Afghanistan

Afghan Refugees Coming to the U.S. Aren't Unvetted Security Threats

Nativists like J.D. Vance warn that we need to be "properly vetting" the Afghans coming to the U.S., neglecting to mention just how safe these people are.

|

It's now less than one week until August 31, the deadline that President Joe Biden has set for the full U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. An unknown number of American citizens and Afghans who assisted the U.S. military are still stuck there, and with the Taliban calling August 31 a "red line," the pressure is on for a speedy evacuation.

There's now a rift in the Republican Party over what the evacuation of Afghans should entail. On one hand, there are figures like Sen. Ben Sasse (R–Neb.) who support the evacuation of U.S.-affiliated Afghans who assisted American troops during the 20-year war in Afghanistan. "A great nation keeps its word," he told Chris Wallace on Fox News last weekend. "We're talking about men and women who risked their lives to protect Americans. They fought hand in hand with our troops and we made promises to them."

But some loud voices are questioning the safety and sensibility of keeping those promises. Ohio Senate candidate and Hillbilly Elegy author J.D. Vance rebuked Sasse in a video posted to Twitter on Monday. "Let's help the Afghans who helped us," he said, "but let's ensure that we're properly vetting them so that we don't get a bunch of people who believe they should blow themselves up at a mall because somebody looked at their wife the wrong way." Vance has found support from other nativists, including Fox News hosts Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson, and former Trump adviser and immigration hardliner Stephen Miller.

Vance is raising concerns that by and large don't apply to the class of Afghans we're talking about letting in the U.S. The security vetting of "the Afghans who helped us" has been so rigorous as to render his protests completely nonsensical.

It's important to distinguish between Afghans coming to the U.S. and those going elsewhere for intermediate processing. The people coming straight to the U.S. "have completed the rigorous security vetting process" associated with the special immigrant visa (SIV) program, according to State Department spokesman Ned Price. "SIVs who are not at a particular stage" and those "who aren't part of the SIV program" will be processed in Qatar, Bahrain, and Germany, since they have undergone less vetting.

The SIV program is an immigration pathway that was established in 2009 to reward Afghans for "faithful and valuable service to the U.S. government." Careful vetting is a baked-in feature of the intensive 14-step application process. An applicant must submit proof of employment, a letter of recommendation from an American supervisor, and proof of the threats he faces as a result of his service, and he must complete various screenings along the way. He must complete an interview, where his fingerprints are taken. His case then moves through "administrative processing, which may include requesting additional documentation, conducting additional interviews, and interagency security checks," according to the Congressional Research Service.

That is all on top of the security clearances that most Afghans had to acquire to assist U.S. forces in the first place. Combat interpreters, for instance, were vetted before ever going out on patrols with American troops. And as Task & Purpose reports, Betsy Fisher of the International Refugee Assistance Project says "that the vast majority of people who worked with the U.S. government 'had to go through regular checks on their background,' which included polygraph tests and 'regular scans' of their phones against databases of people who were suspected of connections with extremists."

These are not the unvetted people to whom Vance alluded. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board offered a far better characterization last week: "These are thousands of people who proved they work well with Americans. They aren't Muslim extremists; they are fleeing Muslim extremists." Indeed, these Afghans incurred far greater risks through their service to the American cause than native-born Americans will ever incur through their presence on U.S. soil.

But Vance isn't interested in acknowledging that, and instead took the opportunity to lecture Sasse on integrity: "Real leadership is accepting the tradeoffs of the situation, putting our own citizens first, and not dealing with fake platitudes because it gets people in the media to say nice things about you."

Sasse isn't supporting the evacuation of U.S.-affiliated Afghans for the sake of the media. It's simply the right thing to do—and it's overwhelmingly favored by the American people. According to a CBS News/YouGov poll, 81 percent of people surveyed agree that the U.S. should welcome "Afghan translators" (usually taken to mean SIV applicants and holders, who are not exclusively translators) into the country. Over three-quarters of Republicans approved of the idea.

You would be hard-pressed to find something so popular on both sides of the political aisle. Because Vance's warning can't survive on any measure of logic, he must rely on stoking fear of an impending wave of extremist refugees. But we're in for quite the opposite. Bringing U.S.-affiliated Afghans here, as Sasse notes, will mean we're keeping our promise as a nation and gaining neighbors who are already aligned with American values.

Vance claims to be well-known for his defense of "the conservative way of life that values grit, determination, and freedom," but is unable—or unwilling—to see those values among the Afghans who loyally aided the U.S. in the face of Taliban retribution. Sasse has it right: "When you fought on behalf of Americans to protect our people, you're welcome in my neighborhood." The vast majority of Americans agree.

NEXT: Kristi Noem Is Right About Employer Vaccine Mandates

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. …let’s ensure that we’re properly vetting them so that we don’t get a bunch of people who believe they should blow themselves up at a mall because somebody looked at their wife the wrong way.

    How safe can these people be? THEY COLLABORATED WITH FOREIGN INVADERS.

    1. Of course, in all seriousness, we do need to at least be making sure they’re going to respect chosen pronouns.

      1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inSd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

        See……………VISIT HERE

      2. “Afghans are arriving in the United States despite having “no documents whatsoever” after having been screened and approved by President Joe Biden’s federal agencies, CNN reported.”

        From the CNN website, one of the main stories.

        Fiona, do you still stand by your assurances that they’re all vetted. Where is CNN wrong? Are do you admit that you’re being hopelessly naive?

        1. Allowing so many Muslims to US is like allowing live ticking time-bombs into the country. You never know when they will turn against us. Very strange how Muslims are so easily drawn towards terrorism. Sorry for sounding Xenophobic. But, it is a fact.

          1. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income…You can work this job As part time or As A full time job.HJm You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom… You can have your first check by the end of this week…Lifetime Opportunity

            This is what I do……………… VISIT HERE

        2. Fiona is a college sophomore whose interest is photography, and she’s cute as a bug. Those are literally Fiona’s qualifications. So what she’s got to say for or against anything except how to fake an ID so she can have a beer is irrelevant.

          At best, her opinion and information is based on statements from the same folks who have gotten every element of this withdrawal wrong, but who even in the aftermath of the disaster, maintain they “planned for every contingency” and really need a hurricane to cover their collective asses and change the topic. Yeah, let’s just copy-paste those folks.

    2. Reason loves collaborators, they’ll make great, loyal “citizens of the world”.

      1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.YHn Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

        You can check it out here…………………VISIT HERE

      2. I am making a good salary online from home.I’ve made 97,999 dollar’s so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student.GHn I’m using an online business opportunity I’m just so happy that I found out about it.
        I highly recommend to everyone to apply…

        Join this right now………………… VISIT HERE

    3. The article would be right it they all qr or the majority are SIV holders, but the majority according the State Department’s own statement are not eligible for SIV, and have not gone through that process, and that the State Department is “expediting” the process, trying to do in days what the State Department normally takes months to do. Maybe it takes that long because of bureaucracy, maybe they can cut out the red tape without missing the important part, or maybe they are cutting critical steps? We can’t know if we don’t question, not sure what the argument is, we should not question the expedited process? Why not? Because we don’t want to be (mistakingly) labeled racists or xenophobes?

      1. https://twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1430691815305404416?t=BB-EkSNwCF4C2Dk8-j4qMQ&s=19

        Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced today: 82,300 people have been evacuated by U.S. personnel. ♦ 4,500 of them are Americans.

        78,000 are what?

        1. https://twitter.com/farnazfassihi/status/1430580001066426368?t=Btznu3XJUh4vJwSJWVglmg&s=19

          A 345-seat chartered plane to evacuate Afghans leaves Kabul empty today because they couldn’t get through Taliban checkpoints and US military gates at airport.
          Crushing.
          #Afghanistan [pic]

        2. The 82,000 weren’t evacuated by Americans, the number is actually less than 70,000. The 82,000 number comes by adding in the ones our allies evacuated, and private organizations who have chartered their own planes, also. So they are lying about that number as well and the State Department had to clarify that. Just take credit for the work done by our allies and privat citizens, because our allies aren’t pissed enough at us.

          1. To be fair, the USAF is in charge of the traffic control, which must be a fucking nightmare with only one runway and planes taking off every 40 minutes (which means planes are landing almost that often with only one runway).

            1. But at least we can trust that everyone’s “vetted”…

              1. I don’t care where the vetting occurs, at Rammstein or Qatar, or even on CONUS bases and posts, as long as the vetting is properly done without any corners cut.

                1. Can’t vet 70,000 people from a stone-age culture and an uncooperative government. Can’t do that in ordinary time, much less expedited. After your first 500, are you still paying close attention? And exactly what do they do with those who don’t make the vetting process? Gonna jet them back to Kabul? I’m thinking not.

    4. I completely agree. There must be strong oversight.

  2. Yeah yeah we heard the same thing about Somalis too. Look where that got us.

    1. Access to millions of dollars from their princes. Score.

      1. Wrong race Jesus. Nigeria is closer to Paris than Somalia.

  3. >>people who believe they should blow themselves up at a mall because somebody looked at their wife the wrong way

    seems if malls were ever going to be a target in America it would have been 20 years ago.

    1. That’s the last thing we need, a bunch of time traveling terrorists suicide bombing the Orange Juliuses of yesteryear.

      1. noooooo! not The Great American Cookie Company!

        1. I’d be ok if they took out Chess King

          1. my parachute pants matched my Jordans.

            1. I had a sweet Members Only jacket back in the day.

    2. If nobody blew up a mall in the ’80s, it will never happen. If being bombarded with nonstop Hall and Oates music for hours didn’t make anyone snap, it’s not going to happen.

      1. (I swear to this) in the car in NJ listening to wcau in maybe ’83 I said to my pops “hey did you know Hall & Oates is from Philly?” and he said “I”m pretty sure they were hauling oats before there was a Philly”

        1. I can just seethe grey suede New Balances on his feet as he said it. With the lighter plastic heel support thingy.

          Sweet Dad joke.

          1. I must be old – or what’s old is new again – I’m sitting here right now in grey suede New Balances! LOL!!

    1. They’re not stranded. They just don’t want to go home. The state department texted them like a million times, and they left them on read.

      1. I’m sure Afghanistan has splendid coverage.

  4. Nativists like J.D. Vance warn that we need to be “properly vetting” the Afghans coming to the U.S., neglecting to mention just how safe these people are.

    We don’t know “how safe these people are”.

    But we do know that they are going to cost the US tax payer lots of money and are going to drag down US wealth and living standards.

    1. If you watched the Vance interview you know he wasn’t about SIV holders, but about the refugees who are not SIV holders, which are the majority according to the State Department’s own numbers. And the State Department has stated these individuals the non-SIV holders are undergoing an “expedited” vetting process, doing in days what normally takes months. I think it’s entirely reasonable to ask how this process has been “expedited”, especially as the State Department has refused to answer that question when they’ve been asked the last couple of days.

      1. Sorry wrong person didn’t mean to reply to you.

  5. “Let’s help the Afghans who helped us,” he said, “but let’s ensure that we’re properly vetting them so that we don’t get a bunch of people who believe they should blow themselves up at a mall because somebody looked at their wife the wrong way.”

    He said a lot more than that on Carlson. I have a feeling Vance isn’t long for politics.

    And as long as I’m ranting, other than the language difference, the Afghans would probably fit in with the hillbillies of his book.

    1. If you watched the Vance interview you know he wasn’t about SIV holders, but about the refugees who are not SIV holders, which are the majority according to the State Department’s own numbers. And the State Department has stated these individuals the non-SIV holders are undergoing an “expedited” vetting process, doing in days what normally takes months. I think it’s entirely reasonable to ask how this process has been “expedited”, especially as the State Department has refused to answer that question when they’ve been asked the last couple of days.

    2. And one more question, Vance is running for Senate, isn’t part of the duties of the legislative branch supposed to be oversight of the executive branch? Why should he not be asking for these questions then? Also, isn’t the purpose of freedom of the press supposed to be so that they ask the uncomfortable questions, so why are we bashing journalist for asking about vetting?

  6. At least Fiona admits “translators” is a load of crap because it polls well. If you’ve been apying attention the number of “translators” has risen from 10k to 20k to over 100k in a matter of weeks. I’m just glad the “Afghan girls Robotics Team” is bound for Canuckistan and not the USA. We got enough of that “Women in STEM” shit here now.

    1. If the “Afghan girls Robotics Team” gave a shit about wimmens and gurlz they would have got their happy asses on the front line and killed themselves some Taliban.

      Freedom isn’t free; it’s a shame that they didn’t turn in (or knife in their sleep) their Taliban neighbors, who of course were also kin and tribe mates, to those racist whitey americans who would have been very happy to hunt the alleged muslim extremist (read religious originalist) down so the all-girl afghan soccer team could go to a backwater gym meet, while they had the twenty-year opportunity to do so.

      1. It’s especially insidious racism, in that Afghanis are the same race as the majority of Americans.

  7. While looking up types and sources of Taliban weapons prior to their recent bonanza one of the things I found is that their AK ammo is all US rebranded Russian and Czech stuff that was purchased for the Afghan National Army and the police. The main middlemen were reportedly…translators.

  8. Oh, about those promises made to our Afghan collaborators. Could Reason or some actual legitimate journalism outfit show us one of their contracts? I mean for a solid promise signed in blood or whatever for which we have incurred a profound moral obligation it has to written down somewhere, maybe per-printed on the collaborator application? I’d like to see the language about how if we totally fuck up and lose badly, in part because you guys are a bunch of thieves and double-dealing traitors we absolutely promise to fly you and your extended family to the USA for an all expense paid refugee lifestyle.

    1. You can shorten all of these comments to, “I’m a terrible, ignorant, selfish prick,” and the end effect would be the same.

      1. Well, you could simply admit to being a lying, steaming pile of lefty shit and make it easy.
        Still waiting for the cite of all those lies from Ken, asshole. Not. A. One.

      2. Oh shit. Did he commit blood libel??

  9. “neglecting to mention just how safe these people are”

    I bet he also neglected to mention how cost-effective they are as laborers for employers like Charles Koch, the billionaire who funds Reason.com.

    Now I’m not saying Afghans are as desirable as Mexicans in that regard. But I’m confident they’re more cost-effective than Mr. Koch’s absolute least favorite employees — people born in the US.

    #OpenTheBordersToHelpBillionaires

    1. there is always comments like this

      1. And quite often it is OBL making them. That’s his schtick.

      2. Nuh, with all the lefty trolls good comments are getting rare. What are you whining about?

  10. I read some of Vance’s comments. I really don’t think he was scaremongering about the “Talibani next door”, so much as raising the point that many Afghanis might not integrate particularly well into American life. And he cited crime numbers from Europe, which I believe has been host to significantly more Afghani refugees than the U.S. to date.

    And yes, I’ll willingly concede that SIV recipients have been vetted. But, exactly what were the criteria for vetting? Honestly, I’d be surprised and a bit disappointed if those criteria weren’t more for tribal and political loyalties within the context of local Afghani politics than how good a neighbor they’d be in Cordesville, SC. And, even if those criteria did match up, are we now saying that we trust the U.S. military to lead the way in honest, agenda-less evaluations?

    I’m certainly open to the possibility that Vance is dead wrong here. But, dismissing it as pure xenophobia seems a little dishonest in its own right. At least given the evidence put on the table.

    1. Shh… expecting any reason from Reason is so 2008.

    2. They are vetted in as much as they are not security risks themselves, and they face a reasonable likelihood of facing persecution under the taliban. Speaking from experience, they want to be American. It is an aspirational goal for many of them that was a big motivator for working with the Americans, at peril of their lives.

      What are you counting as “integration”? They aren’t gonna magic themselves white, Bill.

      1. You state you served in Afghanistan, you should know that a large percentage of Afghanis are Caucasians, no darker than Spaniards or Italians.

        1. He should also know who makes fighter planes from defense contractors. There’s a lot of shit he doesn’t know for having “served.”

          1. If you guess Boeing you would be right in 90% of the cases.

        2. I don’t think DeOpp is just taking about skin color literally, but being culturally “white”, as in being what used to be called a WASP.

          1. Yeah, maybe. If you look at it in the best light, which you did for him, but I simply state a well documented fact and you accuse me of xenophobia. Gee, how disingenuous and tribal of you. He agrees with you, and do you give him the benefit of the doubt, I don’t 100% agree with you and you label me a xenophobe. Funny, how that works.

            1. Actually, the reason I’m backing DoL up is I know he has said he personally knows SIVs who are trying to get out, so this is not some abstract argument for him.

              1. How do you know I didn’t serve in Afghanistan?

                1. I think you may have. I vaguely recall your saying something like that, and your handle implies you were a medic. And you’ve talked about being a medic, I believe.

              2. How do you know he’s not lying?

          2. Racist fucktard.

          3. The only people I’ve ever seen used that argument are progressives when called out for labeling a group not white when they are in fact white. I’ve seen this used when progressives label Hispanics as brown people when many are in fact Caucasians and identify as such. It is their own racism that makes them think all Hispanics are “brown” people and all Muslims are “brown” people.

            1. Well, now you have seen me refer to cultural whiteness — and I’m not a progressive.

              1. LOL youre a shill and you do it with a passion.

                #NotAProgressiveInName
                #ButInEveryOtherWay

          4. And just for shits and giggles, what is the defining characteristics of WASPs?

            1. They kill bees. I hate em. Theyre like a nasty version of bees not worth of life.

              1. *worthy of life. like this phone.

            2. what is the defining characteristics of WASPs?

              The only characteristic that matters, left wingers hate them.

        3. The largest percentage of them are Pashtun, which very few people would call “white” technical categorization aside.

          Do you call Persians white? Then you would not call Pashtuns white.

          1. Yes I call Persians white. They aren’t any darker for the most part than Spaniards, Portuguese, Greeks and southern Italians, which also are whites. They’re Caucasians.

            1. Yes, they are darker than Spaniards. For fuck’s sake. No one making a description for the cops of a suspect would describe a Persian as “white”.

              1. Says you. You keep saying no one would when I know a number of people who would disagree with you. And I’ve seen a lot of dark skinned Spaniards, Portuguese etc, who are darker than a number of Persians I know.

          2. And I know a lot of Persians and they would be insulted that you imply they are not white.

            1. Ok then, according to you, Persians are white. Most Persians I have known call themselves “Persian”. And most Afghans I have known would call themselves “pashtun” or “Hazara” (who definitely are not white in any sense of the word), “Tajik”, etc.

              But sure, try to extend your wikipedia level knowledge of Afghanistan and its people and use that to discredit someone who has actually spent time there and counts Afghans among my personal friends.

              1. I am not discounting your experience, you are discounting the experience of Afghanistan veterans I know who disagree with you. And you are discounting my experience with Persians. And yes they describe themselves as Persians first and then will tell you if it is brought up that Persians are whites too.

      2. Also, the Boston bombers were white Muslims from the former country of Yugoslavia, and war refugees, so skin color has nothing to do with it.

          1. Not necessarily either, but the majority of international terrorist are currently. Back in the 1980s we had an equal number of pro-marxist, nationalist and Muslim international terrorist organizations, but the two former have mainly disappeared after the fall of the Soviet Union and the North Ireland peace accords.

            1. PFLP

              George Habash was a Roman Catholic Marxist Palestinian Nationalist

              1. Wow, talk about schizophrenic belief systems.

                1. Not exactly.
                  Modern terrorism was basically born of the partnership between western Marxists and Palestinians/islamists.

                  1. Except the IRA, which dates back to the 19th century, they were just Catholic, for the most part, Nationalists. They adopted Marxist ideology, then abandoned it, later.

        1. Chechens, SM. So Caucasus. Not Yugoslavs.

          Carry on though.

            1. Knew they were war refugees just got the wrong war torn Muslim country.

              1. And also should be noted both countries were former communist countries that officially tried to suppress religious expression.

      3. Afghanis aren’t white?

        Of course that’s just the standard progressive trope of crying “racism” of any criticism of their preferred policies. If you can’t substantively answer their point, just call the person a racist. It’s de rigueur. That doesn’t make it any less stupid.

        And what am I counting as integration? Well, not committing crimes at inordinate rates is probably a pretty good first pass.

        1. how about not keeping your women in bags? And not demanding others do so at the point of a gun.

          1. Again, I’m not saying that some of these people wouldn’t be perfectly fine to bring into the country. But, saying “Gosh, they were all vetted. What’s your problem?” probably isn’t the best response without detailing exactly what the vetting process constituted. I’m sure they were all deemed not security risks. But, “not a security risk” is not the same as “not going to commit crimes that are tolerated in their own culture” or, as you suggest, “keeping their women in bags”, no matter how much they “want to be American”.

            1. This should be noted, that after the refugee crisis, many of which were actually Afghanis not Syrians, rape increased by over 100% in Germany, when it was going down before. Austria is reporting Afghani refugees because of the market increase in crime from that population.

              1. Our military did not turn a blind eye to it, they were ordered to ignore it. It came from Civilian authorities, passed down through the military chain of command. The troops had a big issue with those orders, as did most of the field commanders.

                1. The same civilian authorities in many cases that are running the show now, because no civilian ever gets fired in DC.

                2. My apologies. That came out wrong. And I wasn’t trying to indict any of our troops with my point. But, if they were ordered to ignore it, then following those orders is turning a blind eye. As far as I can tell, though, it was only some of our troops who ever went against tolerating it.

                  1. Everyone I talked to about it voiced their displeasure over the orders. I belong to a number of veterans groups and pages. It wasn’t a well kept secret or where the orders came from, in the military, as early as 2002 when I went back in.

                  2. And many may have wanted to complain or report it, the first couple who did got punished, so it was clear what would happen.

            2. And the majority aren’t even “vetted”, they’re the military-age single males who were able to make it through Taliban check points then shove their way past/over Afghan women and children to make it to the front of the line before each plane load.
              They are not sending their best…

              1. Still better than the Kabul University Women’s Studies Department and the You Go Afghan Girls’ Robotic Team.

      4. How are they vetted?

        It is an aspirational goal for many of them that was a big motivator for working with the Americans, at peril of their lives.

        OMG. From a King, to a pro-Soviet military dictatorship, to a communist coup, to a Soviet occupation, to the Taliban, to a US occupation, back to the Taliban. That’s what these people have lived through since *1973*.

        The ability to tell the guys with guns what they want to hear is a survival trait in Afghanistan.

        But you believed them. Because they told you what you wanted to hear.

      5. The majority of refugees are not SIV holders or eligible for SIV, according to the State Department. This is a crime unto itself, in that we are abandoning SIV holders and those eligible for SIVs while the majority evacuated so far are not SIVs. We are abandoning our allies, and I know the frustration many veterans are going through on this. While the majority are arguably at risk that have been evacuated the administration and yes previous administrations, have not done enough to get out the people who actually have worked for us. In fact, the majority of the Afghanis who worked directly for the State Department, haven’t even been evacuated yet either by the State Department. It is a total gaggle fuck. And there doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason as to who the state department is allowing onto the airport, I’ve seen multiple stories of SIV holders being turned away from the airport by State Department officials (the gates are manner by service members and State Department officials, but as verified by Blinken today, the State Department is the ones making the call as to who gets in and who doesn’t). I’ve also seen multiple stories about frustration among State Department and service members on how the criteria for who does and doesn’t get in makes no sense. And the two, bipartisan congressmen who visited the airport said they saw the same thing. Complete chaos without. Both are also veterans of Afghanistan.

    3. The arguments you make below are precisely xenophobia. For example, soldiermedic76’s citation of crime statistics from Germany is at best an argument that xenophobia in this case is warranted, but it’s still saying literally, “We should fear letting these strangers in amongst us.”

      1. It is in no such way a xenophobic argument. It is simply a statement of facts. I also stated I support bringing in refugees, especially SIV. So stuff it up your sanctimonious ass.

        1. Actually, the reason I’m backing DoL up is I know he has said he personally knows SIVs who are trying to get out, so this is not some abstract argument for him.

          1. He says, however, he called Afghanis non whites. If I claimed to have served in Afghanistan would you give me the same benefit of the doubt?

            1. Are you still trying to claim I’m not what I say I am? I have been vetted twice on these boards, and have given you several chances to email me privately as well.

              No, most Afghans do not appear white, physically or “culturally”. Pashtuns, Turkmen, etc. are Persian, Turkish, Pakistani. Only Tajiks look white, and none of them are culturally close to anything European.

              1. I am not saying anything other than anyone can claim anything on the internet.

                1. You certainly are.

                  “He says, however, he called Afghanis non whites. If I claimed to have served in Afghanistan would you give me the same benefit of the doubt?”

                  What was meant by this? It is obvious. Don’t back peddle now.

                  email me at deoppressoliber42069@gmail.com if you want to go over my record. I am exactly who I say I am.

                  Or just continue to ignore my points and attempt to discredit them through lazy implications of dishonesty, when you have the truth available to you with just a simple email.

                  1. No it wasn’t obvious like I said not all Afghanistan veterans have the same opinion as you. Just claiming to be an Afghanistan veteran doesn’t make your opinion, which BTW I mostly agree with, other than I believe that we should know more about the vetting process being used for non-SIV refugees. Note the distinction I use, doesn’t make your opinion anymore pertinent than anyone else.

                  2. Actually, the reason I’m backing DoL up is I know he has said he personally knows SIVs who are trying to get out, so this is not some abstract argument for him.

                    This is Mikes response that I was replying to, he stated that he was backing you because you are an Afghanistan veteran, so I asked him, after he called me xenophobic, how did he not know if I served in Afghanistan, and if I were a veteran would be give me the same benefit of the doubt he gives you. In context it is entirely clear that I was asking if he was giving you the benefit of the doubt because you are an Afghanistan veteran it because he agrees with your stance. And if I were a veteran of Afghanistan, which I have never claimed, I volunteered for Afghanistan and Iraq both and was kept stateside to do training and medical support for deploying troops, something I have always been ashamed of, would it change his estimation of my views.
                    Also, just want to say RIP to our brothers just killed in Kabul. This whole situation is a complete gagglefuck. No two ways about it. I want our citizens and allies out. And am pissed that we still have allies and citizens in country, while non SIV members, in the tens of thousands, have been evacuated.

                  3. Also, I will state at this point I don’t doubt your authenticity anymore, but I still disagree with you on a lot of things, especially on describing Afghanis and especially Persians (who I have far more experience with than Afghanis) as not being white. No, they are not Scando-Germanics or Celtic white, but they also are definitely not Arabic-Semitic or Mongoloid. And they are genetically Caucasian/Aryan, which I’ve known for a long time, long before Wikipedia ever existed and find anyone, left or right, who denies them being whites as ignorant usually. I have found most people who describe all middle eastern and South western Muslims (and not saying you, but I suspect MG and many progressives I’ve seen trotting out that trope this week fall into this category) as brown people are also of the mistaken impression that they all are of Arabic-Semitic lineage. And I’ve actually had arguments with a number of them who didn’t believe me that they are actually Caucasian/Aryan. And I know a number of Persians who are very outspoken that Persians are Aryans and are white, that they are not Arabs (which they tend to look down on in my experience). Hell, the damn word Iran comes from the Persian for Aryan.
                    Growing up with an inner Salish tribe of Indians, I also find most people’s image of Amerindians is extremely ignorant.

                  4. And just FYI, I decided a number of months ago to stop questioning your service. I am involved in a number of veteran organizations and I realized my mission to support veterans runs contrary to questioning others service unless I have a very good reason to believe they are stealing valor. Secondly, I did some research on direct entry SF, which wasn’t a thing when I got out in early 2005, or wasn’t a widely known thing, and realized the issues that made me question your story I was wrong about. And fourth, I will not show others my DD 214, or any of my other military documents so I should not expect others to do such either. Fifth, I have met more than one stolen valor, and I didn’t realize it in all three cases until someone else informed me (I suspected in two of the cases). In two of the three cases, they actually were veterans but they inflated their resume, and in the third case he was an USAF basic trainee washout (not sure how you wash out of USAF basic). As a result I’ve had to conclude I am not very good at spotting the fakes, especially if they have actually served.

                    1. Fair enough. I typically do not question someone’s service until they say something that belies their inauthenticity. The last case was a HVAC guy I hired who showed up with a back pack covered in special ops patches. I asked about it and he goes on and on about locking out of submarines and killing Somalis with a knife….as an airforce PJ. I didn’t even bother to confront him though, just told him I didn’t need the work after all.

                      I have shown two vets on these boards my records.

                      First vetting: https://reason.com/2021/03/31/is-matt-gaetz-a-child-sex-trafficker-heres-what-the-law-actually-says/#comment-8834613

                    2. second vetting: https://reason.com/2021/04/01/violent-crime-in-baltimore-plunges-after-city-ditches-prosecution-of-prostitution-drug-possession-other-minor-offenses/#comment-8836381

                      And I do this because there is a common theme around here that people who hold opinions different to the fox news narrative are less patriotic or are unemployed and looking for handouts. Or that libertarians should prefer the GOP.Well, I was ready to give my life for this constitution, I was a member of the GOP, and I am an entrepreneur, and I reject most of the GOP’s positions now.

                      Usually when they cannot counter my arguments, they lazily go to “you’re lying”. Damn it all, I’m not. I am what I say I am.

              2. And my second point was that there are a million Afghanistan veterans over 20 years and they have a diversity of opinions. Simply being a veteran doesn’t make anyone’s opinion any more pertinent than anyone else’s.

                1. My firsthand knowledge of Afghanistan (and Iraq) goes a lot deeper than most vets, no offense to them. That is the nature of being an embedded combat advisor living on an Afghan base, or living in a Kurdish neighborhood completely off of a base when I was in Iraq.

                  I was just visiting with one of my former Pashtun interpreters a couple months ago. They are my personal friends. I know them much better than any of these nativist, ignorant fuckwads spewing their twitter and Tucker Carlson fed viewpoints.

                  1. How do you know how and where my friends served and in what capacity? Are you sure you have more experience than them?
                    Also, the article is misrepresenting what Tucker actually said. He has been clear that he is not speaking about SIV holders but about those without SIVs and he hasn’t asked for any special vetting, just has insisted the vetting should be done. Not sure how that makes him or anyone else a Nativist fuckwit. Can you explain why asking for proper vetting of non-SIV holders is Nativist.

                    1. I think Tucker Carlson and other fox news types are careful to use the most inflammatory language they can when describing the afghan refugees. “Invaded”, “Invasion”, “by the millions”, “disease infested”. These are just a sample. The overall message is that Afghan refugees are being brought to the US in order to further weaken GOP votes and attack America’s white population. The humanitarian aspect is mentioned as a caveat, a cover your ass clause.

                      People, especially ignorant and hateful people, respond to emotional language, not the actual content. This is what Tucker has tapped into, over and over.

                    2. And vice versa, progressives news anchors have used the term afraid of brown people and Nativist to inflame their audiences, numerous times and shut down debate from the right. It is not just Tucker, it is people like Rachel Maddow, and others on the left who also use ignorance to inflame people. Blaming this all on Tucker is disingenuous.

                    3. And this article is just another example of using inflammatory language (Nativist) and incomplete and disingenuous arguments and incomplete quotes to inflame ignorant people and to shut down debate, even for people who have legitimate questions about the vetting process of non-SIV persons, and are not afraid of being “invaded”. I grant you Tucker has used some inflamatory language, but I’ve watched him closely the past week, mainly because of the criticism of him, and I think you are wrong that he is using the SIV thing as a cover. He has always stated he fully supports bringing in any Afghani that helped us. He also has said that every refugee should be vetted, but has not called for any “special” vetting as the author implies. And his calls for vetting, he makes clear are not about those already vetted but for everyone not vetted yet. He has also made clear that he wants to make sure that the vetting process isn’t lessened just because they are refugees. He wants them vetted the same way as everyone else and in accordance with US laws, which he has also stated multiple times. Do you actually watch his show, or only clips from biased sources (who also are using just as inflamatory language)?

                    4. Are we sure that many of these refugees being brought over have not helped us?

                      One of the ‘terps I’m assisting did not submit his SIV application prior to this, so he would be counted as “non-SIV”. However, he absolutely did put his ass on the line conducting raids in southern Afghanistan, near his village of birth. Brave, but foolish. So he was recognized and has been receiving death threats ever since. He is a hard headed hazara who hates, absolutely hates the Taliban. He should be allowed here.

        2. Hmm, that got posted in the wrong spot.

        3. I apologize for calling you xenophobic. A good argument was made below that phobia is irrational fear, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are only rationally fearful of bringing rapists into the country, based on your German crime statistics.

          1. Not fearful, but aware of the problems others have had with mass refugees from Afghanistan. Nothing I stated implied fear. I simply stated a fact.

      2. As I state below, to have an intellectually honest conversation you have to admit the facts that support your argument and the facts that oppose your argument. Fuck, is that yo hard for you to understand?

      3. And never did I say we should fear Afghani refugees. Nor did I ever say they shouldn’t be banned. I stated that asking about the vetting process is not beyond the pale. And simply pointed out problems that many Europeans countries, not just Germany, have been experiencing as a result of mass refugees, mostly unaccompanied MAM, from Afghanistan have experienced. And according to the State Department, at least 10% of refugees so far are unaccompanied males (they haven’t revealed ages). When discussing the topic honestly you don’t ignore facts that are inconvenient to your platform. The US has a much better history of assimilating foreign cultures then Europe has, however, our recent history is not quite as good as it used to be (but still better than Europe).

        1. *should be banned.

      4. And you claim not to call people names but just called me xenophobic for mentioning a well documented fact without any opinion on that fact offered by me. So, you do call people names.

        1. The article above explains that both SIV and non-SIV Afghan refugees are being vetted. What can bringing up rape statistics from Germany be seen as anything other than “we should fear these strangers”, literally what xenophobia means.

          1. Since part of the article was questioning about how they are vetted, and how the State Department has stated they are expediting the process, and the comment I was responding to mentioned the difference in cultural understanding of crime, the point is pertinent in that it is a problem others have had. Where did I say we should fear them? You read a lot into that, which says more about you than me. Do you deny the fact I stated without offering any opinion on it? How do you get I am saying we should fear them, when I never said anything to that extent?

          2. It doesn’t state how they are being vetted, especially in light of the State Department expediting the vetting. It implies, the story, that questioning the vetting process is wrong. So we are supposed to not question how the government is vetting the refugees? Is that your argument? Because my argument is bring in Afghanis, especially SIVs but we should be able to question the vetting process and ignoring facts that hurt your position is intellectually dishonest. Labeling people racist and xenophobic is just another way to tell them to shut up because the facts they offer don’t fit your narrative.

            1. I don’t have a narrative.

      5. Phobia is not fear. It is irrational fear.

        And the point raised is to question not the idea of admitting “strangers” but the value of the claimed vetting.

        1. OK, that’s a good point about the difference between fear and irrational fear.

      6. Phobias are irrational fears.

        There’s nothing irrational fearing people who have demonstrated their propensity for violence.

    4. There is something else to think about.

      A huge argument on why America should be more restrictive in regards to Immigration and Afghan Refugees is that something bad Might happen. Tho with that standard, Schools have been shot up and people died from Covid, dose that make things like Gun Control and Vaxx-Passes a good policy?

      1. No, it’s a desperate stretch.

  11. The Democratic Dividing Line: Big Government…Or Even Bigger Government?

    The Republican Dividing Line: We Should Honor Our Debts To Afghans Who Helped Us (and nationalize them according to standard practice).., Or We Should Honor Our Debts To Afghans Who Helped Us And Nationalize Them According To Standard Practice.

    Both sides!

  12. According to sources, including the State Department, and DoD, the majority evacuated are not SIV holders or American citizens and that they are “expediting” the vetting of these refugees to clear them from those so called lilly pads. By focusing on just the SIV holders brought in so far is ignoring the forest for the trees. I expect better from Reason, not sure why I do but I do. Address the whole issue, not just what supports the narrative and especially not just what supports the orange man bad narrative.

    1. Note I have no issue with allowing on refugees and especially SIV holders, other than the issue of tax payer support for life, however, I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to question how they are being vetted, especially when they are being expedited through the process.

      1. Just a moment: We’ve brought death and destruction to all of Afghanistan for 20; now, we’re going to quibble over security threats of immigrants to the U.S. from the humanitarian crisis, we’ve created?

        1. We did after WWII also, many Germans were barred from immigration because of their wartime services. And yet we still allowed people directly involved in the Holocaust into the country, some brought by the government on purpose, some snuck in.

        2. And if you look at the death and destruction we dealt in Germany, especially as a result of the inaccuracy of our strategic bombing of the time, was much worse than all the damage we did to Afghanistan over 20 years.

          1. I’m not sure that’s a fair comparison. Germany had more and better buildings, infrastructure, etc. to do damage to.

            1. No, out weapons are far more accurate and the ROEs were far more restrictive. But that is besides the point. We destroyed more of Germany and killed more civilians for whatever reason. How hard is that to understand? Are you going to wrongly accuse me of being xenophobic again after offering facts without an opinion on those facts, because those facts run counter to your narrative, even though I support your position except I think asking about vetting isn’t beyond the pale.

              1. I apologize for calling you xenophobic.

        3. How many Afghans will be living with you, John?

        4. Yes, John. Yes we are. They can fucking rot over there if they can’t behave in a Western society. Or better yet, they can pick up one of the 600,000 or so guns we left for them over there, and fight for their country.

    2. I’ll just drop this National Interest article here: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ive-worked-refugees-decades-europes-afghan-crime-wave-mind-21506

      Done it before, but such is a discussion board that updates multiple times a day. The tl;dr is that Afghan refugees specifically really don’t play well with others, and usually view any pubescent or older unaccompanied female as desiring sexual attention. Willingly or not.

      They aren’t vetting shit at State—though they’re gung ho about turning away anyone not on their lists—and this magazine really needs to start hiring some experts already. Michael Young would have torn five holes in this silly author’s argument before morning tea.

      1. According to the State Department’s own data, only 45% of refugees are females or children, but which means at least 10% are unaccompanied males. That was released today.

        1. Whole lotta’ unaccompanied MAMs on the pictures of C-17 flight decks that I’ve seen. Shrug.

          Fuck it; not like I own a Kosher deli in a supermarket or a gay nightclub.

          1. Grr. Cargo decks. But you knew what I meant.

            Damn things are flying empty anyway, it seems.

  13. Lol. You will never be able to convince Rs that brown people are not security threats.

    1. A good portion of Afghanis are Caucasians, you racist. As are Iranians (hint the word Iran is a derivative of Aryan).

      1. Molly thinks all Muslims are brown people. LOL. How racist.

        1. Well, DOL does pretty much the same thing in his/her response to me. My response is awaiting moderation.

          1. It will be awaiting moderation forever

            1. What he said.

              Repost it, Bill, sans link. Or tell us what the gist was.

          2. DOL was personally in Afghanistan and knows people who are trying to get out. He’s passionate about this topic because of his personal connection. You could maybe cut him some slack on that front.

            1. Except he was wrong about Afghanis not being white, which you’d think he would know.

              1. Depends what he meant by “white”. He may well have meant conforming to American white culture.

                1. What is white culture? I’m Norse and German Lutheran, from rural western US, is my culture the same as an Irish Catholic from Boston?

                  1. White culture is the starter used in making white cheddar.

                  2. White culture is a racist label used by mollycoddled progressive shills and other dead ends of evolution to make sweeping claims about a large, loosely related group. It is crucial to ignore that, like any other group, “white people” are actually pretty “diverse”

                    Woah fuck thats new thinking. Imagine diversity could be found by considering culture instead of skin color, but progressive racists fucking hated that thought.

                    Suppose they gave no war at all but everybody came anyways. Thats what being a progressive means.

                    1. I’d rather progressives be mollywhopped

              2. They aren’t white, except for Tajiks. No one would walk into a crowd in Afghanistan and describe them as white. Only someone who knows them from a wikipedia page would do that.

                1. No one? Or no one without education. And I consider Persians white too, they’re hardly darker than Spaniards, Portuguese, southern Italians and Greeks, but then again progressives don’t consider them white either. BTW my major professor was Persian and he was very adamant he is white. He also was mistaken as either Spanish or Hispanic or Italian often.

                2. Many Americans understand that not all white people are blonde haired blue eyed Scando-Germanics (which includes the British) or Celtic. Progressives often seem to be the ones who have the hardest time with this concept in my experience.

                3. Also the Uzbeks. And I know a number of Afghanistan veterans who would disagree with your assessment. They laugh at you saying no one would call Afghanis white.

                  1. Ok, Tajiks and Uzbeks, except Uzbeks have the largest heads of any “race” I’ve ever seen. Seriously, they needed to alter their hats at the tailor.

                    1. I’ve heard that from others.

                  2. And the largest subset of Afghans are Pashtuns, who most certainly would not be described by anyone as white, unless you want to make the term “white” so broad as to be more meaningless than it already is.

                    1. I think the term is mostly useless to begin with, but I’ve known for a long time that Persians and Afghanis were Caucasians, long before this war started, and no it isn’t from Wikipedia. I’ve known a number of Persians from my university and military days, starting before 9/11, and was close personal friends with them, spent time at their homes (most weren’t good Muslims and drank quite a bit of vodka) and with their families. Also, anyone who saw the Times Magazine photo of the green eyed, fairly fair skinned Afghani girl from the early 1990s would be hard pressed to description be them as brown people. I also knew more than a few Turks from my military days, we had a lot of Turkish medical personal training at Ft. Sam Houston, and I would be hard pressed to not also classify them as white. Yes they are darker than Scando-Germanics and Celtic, but I’ve known more than one Spaniard and Portuguese who are just as dark or darker. I interacted with a lot of NATO personal while at Ft Sam Houston.

                    2. Hell, I’ve even know some southern French who are also pretty damn dark skinned. And a few Eastern Europeans who have pretty dark skin.

                    3. My friends who served in Afghanistan disagree. And I disagree with anyone who labels Persians, Turks, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Pashtuns, Turks, Lebanese, Pakastani as non white, especially those who mistakingly think these groups are Arabic-Semitic, usually as ignorant. A better word than brown or white to describe them would be a word that used to be used a lot, swarthy. Which can also be used for a number of Southern Europeans, especially the further south you go.

                    4. I agree that whiteness is meaningless, and we’ve gone way into the weeds from what was admittedly a flippant sign off to my original comment. My point was that Bill and other “conservatives” are complaining about an inability to integrate, but they cannot define what integration means. My perception is that “integration”, according to conservatives, is something that muslims, and yes, darker skinned people will not ever be able to attain.

                    5. And I think you are wrongly thinking that about conservatives, that this is exactly my point, that this story is one sided, and inflammatory and that progressives and left learners always attribute the worst evils to conservatives, if conservatives don’t buy their narrative. They must be evil, racist, xenophobes. Worrying about integration is not a new phenomenon, and has existed since mass migration began in the 1820s. And it is something worth considering, because as we’ve seen in Europe, with many groups, not just Afghanis, over the past coupl of decades, when you fail to integrate a group it has dire consequences. But the counterargument is that the US is pretty damn good at integrating different cultures, it wasn’t so long ago, just two generations, that people questioned if we could ever integrate Southern Europeans into America, and now no one would question that. They successfully integrated while also maintaining their cultural identity. Vietnamese refugees have also been fairly successful. Unfortunately, some, mostly progressives,in the name of political correctness, now believe these efforts at integration are wrong, are evil and a sign of white patriarchy. Go to little Italy or Little Greece or Little China or Little Saigon and tell me how they have lost their culture? But I also would say, especially the younger generations, that they are fully Americanized also.
                      I found in the Army got along far easier and had far more in common with rural blacks from the south than I did with urban whites from the Northeast, despite being a rural white kid from the west. And my roommate, a rural black kid, said the same thing about urban blacks, that we had more in common than he did with urban blacks.

                    6. Also, keep in mind rural, western conservatives are far different than Bible Belt conservatives, and far different in a lot of ways than urban and suburban conservatives. Western conservatives tend to be more fuck the government types and live and let live types. Midwest conservatives tend to be a little more conformist types, as do suburban and urban conservatives I’ve known, and Bible Belt conservatives tend to be more Biblically conservative. Of course these are generalizations, but that was my biggest culture shock I had when I joined the Army coming from a rural, western conservative background.

                    7. Yes, “conservative” is an almost meaningless shorthand at his point too.

                      But I do find it awfully coincidental that whenever the topic of immigration or refugees is brought up, Tucker Carlson finds a reason to oppose them. And finds a reason to refer to their immigration as “an invasion” etc.

            2. DOL was personally in Afghanistan and knows people who are trying to get out.

              Because he said it on the internet so it must be true?

              Seriously, take stock of what you’re saying. A special forces veteran of Afghanistan is trying to get assets out of the country and takes a break to whine about how difficult it is to the forumites of a third-tier political rag. No wonder the country’s a fucking mess. He may as well have just posted “My house is on fire! What, as a special forces operator, do I do?”

              1. Yes, I believe his claims are credible. Of course I don’t know whether some dude on the Internet might be faking.

                Don’t see how his commenting here is relevant.

                1. Because MG said anyone questioning about vetting is afraid of brown people and DoL said they were afraid of people who aren’t white. Virtually the same argument.

                  1. And both arguments are wrong.

                2. Don’t see how his commenting here is relevant.

                  So you said “DOL was personally in Afghanistan and knows people who are trying to get out. He’s passionate about this topic because of his personal connection. You could maybe cut him some slack on that front.” because you think his commenting is irrelevant?

                  1. No, his commenting here cannot somehow be used as proof that he is faking being a veteran. Your argument was a giant stretch.

                    1. I see. So what he says is irrelevant, has no bearing on whether he’s telling the truth, and you’ll believe him anyway. You two should get a room if you don’t occupy the same room already.

        2. MG doesn’t “think” as most people understand that word.

    2. You are so racist it isn’t funny.

    3. Look at all the other comments on this page. They prove my point.

      1. That you a racist who thinks all Muslims are brown people. The only one making that argument is you and DOL.

        1. *that you’re

      2. Hint: only you and DOL (mistakingly) brought up skin color. Good job their.

        1. DOL brought up being “white”. That can mean more than mere skin color. See Fred Willard in Martin Mull’s History of White People in America.

          1. No it means skin color. What else can it mean? Stop digging. Or are you a racist like MG?

          2. And how do you know what DoL meant unless he’s a sock of yours, since he has not responded himself?

            1. I don’t. I think I have consistently said it’s what he may have meant.

          3. If DOL was referencing “acting white”, in the context of commenting on criminal behavior, his comment was simultaneously even more racist than suggested and more insanely stupid. What? Are brown people incapable of not predating on others? Is living peaceably with your neighbors a “white thing”? None of the rest of us are claiming that.
            And, even if that racist presumption were true, then admitting people incapable of living peaceably with their neighbors is pretty stupid.

            1. soldiermedic brought up the criminal thing after DoL made his comment.

              1. No I brought up crime after Bill brought up the difference in cultural understanding of what is a crime. My response was not to DoL. It was to Bill.

                1. After, as in time stamps, not after as In being in the same comment thread.

                  1. But I didn’t bring up crime first. And just FYI, I didn’t serve in Afghanistan, I volunteered too but was kept stateside for other duties.

                  2. In my original post on the topic that DOL was responding to, talking about “white”,

                    And he cited crime numbers from Europe, which I believe has been host to significantly more Afghani refugees than the U.S. to date.

      3. Another hint: Islam is not a race, it’s a religion. And Islamic terrorist come in every skin color, the Boston Marathon Bombers were Caucasians.

    4. Meanwhile, the worst terrorists who got into our country were wealthy Saudi students.

      1. Including the Boston Marathon Bombers? Or the one who shot up the night club in Florida? Or the one who shot up an office space in California? Or the one who shot up Ft. Hood? Or the one who shot up Paris? Or the ones that bombed London? Or the ones that tried to shoot up a passenger train in France?

        1. Yes, the guys who brought down two of the tallest skyscrapers in New York City.

          1. If that was the only terrorist attack over the past two decades.

            1. I said “the worst”, not “the only”.

          2. And just to reinforce the point about it being appropriate to question the vetting process, the Boston Marathon Bombers were also war refugees, part of a mass refugee event, who were vetted.

            1. That is a good point.

              1. Much more relevant than German crime statistics.

    5. Goddamn you are one racist fuck Molly.

  14. Wait a moment, Sasse is asserting some of the people whom we violently treated for 20 years, and then uprooted from their homes, and are making aliens in the World, be a security risk to the U.S.?

    Don’t be an asshole, that’s the risk we take.

    1. Fuck collectivist bullshit.
      Show me some evidence that I’ve ever treated any Afghan violently.

      1. Show us some evidence that you are taking any personal risk then. Two way street, bubb.

        “No man is an island.”

          1. No response, eh. 1-0

    2. Wait a moment, Sasse is asserting some of the people whom we attempted to demonstrate the blessings of liberty to for 20 years failed to be willing to fight to achieve those freedoms and losing them in the blink of an eye might be a security risk to the U.S.?

      They’ll probably make robotics clubs and vote. I call that a security risk.

      1. We demonstrated the blessings of liberty by invading their country? That never, ever made sense.

        1. The majority of Americans, especially southern colonies didn’t support the revolution (and didn’t support the crown either) and Washington ordered an Army to invade the south to fight the Revolution. We imposed liberty on them too.

          1. And a few decades later it led to a nasty civil war.

            1. Yes it did, and we imposed liberty on the southerners again,by freeing the enslaved.

              1. Which we accomplished by invading the south. BTW.

              2. By drafting thousands of soldiers into the Union Army, denying their freedom.

    3. Then they’ll come live in your house.

    1. ‘Poke, poke: please do something stupid, Trumpibaners.’

      Lon Horiuchi is, AFAIK, still fine and alive and well in San Antonio. Guessing LT Byrd will fare just as well. Albeit likely richer.

      1. Maybe. Or maybe something happened with the civil cases or the commission and his name was coming out anyway, and now he’s trying to get in front of it before he gets thrown under the bus.

      2. Iirc, Lon was at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

  15. State Department just issued a bulletin telling American citizens not to travel to the airport and all citizens at the airport to leave and to cooperate with the local authorities, e.g. the Taliban. New Zealand has issued the same warning (but that could be because they were exposed to COVID).

    1. That bodes super well for the time-line.
      Guess any Americans who heed the warning “didn’t want to come home”

      1. I bet it speeds it up because Sleepy Joe seems scared of casualties. He doesn’t want any flag draped coffins. I bet he pulls a Belgian and Dutch and closes airlift because of security threats. The Dutch and Belgians ended all flights today and pulled out because of security threats.

        1. The time line not the evacuation, I should clarify.

          1. The majority of Americans, especially southern colonies didn’t support the revolution (and didn’t support the crown either) and Washington ordered an Army to invade the south to fight the Revolution. We imposed liberty on them too.

  16. https://mobile.twitter.com/TravelGov/status/1430667319508938753

    “#Afghanistan: Due to threats outside the Kabul airport, US citizens should avoid traveling to the airport and avoid airport gates unless you receive instructions to do so. Those at the Abbey Gate, East Gate, or North Gate now should leave immediately.”

  17. I remember reading an article 5 or 6 years ago about a widow and her 5 children. Her husband had been the Mayor of the small Colorado town they lived in and was also in the Army Reserves, and he had been called up and deployed to Afghanistan to train Afghan soldiers. He had been shot to death in a so-called insider killing–one of the Afghan soldiers he was training had suddenly started shooting Americans. It was such a tragedy that the very people we thought we were helping had killed this man. It made me question why we were still in Afghanistan. And now we’re going to bring a lot of Afghans to the US, who have been vetted no better than the Afghan soldiers who committed insider killings. I can’t help but think that it is inevitable that some of the Afghans who come to the US will similarly attack Americans.

    1. Blue on green was a major threat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Worse in Afghanistan because they have a tradition of, if they have two sons, one son each will join the opposing parties of any conflict, i.e, one son would join the Afghani defense forces and another would join the Taliban, not out of any sense of allegiance but so the family would cover their bases for whomever wins the war.

      1. “Blue on green was a major threat in both Iraq and Afghanistan.”

        One of the few times the US has gotten a General smoked by hostile fire in the last 75 years, IIRC.

        Oops.

  18. I liked Vance’s book. He should have stuck to lawyering and bookwriting. He’s become a real scumbag since he’s taken up politics.

  19. Oh, I’m sure the one thing the government responsible for the Afghan withdrawal fiasco got right was carefully vetting the tens of thousands of foreigners they are importing.

  20. Vance is raising concerns that by and large don’t apply to the class of Afghans we’re talking about letting in the U.S. The security vetting of “the Afghans who helped us” has been so rigorous as to render his protests completely nonsensical.

    So, the assumption here seems to be that, amongst all that chaos, the US forces are only repatriating already vetted Afghans? That no one is slipping through? That all these people have impeccable paperwork that allows them to easily be waved through?

    And that we’re not sort of just throwing people into planes?

    1. Like I pointed out above, the majority of the refugees are not SIVs or American Citizens. And the majority are males, which are the most likely statistically to be terrorist (not saying they are terrorist and for Mike, not saying we should fear that they’re terrorist).

    2. I’m raising concerns that you can’t trust the regime responsible for the current Afghan debacle to vet anybody. Vance or not.

      It requires a touching faith in government to think they’re competent at refugee screening. I have no such faith.

      1. To be clear most of the SIVs started the process under the previous administration, it takes year to get an SIV, that has been a complaint for a long time in the veteran community, that ever since this program was created under Obama, that his State Department and Trump’s has taken years to approve what should take less than six months at most. But the vast majority of the refugees are not SIV holders like the author implies.

        1. “But the vast majority of the refugees are not SIV holders like the author implies.”

          Precisely.

  21. The French found 5 Taliban-connected individuals among their evacuees. Of the 7k people who have been evacuated through Qatar, 100 have been flagged for potential connections with terrorist groups like ISIS.

    1. The State Department and DoD has stated the 100 have been cleared, for what’s it’s worth. It should also be pointed out that these catches could be evidence the vetting is successful.

      1. It should be pointed out that in all cases the vetting only flagged any potential problems after those people got through the security perimeter at the Kabul airport and got on board military or chartered flights out of Afghanistan. The 100 flagged in Qatar and the 5 Taliban caught by the French are an example of only a fraction of what anyone knows about the entire evacuation effort. If you want to argue that it’s best to get the vetting done in a third party country because Afghanistan is too hectic right now for that process, that’s a fair argument. I’m not saying that Afghans who helped the US shouldn’t be evacuated and that we don’t have an obligation to help them; I just don’t think Reason can categorically dismiss the vetting concerns considering what has been flagged so far, at what stage of the evacuation it was flagged, and governments tendency for failures and oversights throughout this Afghan mission.

        1. I’m also going to point out that whoever does get caught for any legitimate reason now presents a logistical and optics problem for the government. The US isn’t likely to identify a potential ISIS or Taliban member through the vetting process and still bring them to the US. At the same time, the third party countries that agreed to be stopovers for the evacuation effort also didn’t exactly agree to having ISIS or Taliban fighters brought to their country and left there for them to deal with.

          Either those flagged Taliban fighters have to become the problem for the third party countries to deal with, or they have to be taken back on a flight to Kabul for the next round of evacuations.

          We’re not seeing planes returning the handfuls of people who have been caught, because if we were that would raise questions about why they were sent back and why they were evacuated in the first place if they were found to be a security risk. If the US is just dumping off the problems in those third-party countries, maybe those countries will deal with those people, but if they don’t, they could simply be set loose, at which point if they do have actual terrorist ties, they are now floating in the wind and a step closer to being an actual threat for someone else.

  22. Aaaand here we go again.
    Since the refugees don’t look like stereotypical Americans, they must be put under a microscope to see if they are suitable.

    Each one individually becomes a representative of their entire nationality. The moment one of them does something bad, it is an indictment of the whole lot of them. Some Afghani in Germany raped a woman? Then every Afghani everywhere bears the stain of that sin on their souls.

    The most backwards cultural stereotype of the group becomes the cultural norm. So because some of them “put women in bags” or are otherwise misogynistic pigs, that becomes emblematic of the entire group. An Afghani man should be assumed to be a misogynistic pig until proven otherwise.

    The standard of proof becomes heightened – instead of being asked to prove that they are generally decent people, instead they must prove that they are superior human beings, superior even to most Americans.

    It’s not about race, it is about difference. They look and act different, therefore they must be held to a much much higher standard than everyone else, and anyone failing to meet that very high bar should be treated as if they are scum. That is the dog whistle that people like Vance are employing, and people here in the comment section are aping. “Look at them, they look and act different compared to your neighbors. Because of that alone, we must treat them suspiciously and as if they threaten harm.” It is the same type of impulse that occurs with racism, that is why it is mistaken to be the same as racism.

    1. So you’re saying no one should ask questions from what the State Departments own words describe as an expedited vetting process, when according to the State Department the majority are NOT SIVs or American Citizens? So, you’re libertarian argument is that we shouldn’t question the process?

      1. Questioning. Well we are talking small numbers but sure soldier. Take them to Rammstein whatever.

        There are not enough forces on the ground to get out under fire those we know to be Americans. Let alone anyone else. What a rat ship we got going here. What a sham is happening.

        There was an alternative way in politics. It got sold out here.

        1. Small numbers so far. Some are calling for us to take up to 200,000 Afghani refugees. Yes take them to Rammstein, vet them, but what is the “expedited” vetting process? We shouldn’t question that? Why not?

        2. And those small numbers, as the story rightly pointed to our, have already gone through the process. Fiona wrongly portrays Vance as questioning only those, but 70,000 or so, who haven’t gone through the SIV process, who haven’t undergone for the most part any process until now, and now a process that normally takes months will be done in days according to the State Department. So even if we don’t take in 200,000, is 70,000 still a small number? When does the number become a big number? Why are you and others so afraid of us asking what the “expedited” process exactly is? What is wrong with asking those questions?

          1. Especially considering how much this administration is not telling us, and when they have told us stuff, it’s turned out to be wrong 99% of the time.

        3. The British and French did it.
          Biden doesn’t want to risk a US soldier getting killed, because it’s a talking point totalitarian faggots like echospinner will accept and repeat without question, so fuck the 10,000 Americans that’ll be abandoned.

    2. So the libertarian argument is just shut up because top men are on it? Ignore the expedited process, and how it has failed in the past? I don’t see anyone except you, DoL, MG and Mike saying anything about them not being allowed in because they are different. I’ve seen many state facts for why proper vetting is necessary, and why it is appropriate to question an expedited vetting process. Maybe it will work this time. And maybe th vast majority are perfectly safe, but tell me why Vance is wrong to question the vetting process? Especially as the article disingenuously implied all the refugees are SIV, only the ones brought in so far ar SIV holders. At least 10% are unaccompanied males, the group that is most statistically linked to terrorist. That is a fact. They also are the ones who caused a marked increase in rape in numerous European countries. Those are also facts. Are we supposed to ignore these facts? I ask as someone who supports bringing in Afghani refugees, especially SIVs. But I also believe we can and should be asking questions of how the government is vetting them, especially in light of how bad Biden and past administrations, including Trump, have done in handling Afghanistan and especially in identifying dangers from that country.

      1. Or the majority are SIV recipients, which also is not entirely clear.

    3. And who said a different or higher standard besides you? There is lots of worry that the standard has been lowered to expedite the situation. It generally takes weeks to months to do the process for everyone applying for a visa, even longer for SIV visas, the State Department is talking about doing it in days, so it is entirely possible the process is being lessened. Also, many of them have scant documentation, as a result of being refugees, so that would usually slow the process down, but they are speeding the process up, ergo, it is entirely prudent to ask questions about what possible corners they are cutting. That isn’t asking for a higher standard, that is asking are they sticking to the same standard as everyone else goes through.

      1. C’mon

        You are a soldier medic.

        You know that retreat under fire is the most difficult maneuver in military tactic. You know that protecting wounded or those threatened is very difficult even under better circumstances.

        So this admin has failed to do that. It cannot even give access to the one airport left. Biden should do one thing but he has not. We know what that is and it is not nice. They are based from North Carolina.

        1. Yeah and I am just supposed to take their assurance that this “expedited” process for the vast majority who are not SIV is all good and stop asking questions?

        2. I am all for evacuating them and vetting them at another site, but just want to make sure they are undergoing the same vetting process as everyone else.

          1. Once they are at a safe location. That is all I am saying and what all Tucker and Ingram are really saying and Vance was saying that n the quote from the article. Is that really Nativist?

            1. Your position needs no defense.
              Echospinner is a resentful, passive-aggressive totalitarian leftist who hates this country and its people because he knows he is inherently worthless.

            2. No, no it’s not.

    4. Fiona is being purposely being disingenuous by only focusing on SIVs, which are a minority of the refugees evacuated so far according to the State Department. And Carlson, Ingraham etc have not said SIVs should not be allowed in, they have consistently questioned the vetting process for all the majority of refugees who are not SIV, which is also what Vance was responding to on Carlson’s show. He was specifically talking about the ones who haven’t undergone any previous vetting, and who are now undergoing an “expedited” vetting process, which the State Department refuses to answer questions about. The quote was taken completely out of context, as were Carlson’s and Ingram’s complaints. This is another “conservatives hate different people” article that ignores more than half of what they have actually said and just focuses on a small portion of their statement to misrepresent their argument. It doesn’t address the vast majority of refugees, it doesn’t address that the State Department has “expedited’ the process for non-SIV recipients, it doesn’t address the fact that the State Department has been asked about the expedited process and refused to answer what it involves and just keep repeating “they’re being vetted at these lilly pads”. And when asked what the vetting process is they respond “we are vetting them, I won’t get into the process”. And you swallowed it hook, line and sinker because it plays into your narrative. People are the right must be racist to question the vetting process or demanding that people are vetted properly, right? Look at that evil Vance, let me take him out of context and ignore what he was asked and what his point was and just disingenuously imply that he was questioning people who have already undergone an extensive vetting process and not the people he really was talking about, the non SIV refugees who have not undergone any vetting prior to the evacuation and are now undergoing an “expedited” process that they refuse to answer questions about.

      1. “This is another ‘conservatives hate different people” article that ignores more than half of what they have actually said.”

        This is absolutely right. I find a lot of times when “evil nativist conservatives” tropes are trotted out, it’s because Reason is unwilling to understand a nuanced conversation that doesn’t end in absolute unfettered open-borders policy in 100 percent of cases.

        Frankly, the arguments of Tucker and Vance strike me as generally supportive of legitimate resettlement for SIVs who actually helped the US, but skeptical of why this process is rewarding the same fighting age men who did nothing as the Taliban took over Afghanistan and are clearly not among the category of people who helped the US during the war, for which the SIV designation was intended. Tucker and Vance’s stances seem generally skeptical of the government’s handling of this whole process, which is a more libertarian take on the matter than Reason’s insinuations that anyone who questions this vetting process is just a racist jerk who hates immigrants.

    5. Annnnd here’s fat jeff assuming he knows what people look like, even though he hasn’t left his mom’s basement in years.

    6. You know all about collectivizing…

  23. Just to clarify, I don’t think anyone is questioning the process for SIV, I’ve watched Tucker and Ingram, and watched the Vance interview the past couple of days, the Vance quote was taken out of context, and he was answering a question about all the refugees who are not SIV holders, which is also who Tucker and Ingram have asked questions about. Fiona leaves that out. The vast majority of refugees are not SIV holders and are undergoing an “expedited” vetting process, which the State Department says will take days, rather than the usual months, because they have backlogs and inhuman conditions at these so called lilly pads. They are expediting the process because they didn’t plan on how to deal with the refugees and are now having to make it up on the fly, so people are living in sewage filled and garbage filled holding camps, overcrowded. And when asked about the vetting process the State Department has just answered they are being vetted at Qatar, and then at Rammstein and other bases, and then vetted when they come to US bases, but refuse to answer how the process is being conducted. And we are supposed to take the words of these same people who didn’t plan on how to house these refugees, and didn’t plan on how to evacuate the refugees in the first place, and had to make it all up on the go?
    And to be clear I am uncomfortable with what Tucker, Vance and Ingram have said, but the author is lying about their arguments. Their arguments are perfectly sensible and I want the State Department to answer some of these questions as well.

    1. And to further clarify, no one is saying we shouldn’t evacuate them and then do the vetting at a safe location. The problem is that they are expediting the process at the safe locations because they are overcrowded because the DoD and State Department and the Biden administration didn’t plan on how to house and vet these many refugees.
      Once again the Biden administration didn’t plan, so now they are having to expedite a process and won’t tell is how they are expediting it on the fly. And we are just supposed to accept that or be labeled racist/xenophobes who hate brown people (Afghanis are Caucasians) or hate Muslims. And this narrative is the one progressives are pushing. Shut up and trust us. We fucked this up all along but trust us now we will get this right. That is what the argument is actually about. Not about SIV holders, many of which the Biden administration have abandoned in favor of undocumented refugees. If anything I am pissed that the majority evacuated are not SIV holders or even eligible for SIVs, and we are abandoning people who are SIV holders and those who are eligible for SIVs. So stop lying about it Fiona.

  24. https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1430572251695484933?t=seE4T38Z2Y9tMfNTqt6qcA&s=19

    Dozens of California students, parents stranded in Afghanistan after summer trip abroad [link]

    1. One of the thing that no one has asked is that the Taliban is not allowing Afghanis out, but many of the US citizens are Afghanis or of Afghani descent, and are the Taliban including these in the Afghanis they are not allowing to go the airport?

      1. Seems to be the case.

  25. And why the fuck are the majority evacuated of evacuees so far not Americans or SIV holders when there are still Americans and SIV holders and those in the process of SIVs still stuck in country? Why the fuck hasn’t the State Department evacuated Afghani locals who worked for the State Department? Why the fuck are SIVs and American citizens being turned away from the gates? The main excuse given is because their families, e.g. spouses and kids, don’t have visas but they are taking Afghani refugees without visas who are deemed at risk. This is a chaotic gaggle fuck to the umpteenth power and the two bipartisan congressmen who visited Kabul are saying that we are being lied to by the administration, that it complete chaos, and rather than listen to them, everyone is condemning them for going and seeing with their own eyes.

  26. Another thing that the story doesn’t mention, about the expedited vetting process now in place, was it was only put in place after the Qataris shut down the evacuation for nine hours because the refugees were overcrowded and lacked proper sanitation, and were according to DoD emails living in feces and urine because the bathroom facilities were overwhelmed. So this administration scrambled to find alternative sites to house evacuees, including the most talked about on Rammstein, and adopted an expedited vetting process in Qatar so that they could fly this refugees to these so called lilly pads, where they are supposed to undergo more vetting, but these sites have also become overcrowded, so now they have to expedite the second vetting process so that they can be flown to CONUS bases and posts. Originally, they were only going to use three posts but have had to add more because of the number of refugees. And we still have citizens and SIV holders in Afghanistan, who have undergone vetting but are being turned away or told don’t come to the airport until we contact you. And many are saying they can’t even get to the airport anyhow because the Taliban is not allowing them to, and in some cases have destroyed their passports or Visas, which they need to get into the airport (while “at risk personal” don’t appear to needs these documents). So fuck you Reason, tell the whole fucking story. Stop feeding us bullshit and keeping us in the dark, we aren’t fucking mushrooms.

    1. Soldiermedic76,
      Thanks for your sane and informed input.

  27. I think the Americans must concentrate on creating new jobs instead of focusing on Afghan tragedy. We already have our plate full of problems. We must be smart in deciding our future.

  28. So what happens to the Afghanis at intermediate stops in Germany and Qatar, etc. when they can’t meet the SIV requirements? Do we fly them back to Afghanistan? Just cut them loose? I’m betting we end up bringing them to the U.S. anyway.

  29. Vetted by whom? The agencies that gave up this clusterfuck?

    Uh, huh. Pull the other one.

  30. After how Biden refused to allow in Cubans to escape the country’s Communist regime but allows thousands of Mexicans and other illegal migrants to come in through our southern border, I don’t trust Biden on this and much of anything else.

    1. and the media have been gaslighting the american people the whole time…

      They’ve let in a million migrant from mexico and south america since Biden took office, and all the while the media parrots about how the border is closed. In the next breath they tell us how foreign travelers are going to have to show proof of vaccination prior to being admitted. WTF!! Hello?!?!

  31. To the author – Just how the hell can we reliably vet anyone from that area – you know our intelligence has been spot on so far! Geez!

    I’m not saying we shouldn’t bring over refugees, but anyone claiming that we can effectively vet anyone from that part of the world is absolutely lying to you!

    When the dust settles – I think we are going to find out that the Taliban had infiltrated the Afghan government, army, and security forces from top to bottom. There’s no other explanation for why the entire structure crumbled like that with no resistance…

  32. How can you be sure they are unvetted threats? What info do have to validate this statement? I don’t trust my own neighbors. let alone those with the laundry on their heads.

  33. This kind of immigration derangement is why I no longer subscribe to the magazine, check this out on the other hand: https://www.meforum.org/62568/europol-terrorism-threat-report?fbclid=IwAR3wY71VBhftAwTPbvABm8LF_uycioENT3Cd7SNRBLYU4oDS7EuOQCMPO4I

  34. JD Vance got through vetting despite his white trash papers. Now this.

  35. Fiona, are you privy to the so-called vetting process? Seems like it was done mighty fast, and knowing how incompetent our State Dept is, you actually believe that all those coming here are good to go into our society? I’ve got a bridge….

  36. …and I assume all these people are going to join the Libertarian Party, right? And subscribe to Reason, right? And vote for less government, right?

    Or will they just become one more recruiting pool for the Uniparty System?

    1. The libertarian party is not libertarian. They are just soft left. I know this because they seem to condone the “rights” of businesses to infringe on the rights of employees and customer even when its obvious they are just doing it as government actors.

      1. In case you don’t get where I am coming from. Some libertarians argue that Social media companies have the right to censor content, but they fail to consider that this censorship is being done under instruction from the government, which makes them a government actor and has resulted in full blown state controlled media. Maybe this inst how all libertarians think, but I have seen quite a bit of this type of hypocrisy from the official party. I would consider myself libertarian if not for these inconsistencies and of coarse the fact that we can not preserve our freedoms with an unsecured border.

    2. The uni-party system will nullify voting all together. It will be an autocracy. Besides, it’s unlikely the will join the democrats or republicans either. Muslims hate gays and they hate Christians.

  37. Mind blowing that anyone thinks we have any obligation to these people when we tried to train them to defend themselves or live in a stable nation instead of the usual 3rd Century Sharia Law. Most intelligent people react with, ‘…what do you mean by ‘vetting’….why do we need to vet anyone?…’ We foolishly invaded and could have left with our army equipment and citizens if demented Joe wasn’t put in charge of the process.

    1. The very idea of “vetting” is nonsensical. The evidence is overwhelming that it only provides a false sense of security. Germany has made a genuine effort to integrate Muslims in to their society and it failed miserably. They now have complete neighborhoods under Sharia law. Death threats to police and “infidels” has become the norm. This trend has already begun in the U.S. as well. When they start going after LGBTQ, maybe then the left will wake up. But by then it will be too late.

  38. The barbers who worked on any base that had a barber shop were more thoroughly vetted than JD Vance. Mr. Vance would be well advised to keep his ill-informed opinions to himself.

    1. I was in Iraq for 14 months and Afghanistan for 2 years. Not once did I meet an Afghan or Iraqi barber. They are third country nationals (TCNs).

  39. “Afghan Refugees Coming to the U.S. Aren’t Unvetted Security Threats”

    That is correct, they are vetted security threats.

  40. When I was in Afghanistan for 2 years (2011 – 2015), I constantly heard about “vetted” ANA shooting Marines in the back. It was usually over some intentional insult about their religion. What exactly does “vetted” mean? The U.S. military defines it one way, Jihadists define it quite differently.

    1. Correction 2013-2015

    2. Correction unintentional insult.

  41. Notice how the number keeps going up? “300,000 vulnerable Afghans”

    What about the vulnerable Cubans? Its obvious that how someone might vote once they are in country plays a big role in whether they are imported at this point. The “vetting” process they are using at this point is partisan in nature. No doubt about it.

Please to post comments