Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Afghan Adjustment Act To Help Afghan Evacuees Stay in the U.S.
But thousands of Afghans who helped U.S. forces are still stuck in Afghanistan under Taliban rule.

As the Biden administration completed the U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan last August, it evacuated over 76,000 Afghans to the U.S., many of whom had assisted U.S. forces during the 20-year war in Afghanistan. But tens of thousands of evacuees arrived in the U.S. on a temporary status, stuck in immigration limbo until lawmakers outlined a pathway to permanent residence for them.
Yesterday, members of Congress introduced the Afghan Adjustment Act in the House and the Senate to address the immigration status of those evacuees. Both versions of the bill have bipartisan support.
Following the U.S. troop withdrawal, over 36,000 Afghans came to the U.S. under humanitarian parole, which grants legal presence and work authorization for two years but doesn't lead to permanent residence or citizenship. Roughly 3,300 evacuees had special immigrant visas (SIVs), which are awarded to Afghans who assisted the U.S. military as interpreters, engineers, and drivers, among other roles. Another 37,000 arrived in the U.S. with incomplete SIV applications. In order to secure lasting presence in the U.S., Afghans would largely have to do so through the severely backlogged asylum and SIV processes.
If passed, the Afghan Adjustment Act would offer more pointed and immediate help to Afghans, resolving much of the uncertainty that currently surrounds their immigration status. Afghans who assisted U.S. forces would qualify for the status adjustment if they received approval from a top diplomatic officer (a chief of mission), were referred to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, or had applied for a special immigrant visa by July 31, 2018. They must also undergo vetting.
Other Afghan evacuees who are present in the U.S. but don't qualify for visas through assistance to U.S. forces would also qualify for status adjustment. They would become eligible for permanent residence if they've been in the U.S. for at least two years. This category applies to Afghans who were paroled into the U.S. between July 30, 2021, and the passage of the Afghan Adjustment Act, or whose travel was facilitated by the U.S. government. These applicants would undergo additional vetting requirements, including an interview.
In the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal, many Afghan helpers were left behind. It's estimated that over 77,000 Afghans who applied for SIVs are stuck in Afghanistan; over 10,000 of them have already received the crucial chief of mission approval. According to Foreign Policy, the true number of Afghans waiting to reach the U.S. "could be three times that number," taking family members into account.
The Afghan Adjustment Act's prospects are murky in a Congress that has so far been resistant to passing meaningful immigration legislation. Congress has previously passed adjustment bills for groups that reached the U.S. suddenly and in large numbers, including the 100,000 Vietnamese evacuees who came after the Vietnam War and over 30,000 Hungarians who fled their country after the 1956 revolution. That legislation helped provide certainty to vulnerable people who fled horrifying circumstances to build lives in the U.S.—something that Congress should now grant Afghans.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Excellent news.
Admittedly I don't know if Reason.com's billionaire benefactor Charles Koch finds imported Afghanistan-born labor as cost-effective as imported Mexican-born labor. But I'm sure he finds both more cost-effective than hiring US-born workers, who expect frills like "livable wages" and "regular bathroom breaks."
#OpenTheBordersToHelpCharlesKoch
#CheapLaborAboveAll
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even (res-03) realizable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
>>>>>>> https://workhere3.blogspot.com/
This has nothing to do with Labor. These people were promised they would be protected if they help US military in Afghanistan. If American society can not keep their side of bargain don't whine next time a plane rams into a tower. #ToBeFrank,
"People in (country X) are sad. We must grant them US citizenship and a free pony."
- Fiona Potato Famine Harrigan
Off topic but good article about how the assassination of Ayman Zawahiri in Kabul undermines "rules based international order" and gets us perpetually involved in whining about countries like China, Russia, Iran that violate the same while we whine that they violate the same.
Legal scholars who spoke to Responsible Statecraft say that Biden’s team would likely argue that it was an act of self defense and that America had the right to violate Afghanistan’s sovereignty because the Taliban is “unwilling or unable” to help stop the threat posed by Zawahiri. (Secretary of State Antony Blinken may have alluded to this idea in his speech after the strike in which he pointed to the “Taliban’s unwillingness or inability to abide by their commitments.”) Charles Dunlap, a Duke law professor who previously served as an attorney for the Air Force, argued in a blog post that this is enough to justify the strike under international law.
Yeah. "We violated your sovereignty because you refused to uphold your end of a deal that we unilaterally voided." is a lot of words to say "Fuck you. That's why."
It is established international law that if a nation allows paramilitary groups to operate within its borders and those groups attack another country, that country has a right to violate the sovereignty of the first nation in order to defend itself. One nation allowing a third party to use its soil to attack another nation is an act of aggression such that the nation that is attacked can act in self defense.
So, yes, if the Afghan government is allowing groups which are actively planning attacks on the US to operate within its territory, the US has every right to attack those groups. If Afghanistan doesn't like that, they should not let those groups operate.
I won't be surprised when "E Pluribus Unum" is replaced on the Great Seal with "Fuck you. That's why."
Good. Make them all citizens. Let them vote. I wonder if reason understands that Afghans are not very trans friendly or gay affirming?
Let the country get more brown, more Catholic, and more Muslim. I don't think leftist whites of the sort who write for reason are going to like that very much. But, they need to understand that things change and they just won't be able to have the kind of control over the culture that they are used to having. They are just going to have to check their privilege.
>>Congress that has so far been resistant to passing meaningful immigration legislation
can't figure out the path to graft.
The line:
" Give me your wretched refugees from Pushtun blood feuds and Talib Shia bashing"
never made the cut on the Statue of Liberty sonnet