Washington will be hard-pressed to find helpers in whatever wars lie ahead. "No one will trust us in the future. Nobody."

NEXT: On Pot Legalization, Biden Offers Only Inaction

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings DEW are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…..VISIT HERE

  1. I can save the feds a few million dollars in consultant fees evaluating the process.
    Question one, to the applicant; did you serve the USA?
    Question two, to the applicants supervisor; did this person serve the USA?
    Two ‘yes’ answers, and hand them the visa and a pane ticket.

    Free market alternative: Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and George Soros actually show the concern for the downtrodden they claim, and charter a few hundred jumbo jets to fly these men and their families to the airport closest to the Mexico – USA border, and escort them into the USA.

    1. Based on Vietnam and Iraq, I doubt this.
      Only Ross Perot has shown that kind of balls.

      1. Hell, we did it to the Philippines in the ‘40s. Its what we do.

        1. I get paid over $92 per hour working from home. l never thought l’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 53k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. START HERE. http://rep10.com

          1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. Gates bezos and soros would never help someone that likes the US. They are more likely tk help the people shooting at the troops

      1. Soros bet against the UK and made billions off of the devaluation of the British Pound. Therefore a point to reference him. Nothing similar for Gates or Bezos.

        That said, I’m curious how a good Democrat party activist like you is good with Soros funded groups funneling money to the most progressive of the progressive left of the Democrat Party and candidates.

        1. Nothing similar for Gates or Bezos.

          Have you looked at their business practices and their relationship with the US government?

    3. They’re not above deporting foreigners who served this country. You think they’re going to work at importing any?

    4. I can save the feds a few million dollars in consultant fees evaluating the process.
      Question one, to the applicant; did you serve the USA?
      Question two, to the applicants supervisor; did this person serve the USA?
      Two ‘yes’ answers, and hand them the visa and a pane ticket.

      So, if you serve the US military-industrial and the US state willingly, unquestionably, and faithfully, you should get a visa to the US?

      How is that a “libertarian” position?

      1. Ah yes, people doing things willingly and faithfully, so un-libertarian

        1. If you willingly and faithfully serve big government, you are pretty much by definition not a libertarian or interested in promoting liberty.

          Good grief, do you even think before writing?

          1. Protecting people who put their lives and the lives of their families at risk to help the US save American lives in a combat zone is libertarian.

            Maybe we shouldn’t have gone to war – maybe the standing military is too large – maybe this – maybe that – what we do know about these people is they risked their lives and the lives of their families to help the US.

            The lest we can do is give them a seat at the citizenship table.

  2. Let’s hope the application reviewers have not read The Manchurian Candidate,

  3. Can’t bring these guys over because we have to leave room for the million or so Central Americans that’ll come across the Mexican border and claim asylum.

    Biden could fix this with a phone and a pen, but he won’t.

    1. They took away his phone, and can’t figure out how to use a pen.

    2. But brown people are much more reliable and compliant D supporters. Yellow people are too successful to fit the down-trodden meme, and have been getting too uppity.

  4. “No one will trust us in the future. Nobody.”

    So there’s at least one good thing coming out of this clusterfuck.

  5. Who wants to import a bunch of traitors?

    1. Rephrased in 176: Who wants to belong to a government spurred on by a bunch of traitors?

      Idiot.

  6. Can’t help but wonder if part of the reason this is taking so long is because of the backlog of bogus asylum claims from El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Before Obama implemented his dreamer EO, we had less than a thousand asylum claims from those three countries combined every year. At the worst of the asylum seeker crisis, we were getting more than 100,000 asylum claims a month from those three countries. The same federal agencies processing those claims are the same ones processing visas for Afghan interpreters.

    More than 90% of asylum seekers from El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua are either denied an asylum hearing for failing to claim any kind of persecution, never show up for their asylum hearing, or are denied asylum at their hearing. If Afghan interpreters are killed because our agencies are flooded with hundreds of thousands of bogus asylum claims, then making a bogus asylum claim is not a victimless behavior. I feel pity for the 10% who are legitimately fleeing persecution from those three countries, too.

    1. Sounds like they just need more money!

      1. Or the Supreme Court should have struck down Obama’s DACA EO as the unconstitutional monstrosity it is–instead of kicking the can down the road and asking for more documentation after the election.

        When there were more than 100,000 asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle countries per month, 80% of them were either children or families traveling with children.

        Some people find it hard to understand that promising not to deport children will incentivize people to send their children to the United States. They’re incredibly stupid.

        Pretending the negative consequences of our choices don’t exist if we don’t like them isn’t exclusive to progressives, but it is both emblematic of progressives and typical. It’s another reason why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

  7. These are Afghanis’ right? There are tens of thousands of them? This is their country whether they worked for us or not. Arm them and set them loose to defend their country. If we let everyone who does not agree with the fascist Taliban emigrate, then all there will be left will be the Taliban and those they oppress. Mass emigration has done more to destroy countries then just about anything else, and no I am not talking about keeping them out. My special redneck law: if you let everyone who wants out out then all you are left with is the rednecks (yes there are rednecks in all societies and they are excessively religious and love to fight and drink) and the overlord class. In the case of Afghanistan, they can’t even drink so all they have left is fighting. Take Central America for instance, anyone who had drive to work and secede but did not have family connections headed north to the US, leaving the lazy or those who were too weak to make the trip and the Oligarchs and they are pretty much all utter s@#t holes, no local industry, no strive to improve the situation. Same with the Middle East, outside of Iran what country makes anything (other than oil and airlines)? Anyone with any brains or strive to improve themselves headed out of there to the America or Europe. Imagine if they had stayed and used that same energy to fix their own countries.

    1. It is in the best interests of American security for us to reward the people who willingly put their lives in danger to help the U.S. military fight our enemies, and it appears to me that this is what they interpreters did.

      If we have a legitimate war in the future in which we need interpreters and other locals to assist us fighting our enemies, we’ll want them to cooperate, as well. Leaving people to die because they helped the United States is no way to win the assistance of our friends against our enemies.

      Meanwhile, military service has been a legitimate ticket to citizenship since the ancient world, and that’s how I see these people, who risked everything, including the chance to live without being tortured to death after we leave, in order to help us achieve our military goals.

      They paid a terrible price for the benefit of our country, and if risking their lives to defend the Constitution from foreign threats isn’t a legitimate ticket to U.S. citizenship, then what should be? The progressive mind set of some of the authors here makes it look like these are charity cases–because that’s how progressive think, in terms of charity for the pitiful.

      If we reject the progressive mindset, we shouldn’t internalize it and think in progressive terms. I would argue, instead, that these interpreters have earned our respect.

      1. They paid a terrible price for the benefit of our country, and if risking their lives to defend the Constitution from foreign threats isn’t a legitimate ticket to U.S. citizenship, then what should be?

        You have no idea what their motivations were. Their lives were already at risk, in particular from the US military, so collaboration may have been a simple utilitarian calculus rather than a commitment to the Constitution.

        If we have a legitimate war in the future in which we need interpreters and other locals to assist us fighting our enemies,

        Really? What third world sh-thole do you want to invade next? And why wouldn’t the extensive linguistic training our troops receive, not to mention AI translators, be sufficient?

        In any case, it’s not even that these people aren’t getting visas, it’s that they apparently aren’t getting visas fast enough for some people’s taste. Odd, however, that after 10 years of working for the US, Sayed hasn’t been able to complete his 3 year application process.

        1. Really? What third world sh-thole do you want to invade next? And why wouldn’t the extensive linguistic training our troops receive, not to mention AI translators, be sufficient?

          I’m pretty sure we will continue invading third world shit holes for the foreseeable future, regardless of whether I wasn’t us to or not.

          And it’s not just language, its regional dialects, local customs, knowledge of terrain and geography, and even intel that the interpreters can provide. I’d like to see your AI translator point to a map and say “the insurgents like to hide in this cave to ambush people on the road”

          1. The legitimate purpose of the military is to protect our rights from foreign threats, and doing that may entail us operating in a foreign country at some point in the future.

            Abandoning those who risk their lives to help defend the Constitution from our enemies is not the way to ensure their assistance–not after they’ve helped us.

            And if and when there are situations when we find ourselves in foreign countries to defend the Constitution and our rights from our enemies, everyone should understand that we plan to leave from the beginning.

            If you want them to understand that we’re planning to leave, someday, from the moment we arrive, it should behoove us for them to understand that if they help us defend the Constitution, we won’t abandon them behind to be butchered when we go.

          2. I’m pretty sure we will continue invading third world shit holes for the foreseeable future, regardless of whether I wasn’t us to or not.

            Well, I see no reason for making that any easier for politicians. Nor do I want the US to have to welcome tens of thousands of refugees from those shit holes every time we do.

            1. Tens of thousands? How many interpreters do you think we employ?

              Secondarily – damn you’re negative. Just because these people come from a 3rd world country doesn’t mean they have such little value to offer the US that we should fear tens of thousands of refugees.

              But these aren’t refugees. These aren’t random people who lost their homes. These are people with enough of a skill set to help the US while staying alive.

              Lastly – their motivations – you have no idea what the motivations are of the single soldier either. Some are there for duty. Some because they fully believe in the mission. Others still because they wanted money for college and recognize they might get called up and were (subset of duty I suppose). Irregardless which group a soldier belongs too or what their motivations, we still give medals for heroic actions on the field of battle.

              Point being is we don’t motivations of the interpreters and we don’t need to know. We only need to know the extent they helped the US and ensure their motivation wasn’t a long game terrorist action. Then we should find a quick.ish way to let them in (quick.ish as background checks and whatnot are still required).

  8. Excellent article about a deeply concerning issue!

    Some people in the comments section seem to be more worried about countries and borders than saving the lives that played a crucial role in the combat against the Taliban and now are facing the risk of imminent death.

    1. I think some of the staff have played the pity party role for so long on immigration related issues, that readers are starting to think about all related issues in the same terms. Incidentally, they aren’t doing asylum seekers from Northern Triangle countries any favors by trying to make their readers feel sorry for them either.

      The best reason to let hardworking poor people into this country is because it’s in the best interests of the United States and our economy to do so. When progressives masquerading as libertarian journalists make the Marxist case for letting them in on the basis of how sorry we should feel for pathetic people, I suspect it’s often because they don’t understand or appreciate the capitalist case for immigration. Regardless, it shouldn’t surprise anybody to see readers subjected to such arguments come to the conclusion that such immigrants are pathetic.

      They may have been treated badly in their home countries, but they aren’t pathetic. Immigrants are an engine of economic growth. If cheap labor were bad for economic growth, China would have have had the slowest growing economy in the world over the last 20 years.

      And, likewise, if people who’ve defended the Constitution with their lives haven’t earned a path to citizenship–with their bravery–then something is wrong. Maybe the thing that’s wrong is the way the argument is being presented–as if we should feel sorry for them rather than how we should respect them because they earned it.

      1. “When progressives masquerading as libertarian journalists make the Marxist case for…”

        Oh, FFS, Ken. How can anyone take you seriously when you spew nonsense like this.

        1. How can anyone take you seriously, when all you do is squawk like a bird, Dee?

        2. Because in Ken’s mind it is always Team Blue’s fault. Always.

          No mention how, for the past 6 years, it has been nothing but Team Red squealing about border security. Oh no, the reason why people are hostile to immigration isn’t because Team Red has been pushing nativism and xenophobia for a decade now. Oh no, it’s because progressives are pushing Marxism. LOL

          1. Except he didn’t blame it on Team Blue. He made a compelling case for immigration from a libertarian and capitalistic point of view.

          2. because Team Red has been pushing nativism and xenophobia for a decade now

            And as an immigrant, I agree: it is important to preserve the original American culture and values and Americans ought to be scared of much of the rest of the world.

            I would not have immigrated into the kind of nation you are trying to create, Chemjeff: an impoverished sh-thole torn apart by class and ethnic struggles.

          3. As noted – idiot, Ken didn’t blame Team Blue at all. Your reading comprehension level isn’t that great is it?

      2. The article includes the quote

        “These are young, forward-looking, entrepreneurial people” who are “exactly what you want in new immigrants and people coming to this country,” says Barndollar.”

        which is exactly what you’re asking for.

        The article says these people should get what they were promised, and you claim it’s Marxist pity? What planet are you on?

        1. “I think some of the staff have played the pity party role for so long on immigration related issues, that readers are starting to think about all related issues in the same terms.”

          —-Ken Shultz

          That comment, in particular, wasn’t directed at the article. It was a response to someone who was commenting on the general attitude of the commentariat, and if you’ve been reading Shika Dalmia, et. al. articles on immigration–and the comments responding to them–for the last four years , you know what I’m talking about.

          When the doctor hits you on the knee with a tiny rubber hammer, he isn’t surprised if you have a knee-jerk reaction, and the staff at Reason have been hitting these commenters over the head with a pity party for immigrants on a regular basis for years. Don’t hit ’em with a progressive mentality like that and be surprised at their anti-progressive reaction.

          1. Yes that’s right Ken. The real villains here are the people who have been advocating for compassionate for poor people, not the people who have been preaching nativism and xenophobia. God what a retarded take.

            1. Being disingenuous is bad for any argument. I’m not surprised you don’t grasp that concept.

            2. The real villains here are the people who have been advocating for compassionate for poor people

              Yes, that’s who the real villains usually are. We call such people “socialists” and “fascists”.

              Advocating compassion is to practicing compassion like telling others to diet is to actually dieting.

      3. The best reason to let hardworking poor people into this country is because it’s in the best interests of the United States and our economy to do so. it preserves their liberty and protects their natural rights.

        there, fixed it for ya, “Libertarian” Ken

        1. I agree: Ken’s argument was not libertarian.

          As to your correction, libertarians are under no obligation to preserve the liberty and protect the natural rights of others through collective or government action.

          So, you are right that that is “the best reason” to let people into the US, but it doesn’t imply a legal or moral obligation to do so.

          1. The person you responded to doesn’t care whether he’s wrong or right and doesn’t care whether what he says is rational. He’s a notorious troll. DFTT.

            “As to your correction, libertarians are under no obligation to preserve the liberty and protect the natural rights of others through collective or government action.”

            Actually, if government has any legitimate purpose at all, it is to protect our rights–including our association rights. I am not here for your benefit, and if I want to hire someone to mow my lawn, using the government to stop me is a violation of my rights.

            1. Actually, if government has any legitimate purpose at all, it is to protect our rights–including our association rights. I am not here for your benefit, and if I want to hire someone to mow my lawn, using the government to stop me is a violation of my rights.

              It is. And your desire to finance the infrastructure, healthcare, and schooling that your lawn mowing foreigner requires using the government is a violation of my rights, since I pay a lot of taxes. That’s the way government currently functions: it limits both of our rights in ways neither of us like.

              I’m happy to do everything I can to let you hire cheap foreign labor to your heart’s content just as soon (and no sooner) as I do not have to pay federal income and capital gains taxes anymore. How about it?

              1. “And your desire to finance the infrastructure, healthcare, and schooling that your lawn mowing foreigner requires using the government is a violation of my rights”

                Actually, I oppose all of those things. All of the welfare state including public schools.

                However, I don’t make any distinctions between citizens and non-citizens when it comes to socialist welfare.

                Being a citizen entitles you to vote, hold office, and be within our borders. There is a system where people are entitled to things based on their citizenship, but I am not a communist. There is a system where people’s rights are respected based on whether the government says they’re entitled to those rights, but I am not an authoritarian.

                There isn’t anything that makes me feel better about being robbed by a native born American citizen, rather than an illegal immigrant, and I refuse to pretend that the money they steal from me to pay for American citizens is somehow justified by their citizenship. And if you’re asking me to pretend that immigrants aren’t entitled to these things because they’re not citizens, then that’s what you’re asking me to do.

                Meanwhile, if you’re suggesting that the government shouldn’t protect my freedom of association until they stop being socialist, that’s ridiculous. It isn’t just that one shouldn’t depend on the others–they don’t depend on each other. My freedom of association rights are mine regardless of whether the government is socialist, and how dare you suggest otherwise?

                1. And if you’re asking me to pretend that immigrants aren’t entitled to these things because they’re not citizens, then that’s what you’re asking me to do.

                  I’m not asking you to “pretend” anything. You can believe in whatever rights you like. The fact is that the country we live in is not a libertarian country. Neither of us gets the rights we think we are entitled to, and we resolve conflicts at the ballot box. Until the laws change, you’ll go to jail for smuggling in illegals, and I’d go to jail for not paying my taxes.

                  Under the US system of government, we are forced to make a decision on what kind of society we want to live in at the ballot box; in the US, we can’t escape the consequences of collective decisions. And the simple fact is: I don’t want to live in the kind of society you want to create, a society flooded with low skilled third world workers and rapid economic growth.

                  1. In reality, welfare for illegal immigrants is in no way different from welfare for native born Americans.

                    In reality, I can both oppose all welfare and support our association rights without any contradiction.

                    In reality, supporting our association rights in spite of the socialist welfare system is like supporting our gun rights in spite of mass shootings.

                    That’s reality. If you want to live in a world of make believe, go ahead. Don’t expect me to join in your delusions.

                    1. Oh, reality is that you can advocate whatever hare-brained political positions you want; it’s a free country… for now.

                      Where you are deluded is about the consequences of the political positions you advocate. You actually believe that turning the US into a country with a glut of cheap, low-skilled labor is a good thing, pointing to China as an example. And I agree: that is the kind of country the policies you advocate will turn the US into.

                      I just don’t want to live in that kind of country.

                    2. @ JW2

                      You actually believe that turning the US into a country with a glut of cheap, low-skilled labor is a good thing…

                      Not arguing for Ken, but I doubt he believes in completely unfettered immigration to that point, what I want to say is letting in Afghani interpreters isn’t letting in only low skilled labor. & even if it did mean that, there’s not enough interpreters helping US troops that letting them all in would create a glut of cheap low-skilled labor

      4. The best reason to let hardworking poor people into this country is because it’s in the best interests of the United States and our economy to do so.

        First of all, that’s not a libertarian argument. In fact, in a libertarian society, these questions would simply not arise, since every community would get to determine for themselves whether people could enter or not.

        Second, it’s wrong even as a utilitarian argument. “Hard working” isn’t enough to make a net positive contribution in the US. If you import 10 million hard working ditch diggers, the US becomes a poorer nation, not a wealthier nation. Immigrants need to be hard working and have above average skills in order to make the US wealthier.

        Third, it is not in America’s interest to siphon off the brightest and most liberty minded people from other nations, because that leaves those other nations poor and totalitarian.

        What the US should do about countries like Afghanistan is to provide education to students from those countries in return for requiring them to go back to their countries.

        1. “If you import 10 million hard working ditch diggers, the US becomes a poorer nation, not a wealthier nation.”

          You’re getting a number of things backwards, but let’s just focus on the fact that labor is a resource and having more of a resource is better.

          Again, if cheap labor were bad for economic growth, China would have had the slowest growing economy in the world over the last 20 years.

          Incidentally, an abundance of cheap energy isn’t bad for the economy either.

          1. Again, if cheap labor were bad for economic growth, China would have had the slowest growing economy in the world over the last 20 years.

            I said “If you import 10 million hard working ditch diggers, the US becomes a poorer nation“. The wealth of a nation is not determined by its GDP growth but (roughly) by its per capita GDP.

            China’s growth is fast because they are poor. And because they are poor, large amounts of low skill labor are useful to them.

            let’s just focus on the fact that labor is a resource and having more of a resource is better.

            At the level of nations, that is neither true for an abundance natural resources nor for an abundance of low skilled labor. The most prosperous societies tend to have a shortage of both.

            You’re getting a number of things backwards,

            I’m afraid that applies to you: you’re confusing economic growth rates with the absolute prosperity of a society, and you are also confusing the nominal resource wealth of a society with the absolute prosperity of a society.

    2. I agree. The comments here have strayed far from the topic of the article. This is about meeting our responsibility to people who have helped us in Afghanistan. DACA and the US-Mexican border are different issues.

  9. The Biden administration is allowing in maybe millions of immigrants that have done nothing to help the US just because 1) the immigrants wants to improve their economic life and 2) they may face severe treatment in their home country. If Biden does not send air force transport planes to load these men and their families and bring them to the US Biden and the democrats/progressives have no heart nor common decency. These men have aided the US in what it was trying to do. It does not matter how one feels about the war there or if what the US was trying to do was the correct thing to do either. They aided the US and now they will be killed as soon as the US has completed its withdrawal, some may be killed before that withdrawal is completed.

    1. “… just because 1) the immigrants wants to improve their economic life and 2) they may face severe treatment in their home country.”

      Gosh, remarkably similar to why my grandparents were allowed to immigrate to America. And million of other Americans’ grandparents.

      1. Exhibit A to slam the door shut on immigration.

        1. Lol, yeah Dee doesn’t realize she’s hurting her own argument here.

      2. The truth is that today is no different than when your grandparents came. Those that were here that had found success in American wanted to keep others out. It seems to be the recurring story of our nation.

      3. Gosh, remarkably similar to why my grandparents were allowed to immigrate to America. And million of other Americans’ grandparents.

        And look how you have turned out: a privileged, entitled, ignorant prick. Q.E.D.

        1. Are not the entitled ones really the people whose grand parents came over looking for opportunity and would now deny that same opportunity to others. People looking to help other don’t seem to be acting as if there are entitled.

          1. Have you done anything to help Afghans? Have you donated money? Have you taught them? No.

            How much do you pay in taxes per year? $1 million? $10000? My guess is less than that.

            You are not “looking to help others”. You are trying to demonstrate your moral rectitude by doing nothing and giving away other people’s money.

            If you want to help Afghans, sacrifice a couple of years of your life teaching them, or donate $10000 to a good relief organization. Then we’ll talk about “looking to help others”. Until then, you remain a self-righteous, entitled blowhard in my eyes.

            1. Typo: How much do you pay in taxes per year? $1 million? $100000? My guess is less than that.

              I very much hope you pay at least $10000 in taxes, though that wouldn’t be enough even to pull your own weight in this society.

              1. I don’t regularly monitor my total taxes, but I did pay over $10k this year. I do donate to charities I support and also donate my services. Like you I am entitled to my opinion and that does not in itself make me entitled.

                1. No, but what does make you “entitled” is your attitude towards immigration and spending:

                  Are not the entitled ones really the people whose grand parents came over looking for opportunity and would now deny that same opportunity to others. People looking to help other don’t seem to be acting as if there are entitled.

                  When your grand parents came, government spending as percentage of GDP was likely around 10-15%. Today, it’s about 45%. When your grand parents came (and when I came), if you took any significant amount of public money or committed a crime, you would be kicked out of the country. Today, you can commit serious crimes and still stay and get government assistance.

                  Over the last 100 years, immigration to the US has turned from an opportunity for hard-working, self-sufficient people into a massive scheme of government handouts, race baiting, and political games.

                  People looking to help others don’t seem to be acting as if there are entitled.

                  And what have you ever done in your life to help immigrants from poor countries? What have you ever done in your life to improve the conditions in poor countries?

  10. Fuckin’ collaborators. They can go ask for asylum from some other NATO shithole.

  11. it has been a very impressive and useful article. I enjoyed it while reading, congratulations. I will continue to follow.
    https://www.pisifilm.com/tanitim-filmi

  12. A Divorced Mom With 4 Kids Lost Her Job in Pandemic, But Was Able To Stay On Top By Banking Continuously 15000 Dollars Per vveek With An Online Work She Found Over The Internet .TRUMP TO WIN AND GIFT FF To THE JoBS Before Elections But Unfortunately Election Fraud. It’s easy, just follow instructions on home page, read it carefully from start to finish Check The Details…..>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cash44.club/

  13. “the current processing period is nearly three years long.“

    Why is his more than 10 years?

  14. More than 90% of asylum seekers from El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua are either denied an asylum hearing for failing to claim any kind of persecution, never show up for their asylum hearing, or are denied asylum at their hearing. If Afghan interpreters are killed because our agencies are flooded with hundreds of thousands of bogus asylum claims, then making a bogus asylum claim is not a victimless behavior. I feel pity for the
    , https://wapexclusive.com/ ,10% who are legitimately fleeing persecution from those three countries, too.

  15. Intersectionality, post modernism, the general jumbling of notions of right/wrong and relativism has blurred the ability to “judge” who is deserving immigration to the US. Afghanistan translators to the US and allied military are more deserving of immigration than people who are funding sources for drug cartels, sex traffickers and gangs. Illegal immigrants are not bad but they are paying evil people to aid them. It shouldn’t be a difficult decision to discern which group has earned a right to immigrate.

  16. Being left behind is perhaps the best way to see that justice is done. These translators aided a foreign occupation force in their destruction of many thousands of lives. Settling of scores with collaborators has long been a tradition in countries where an occupier has been defeated and sent packing. Afghanistan will be no different.

    1. You really are a POS aren’t you?

      “They helped us; I don’t care if they die for that and believe that they should die for it.”

      Fucking POS, P.O.S.

  17. tells Reason that the program has long been flawed. In addition to an intensive 14-step application process that interpreters have to navigate, “security checks” and a “lack of trained personnel” keep wait times lengthy, she says. While Congress mandates that the application process be completed within nine months, the current processing period is nearly three years long.

    Something doesn’t add up: Sayed has been an interpreter for 10 years, so he should have his visa right now.

    Interpreters like Shinwari put themselves in grave danger to serve a country they had never even visited,

    That presumes that the occupation of Aghanistan “serves” the US. In reality, it’s been a massive waste to human lives and money.

    and those who have made it here are clearly giving back to their communities. “These are young, forward-looking, entrepreneurial people” who are “exactly what you want in new immigrants and people coming to this country,” says Barndollar.

    I don’t see how volunteering for a huge, occupying, government-run military force in return for money and government favors translates into “entrepreneurialism” or other desirable traits.

    In any case, if they are actually “young, forward-looking, entrepreneurial people”, they are exactly what Afghanistan needs after the war. It’s no wonder that poor nations keep failing when rich countries like the US keep draining away their best and brightest.

    1. ” It’s no wonder that poor nations keep failing when rich countries like the US keep draining away their best and brightest.”

      They are quislings, not the best and brightest. After some 20 years of occupation, America has had ample opportunity to skim off Afghanistan’s best and brightest. What’s left is the dregs, Afghanistan doesn’t need them and America is clearly reluctant to extend a helping hand.

  18. But application backlogs, administrative foot dragging, and bureaucratic errors are making it nearly impossible for Afghan interpreters to access those visas.

    This sounds like a bit of bullshit to me. Yes I’m certain the bureaucratic operating manual is one that is familiar to all of us – the DMV. But this is more than that and I’m going to bet it has to do with the politics behind the legislation that created and funds the Special Immigrant Visa program.

    Bureaucrats may not be very responsive to the folks standing in line forever (aka customers) but they are usually very responsive to those who structure and fund the agency that forces people to stand in line forever

  19. “No one will trust us in the future. Nobody.”

    Looks like Reason has fully absorbed the delusion of progressives of the US as the hero nation that swoops in and is cheered by locals as a liberator.

    In reality, of course, the US swoops in, causes havoc, kills a lot of people, leaves some dictator in charge, and then leaves years later as American voters get tired of it.

    1. Oh cool. Like all the R’s here you’ve got your perpetual cartoon enemy. ‘Progressives’ are the ones who apparently run everything – following some semi-unknown playbook. Pretty much the ‘commies’ of old.

      In truth – you people are simply incapable of viewing anything in anything but cartoon and comic book form. Which is the real reason why everything looks like a cartoon to you

      1. Progressives’ are the ones who apparently run everything

        Yes, US politics is dominated by progressivism, and has been since the beginning of the 20th century. I actually used to think this was a good thing.

        following some semi-unknown playbook

        Progressives are open and clear about what they want to achieve. As a former progressive, I’d be happy to tell you more about it.

        In truth – you people are simply incapable of viewing anything in anything but cartoon and comic book form.

        I’m a gay immigrant, grew up under socialism. I’m a former Democrat, former progressive, now independent. If there are more “you people” like me, please put me in touch with them! I’d love to have more of a community!

        1. All I see is cartoon baggage. Don’t give a shit about your ‘identity’.

          1. Don’t give a shit about your ‘identity’.

            I told you nothing about my identity, I told you about my experience.

            You only see “cartoon baggage” in other people because you evidently lack experience with different views and perspectives.

    2. “Looks like Reason has fully absorbed the delusion of progressives of the US as the hero nation that swoops in and is cheered by locals as a liberator.”

      That’s tendentious. It’s the delusion of the overwhelming majority of Americans, including reactionaries, and accounts for the high esteem the military is held and the popularity of interventions like those in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      1. This 100%. Americans ‘buy’ war on the basis that we will be the hero. We are not realists. Even the most ‘realistic’ school – make the world safe for McDonalds – is in fact idealistic because it is a notion of pursuing business interests that are of interest to Americans which is of no interest to anyone locally. so gotta sell the IDEA of a ‘free trading’ environment.

        Different Americans have different ideals that motivate us into wars but that just means lots of different ways to sell war to Americans.

      2. I don’t see what’s “tendentious” about it; we agree that this is the view of the overwhelming majority of Americans, whether they are Republicans or Democrats. That’s why there has been so little difference in terms of war mongering between the left and the right in the US. And rather than being a beacon of liberty, Reason also reflects those views.

        1. FFS. This good-evil black hat -white hat is part of cowboys and Indians mythology. This doesn’t have SHIT to do with ‘progressives’.

          1. This doesn’t have SHIT to do with ‘progressives’.

            Are you effing kidding? Since Wilsonianism and WWI, progressivism has been all about projecting US power and progressive ideas across the globe.

            FFS. This good-evil black hat -white hat is part of cowboys and Indians mythology.

            The good-evil-black-hat-white-hat division is your way of looking at the world. As far as I’m concerned, politics in the US and Europe is dominated by black hats.

            1. As far as I’m concerned, politics in the US and Europe is dominated by black hats.

              And I should add… those are actually the better places to live; politics in the rest of the world is even worse.

            2. ” Since Wilsonianism and WWI, progressivism has been all about projecting US power and progressive ideas across the globe.”

              McKinley and Roosevelt were projecting power in the Philippines long before Wilson arrived on the scene. Before that there was Hawaii, and before that there was Mexico. And who but progressives are to blame for all those Indians wars?

              1. So? I never claimed that progressivism was the only ideology that promoted foreign adventures, I said that progressivism was one such ideology.

                1. “I said that progressivism was one such ideology.”

                  I’m just not clear what you mean by it. I’m not convinced that the US changed fundamentally with Wilson. Certainly not with respect to attitudes towards foreign expansion. Wilson wasn’t even alive when the US sent the black ships to forcibly open Japan to foreign trade.

                  1. I’m just not clear what you mean by it. I’m not convinced that the US changed fundamentally with Wilson.

                    It didn’t. The policies (foreign adventures, oppression of minorities, etc.) largely stayed the same before and after the rise of progressivism. The main thing that changed was the justification. Progressivism uses “science”, “human rights”, and “equity” to justify its illiberal policies.

                    Of course, the world has genuinely gotten better over the last century, but not because of ideology. For example, we abolished eugenics and segregation despite of, not because of, progressivism.

                    The sooner people recognize “progressivism” for what it is, an obstacle to human progress and liberty, the better.

                    1. “Progressivism uses “science”, “human rights”, and “equity” to justify its illiberal policies”

                      That’s what the Enlightenment was all about. Science in, religion out, to put it succinctly as possible. It is liberal, almost by definition. Classical liberalism is illiberal?

                      “Alice laughed. ‘There’s no use trying,’ she said. ‘One can’t believe impossible things.’
                      I daresay you haven’t had much practice,’ said the Queen. ‘When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!”
                      http://library.lol/main/AD58AB90798B231C288EACFF808435CC

                      I still don’t know what you mean by progressivism (except that President Wilson was somehow responsible for it) or how it represents a significant break from what went before.

                    2. I think Kant and Rothbard put this much more eloquently than I could.

                      Kant, “What is Enlightenment”:

                      Enlightenment is man’s release from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! “Have courage to use your own reason!” — that is the motto of enlightenment.

                      Murray Rothbard “The Progressive Era”:

                      Progressivism brought the triumph of institutionalized racism, the disfranchising of blacks in the South, the cutting off of immigration, the building up of trade unions by the federal government into a tripartite of big government, big business, big union alliance, the glorifying of military virtues and conscription, and a drive for American expansion abroad. In short, the Progressive era ushered the modern American politico-economic system into being.

                      In other words, the Enlightenment is about you using your own reason to make decisions for yourself and accepting the consequences. In contrast, progressivism is about the state imposing policies on you and justifying those policies using science and reason. The progressive era started about 200 years after the Age of Enlightenment.

                    3. “Progressivism brought the triumph of institutionalized racism, the disfranchising of blacks in the South, the cutting off of immigration, the building up of trade unions by the federal government into a tripartite of big government, big business, big union alliance, the glorifying of military virtues and conscription, and a drive for American expansion abroad. In short, the Progressive era ushered the modern American politico-economic system into being.”

                      I don’t see any noticeable break between Wilson’s era and what went before. There has always been racism, both in immigration and forced migrations. Red baiting and glorification of war and the military have also been constants.

                      ” In contrast, progressivism is about the state imposing policies on you and justifying those policies using science and reason.”

                      Again this didn’t start with Wilson. The state has always imposed policies this way since the Enlightenment. imposing a tax on whisky producers to repay war debts, for example.

                    4. I don’t see any noticeable break between Wilson’s era and what went before. […] Again this didn’t start with Wilson. The state has always imposed policies this way since the Enlightenment.

                      Well, so it sounds like you agree then that there is no “noticeable break” between progressivism (and hence modern US-style liberalism) and what came before in terms of policy.

                      And that was my point: this is the view of the overwhelming majority of Americans, whether they are Republicans or Democrats. That’s why there has been so little difference in terms of war mongering between the left and the right in the US.

            3. Since Wilsonianism and WWI, progressivism has been all about projecting US power and progressive ideas across the globe.

              Even if you want to specifically talk about Wilson, his foreign policy stuff does not originate in ‘Progressive’ anything. It originates in being Presbyterian. Moralizing yes perhaps. Missionaries dominated US foreign policy outside Europe from 1806 (the Haystack Prayer Meeting) on – from America Colonization Society through to John Birch – from China to Brazil. It is why Wilson himself did NOT declare war on the Ottoman Empire in WW1 (too much missionary property at risk).

              That WAS the history/ideals of American engagement with the world outside ruling Europe and is the reason it resonated when Wilson brought the same ideas to ruling Europe to make WW1 about something other than just a dynastic squabble.

              And the moralizing streak didn’t start in 1806 since the very first act of US foreign policy was to argue about whether to support revolutionary France against European monarchies.

          2. ” This doesn’t have SHIT to do with ‘progressives’.”

            Maybe it does. If a progressive is anyone born since the Enlightenment who is not a theocrat or a monarchist, ie almost everyone, then J W 2 may be correct. Though it should be pointed out that there are plenty of progressive nations, the ones just to the north and the south of the USA, for example, that don’t routinely get themselves in endless foreign adventures.

            1. Maybe it does. If a progressive is anyone born since the Enlightenment who is not a theocrat or a monarchist, ie almost everyone, then J W 2 may be correct.

              Progressivism has been the dominant political ideology in the West since the beginning of the 20th century. It is a core part of international institutions and multilateral arrangements, including the UN.

              There are plenty of other political stances besides theocracy, monarchy, and progressivism; classical liberalism is on such stance, for example. You should familiarize yourself with it, you might like it.

              Though it should be pointed out that there are plenty of progressive nations, the ones just to the north and the south of the USA, for example, that don’t routinely get themselves in endless foreign adventures.

              How so? Canada was in Afghanistan alongside US troops from 2001 to 2014. Canada and Europe routinely participate in the same military operations as the US, usually with UN approval, and usually with the objective to bring peace, free markets, and democracy to other nations. It’s the Wilsonian progressive vision realized.

              1. “How so? Canada was in Afghanistan alongside US troops from 2001 to 2014.”

                And they left. Mexico never entered. Neither Canada nor Mexico were drawn into Vietnam or Iraq. Yet they are just as progressive as the US. Perhaps even more so.

                “It is a core part of international institutions and multilateral arrangements, including the UN.”

                International institutions and treaties have been around for a lot longer than the 20th century. And they’ve been a lot more powerful and influential than they are these days. And classical liberalism owes its existence to the Enlightenment, when free trade, human rights, private property were put first and foremost. Ricardo is noted for his classical liberalism and his support for an system of international free trade. He wrote about the benefits of trade between England and Portugal. The notion that classical liberals oppose a system of international trade and agreements is to completely miss their point.

                1. Neither Canada nor Mexico were drawn into Vietnam or Iraq. Yet they are just as progressive as the US.

                  I don’t see what your argument is here. I’m just saying that progressivism is an ideology that nations use to justify foreign wars and other foreign meddling, just like imperialism before it. Mexico had no interest in participating in the Vietnam war, so it didn’t need any justification.

                  International institutions and treaties have been around for a lot longer than the 20th century.

                  International governmental institutions started with the League of Nations under Wilson, and then the UN.

                  The notion that classical liberals oppose a system of international trade and agreements is to completely miss their point.

                  Classical liberals favor free trade between nations with free market economies; we do not favor restrictive trade agreements between government-controlled economies, which is what the UN and current trade agreements are. In other words, you are completely missing the point of free trade.

                  1. “I don’t see what your argument is here.”

                    I’m feeling the same way. I use the word progressive as more or less a synonym for liberal (modern US meaning) or leftish. Example: “I’m not progressive enough for the damn New York Times to hire me.”
                    I don’t really understand what you mean when you use the word.

                    “International governmental institutions started with the League of Nations under Wilson, and then the UN. ”

                    The Pope would beg to differ. The idea that international institutions and treaties started with President Wilson is laughable.

                    “Classical liberals favor free trade between nations with free market economies”

                    They want an international system where free trade and human rights are the norm. Restricting such a system to one nation makes no sense and nobody has advocated it. Go back to Ricardo. England AND Portugal.

                    1. I use the word progressive as more or less a synonym for liberal (modern US meaning) or leftish. Example: “I’m not progressive enough for the damn New York Times to hire me.”

                      Well, I suggest you do some background reading. Murray Rothbard’s “The Progressive Era” would be a good starting point. You might follow that up with historical readings about the close ideological connections between progressivism and European fascism. Read up on Edward Bernays and how progressives use propaganda to manipulate people.

                      The Pope would beg to differ. The idea that international institutions and treaties started with President Wilson is laughable.

                      The Pope and the Catholic church isn’t an “international governmental institution”.

                      They want an international system where free trade and human rights are the norm.

                      Classical liberals want a world in which free trade and individual liberties are the norm.

                      We do not want an “international system” of any form, let alone one that has the objective of promoting “free trade” and “human rights” in the (illiberal) sense of the WTO and the UDHR.

                    2. “about the close ideological connections between progressivism and European fascism”

                      Wilson and Mussolini were of the same period. There’s bound to be a certain overlap. They were both supportive of private property and opposed to the Bolsheviks, for example.

                      “The Pope and the Catholic church isn’t an “international governmental institution”.”

                      Not now, of course. At one time it was. Every conquistador had a retinue of priests who followed their every footstep across the New World.

                      “We do not want an “international system” of any form”

                      Kant did. He wrote about some kind of international federation of states, a kind of forerunner to the UN, only one with meaningful powers. The idea that the Enlightenment and liberalism is opposed to a system of international cooperation is simply wrong headed. It was there right from the start. It doesn’t make sense otherwise.

                    3. Wilson and Mussolini were of the same period. There’s bound to be a certain overlap.

                      Oh, the connections between progressivism and fascism go far, far deeper than that.

                      Kant did. He wrote about some kind of international federation of states, a kind of forerunner to the UN, only one with meaningful powers.

                      Voluntary cooperation among free nations with free markets is, of course, fully compatible with classical liberalism. Such voluntary arrangements have nothing whatsoever to do with the UN or the WTO or free trade arrangements today; those organizations, “systems”, and arrangements are between mostly totalitarian and oppressive states and socialist economies, with a few highly regulated “social market economies” thrown in, often enforced at gunpoint or through economic blackmail and collusion.

                    4. “Oh, the connections between progressivism and fascism go far, far deeper than that.”

                      Back as far as the Enlightenment or further. Though Fascism and Nationalism probably drew more from the Romantic movement some years later.

                      “Voluntary cooperation among free nations with free markets is, of course, fully compatible with classical liberalism. ”

                      Wilson’s League of Nations was voluntary. Within a year of taking power, Hitler withdrew Germany from the League. Voluntarily. And the US never volunteered to join. And no nation is forced to join the UN or the WTO. I can’t help but thinking you haven’t thought this thing through. Fine I get that you dislike Wilson, there’s a lot to dislike about the man and his regime. But he’s just one of a series of presidents and Wilson doesn’t represent a turning point where the US suddenly became interested in foreign adventures and expansion, or that the state became overwhelmingly brutal towards Americans. It was always that way. Slavery was recognized as legitimate in the nation’s founding documents, for heaven’s sake, about a century before Wilson was born. Much the same for the near genocidal brutalizing and forced population transfer of the indigenous population.

                    5. Fine I get that you dislike Wilson, there’s a lot to dislike about the man and his regime. But he’s just one of a series of presidents and Wilson doesn’t represent a turning point where the US suddenly became interested in foreign adventures and expansion

                      Really, respond to what I wrote, not to your own straw men. I didn’t say that Wilson started US war mongering. What I said is that progressivism changed (from a benign outgrowth of classical liberalism) into just another tool of authoritarian government and for war mongering, around the time of Wilson.

                      Rothbard tells you details about the evils of post-Wilsonian progressivism and you would do well to read up on it.

                      Wilson’s League of Nations was voluntary. […] And no nation is forced to join the UN or the WTO.

                      But all of these institutions are composed primarily of repressive regimes without free markets. It is absurd to present them as a realization of the Enlightenment dream of free trade between republics inhabited by free peoples. Tariff-free trade between, say, China and the US simply has nothing to do with what Kant or classical liberals were talking about.

  20. I guess allying with an invading army against your countrymen is a bad idea. Let that be a lesson.

    1. Great lesson.

      Lesson 2 will be more planes flying into skyscrapers. If FYTW is how we run our empire – then mass slaughter of American civilians is going to be the way our empire is killed and dies.

      1. then mass slaughter of American civilians is going to be the way our empire is killed and dies

        I trust that the US military is more than capable of defending the continental US against attacks.

        But I take it that you would like “the US empire” to survive beyond the borders of the US? Or what exactly is it you’re saying?

        1. I trust that the US military is more than capable of defending the continental US against attacks.

          And as exhibit A – flying a plane into the Pentagon itself – armed with – boxcutters. By a bunch of Saudis – trained partially in Afghanistan – who were mainly pissed at what we were doing in the Middle East.

          Didn’t expect THAT blowback did we. Or deal with it well. 20 years later – hey presto this article where we haven’t learned shit. Again.

          1. And as exhibit A – flying a plane into the Pentagon itself – armed with – boxcutters. By a bunch of Saudis – trained partially in Afghanistan – who were mainly pissed at what we were doing in the Middle East. Didn’t expect THAT blowback did we.

            I certainly did. I opposed both Iraq wars and the Afghanistan war for just this reason.

            But I’m also not deluded enough to think that changing US policy will substantially reduce the risk of terrorism. Much of the rest of the world hates the US and has always hated the US, even if the US military didn’t go around bombing other nations into the stone age.

        2. How’d the US Military do on 9/11? Guess you’re satisfied with how that turned out…

          1. “How’d the US Military do on 9/11? ”

            Any generals lose any of those stars they decorate their uniforms with over 9/11? How about admirals?

  21. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily FG .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…Visit Here

  22. If this does play out tragically, I certainly hope that people in other countries that we happen to invade DO get the message and U.S. mercenaries on the ground have absolutely zero assistance and collaboration from the locals. If that’s not the case, those who didn’t learn the lesson from our past wars have no cause for complaint. You can’t cure stupid.

  23. I’m not gonna be losing any sleep over back-stabbing intolerants not easily being moved into the US– Hoping everybody understands that unless they’re latino/hispanic the progressives have little use for ya

    1. “Hoping everybody understands that unless they’re latino/hispanic the progressives have little use for ya”

      Military culture stresses honor, living up to commitments, comradeship and you watch my back I’ll watch yours. I’m certain that the officers and men who relied on the fast and accurate translations these interpreters provided would do all they can to see the US do right by them. This goes for even conservative military members who regardless follow the military code of honor.

  24. “”I…have no doubt that I will be targeted and get killed.”

    Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. No tears for the enablers of tyranny

  25. Story in a nut shell: “Evil terrorist invaders should honor their obligations to the traitors who sell out their countrymen to them for blood money if they expect to recruit more traitors in the next invasion.”

    YES: there must be honor among killers and their henchmen!

  26. Government officials have not responded to these calls with urgency. In early February, President Joe Biden issued an executive order on immigration and called for a review of SIV programs to be carried out within six months. On May 19, Sens. Jeanne Shaheen
    ( https://wapexclusive.com ) ,(D–N.H.) and Joni Ernst (R–Iowa) sent a bipartisan letter urging the administration

Please to post comments