Refugees

The Case for Accepting Afghan Refugees

Both moral and practical considerations support admitting refugees fleeing the brutal tyranny of the Taliban.

|

Afghan refugees fleeing Kabul, on a US Air Force plane.

 

There is deep division over many aspects of the debacle currently unfolding in Afghanistan. It may be a long time before we come to any kind of consensus on the rights and wrongs of the US-led military action in that country. But one issue on which there is relatively broad agreement is the moral imperative of allowing entry to Afghan refugees fleeing the reinstalled Taliban regime, particularly those who aided US forces, or worked to promote human rights. Polls show widespread support for this idea, and even many Republican governors (representatives of a party hostile to many other types of migrants and refugees) have come out in favor of it.

This broad support is one of the very few positive aspects of the current awful situation. Both moral and practical considerations weigh heavily in favor of accepting as many Afghan refugees as are able to escape the Taliban. Some of these considerations apply to all refugees fleeing severe oppression. Others are specific to the current situation in Afghanistan.

I have written about the general considerations in some detail elsewhere, so will only briefly summarize them here. Most importantly, it is unjust to forcibly consign people to lives of poverty and oppression merely because they happen to be born to the wrong parents in the wrong place. A policy that does that is similar to medieval feudalism and domestic racial segregation, which also used the power of government to restrict where people are allowed to live, based on arbitrary circumstances of birth.

These wrongs are especially grave when the nation people are confined to is ruled by a deeply oppressive regime, such as China, Cuba, or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. And, obviously, the injustice is even greater for groups that face targeted persecution and repression, which under the Taliban includes women, religious minorities, human rights advocates, and others. Even if you believe there is no obligation to accept refugees fleeing run-of-the-mill authoritarians, those escaping the Taliban are a different case.

Some argue that the oppression experienced by refugees is not the fault of the US and other destination countries. But even where that is true, the US government is still morally responsible if it uses force to prevent them from obtaining refuge here. If I see people fleeing a fire, the existence of that fire may not be my fault. But I am, nonetheless to blame if I prevent them from escaping the flames, at the point of a gun. The same goes for governments that forcibly bar refugees fleeing oppression.

Keeping out refugees and other would-be migrants often harms current American citizens, too. I detailed some of the ways here. Perhaps the closest historical analogue to the current situation is the fall of Saigon, in 1975, after which the US accepted 130,000 Vietnamese refugees, in the immediate aftermath, and many more in succeeding years. Vietnamese immigrants have become valuable contributors to America's economy and society, despite being from a poor society with many cultural differences relative to the US. There is every reason to expect that Afghan migrants can follow in their footsteps.

In addition to these general considerations, there are also some specific to the Afghan case. To begin with, in this instance the US government does deserve a share of the blame for the horrible situation Afghans find themselves in.

The exact scope of US responsibility for the present debacle is a matter of  debate. But, at the very least, Donald Trump bears a hefty share of blame for signing a terrible agreement with the Taliban last year, including releasing 5000 Taliban prisoners, many of whom predictably rejoined the fight. Joe Biden deserves great blame, as well, including for doubling down on Trump's awful policy despite the availability of less-bad alternatives, and for the terrible planning and management of the withdrawal. While the primary responsibility for Taliban oppression rests with the Taliban themselves, the US government contributed to the sorry state of affairs that led to the restoration of Taliban rule, and thereby has a greater-than-usual obligation to give refuge to its victims.

There are also more pragmatic reasons for aiding Afghan refugees. Many of those now fleeing helped US forces or worked with Americans and other Westerners to promote human rights in Afghanistan, particularly equality for women. If we do not give refuge to to our allies and supporters, we further damage our already diminished reputation for being reliable and trustworthy allies. The Afghan war is unlikely to be the last time we will need local help to combat terrorists and other adversaries. Such assistance is unlikely to be forthcoming if those who might provide it fear that the US will repay them by leaving them in the lurch.

The Afghan debacle has already led allies to doubt America's reliability. Saving Afghans who worked with the US will not fully solve that problem. But it would at least be a step in the right direction.

As I have previously pointed out with respect to cases like China and Cuba, welcoming refugees from oppressive hostile regimes also improves America's moral standing, and strengthens our position in the international war of ideas between liberal and illiberal ideologies. For fairly obvious reasons, these points apply to the Afghan situation, as well.

Some fear that accepting large numbers of Afghan refugees would risk a wave of crime or terrorism. Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute explains why such fears are overblown. Indeed, as he documents, Afghan migrants actually have lower rates of crime and terrorism than native-born Americans. And, obviously, those most eager to flee Taliban rule are unlikely to share its ideology.

Another possible justification for keeping out Afghan refugees is the claim that they have a moral duty to "fix their own country" and stay and fight in Afghanistan. I summarized the general flaws of such arguments here. Among other things, if we take them seriously, they would imply that the ancestors of the vast majority of Americans were wrong to come here from their countries of origin. They should instead have worked to fix the oppressive regimes they fled, such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Germany, and czarist Russia.

The "fix their own country" argument is particularly wrong when it comes to the Afghan case. After all, many of those now fleeing are in danger precisely because they did try to fix their own country, by working with US and allied forces, promoting equality for women, and strengthening protection for human rights. Some 66,000 Afghans died fighting the Taliban (far more than the number of American and other NATO casualties). Critics comfortably ensconced in the United States would do well to consider whether they themselves would show greater courage and commitment under comparable circumstances.

In sum, the US has every reason to accept Afghan refugees. We should bring out as many as possible as US forces depart. And we should also take those able to flee on their own in the future. The withdrawal of US forces does not vitiate any of the moral or pragmatic considerations at stake.

It will not be easy to come to grips with the disastrous outcome in Afghanistan, or to figure out all the lessons that might be drawn from it. But the US can start by doing right by those fleeing oppression.

NEXT: Tobacco Control Advocates Claim Vaping Policies Are Unbalanced, May Cause Harm

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. I don’t care where you are from. I don’t care what we did in the past. Unless you have something to offer, whether it be a needed skill, a desire to start a business that hires citizens or legal residents, or substantial investment capital investment, we have no need for you.

    Policy needs to be based on what is in our interest and nothing else.

    1. “Policy needs to be based on what is in our interest and nothing else.”

      The idea that policy is a reflection of interests is the backbone of CRT…

      1. That assumes race matters. It doesn’t.

        1. Nope. It assumes race matters to *lots of people.* These are the ‘social construction of race’ folks after all.

          1. Bottom line is my wife and I own an executive recruiting agency. Our only concern for our clients is can you do the job and are you a cultural fit? What you look like, where you are from, or who you choose to love or at least hop into bed with is no concern.

            1. What about the case for giving civilized Afghans access to the weapons left behind to kill Taliban. Then go to Paki, kill the oligarchs that own the Taliban and their families, down to the last kitten. To deter.

      2. No, the idea that government can “fix” racism by dictating symptoms in a race-based way is the backbone of CRT. Policy as a reflection of interests is just a preliminary assumption.

    2. Taking in refugees is recognized merciful thing civilized nations do.

      Plenty of stuff in the Bible about that. Plenty of examples throughout history of that.

      The rest of our immigration policy exists for Americans’ welfare. Refugees exist for our spirit.

      1. We are a nation, not a charity. If you have nothing to contribute, we have no use or need for you.

        1. So when are you leaving?

        2. Republicans and Democrats inhaled latin Americans for two decades in an attempt to shore up social security. They tended to vote Democrat, but Republicans, esp. Bush family in politics in border states of Texas and Florida, kept working to make inroads.

          Then came…oh no. All that work, for what it was worth, is gone.

          1. Social Security was not the motivation. It was labor.

            And Latin Americans continue to prop up our economy from the bottom, as their later generations have integrated into our society and are becoming successful parts of the American mosaic.

        3. “We are a nation, not a charity. If you have nothing to contribute, we have no use or need for you.”

          Sounds bad for residents of Mississippi, Alabama, Wyoming, and South Carolina; backwater religious schools; residents of West Virginia, Oklahoma, Idaho, and Arkansas; rural residents; residents of Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and North Dakota; churches; residents of South Dakota, Kentucky, and Tennessee; and poorly educated Americans.

      2. “Taking in refugees is recognized merciful thing civilized nations do.”

        Too bad there aren’t any civilized nations in the Middle East to take them in.

        1. Too bad you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          I can think of at least Egypt and Turkey who took in refugees from our ME adventuring.

    3. I like how conservatives, who used to pretend to think that the government was bad at centrally planning an economy, suddenly think when it comes to immigration that some politicians or bureaucrats in DC can decide what skills are needed and in what amounts.

      1. Open borders it is then!

        1. Excluded middle it is then!

          1. What non-open-borders solution is Somin advocating with this assertion? “Most importantly, it is unjust to forcibly consign people to lives of poverty and oppression merely because they happen to be born to the wrong parents in the wrong place.”

            1. That wasn’t a response to Somin, it was to DMN.

              1. Somin actually made an argument. DMN was just throwing around a facile insult about conservatives and their thought processes.

                Or do you think there is no excluded middle between “centrally planning an economy” and regulating immigrant admissions?

                1. “insult about conservatives”

                  Its 90% of his comments.

                2. Given how steadfastly anti-government conservatives are on every other issue, seems like y’all are the ones excluding the middle.

                  You also haven’t managed to defend ML’s dumb comment, just deflecting furiously.

      2. It’s a ridiculous strawman argument that conservatives want total anarchy and no government oversight at all.

        1. It is indeed a ridiculous strawman argument, so why did you make it?

          1. So you disavow your own statement? That was quick.

            1. No. I made no statement about “total anarchy.” I referred solely to government control over the economy, not the absence of government in its entirety. (While a socialist might consider free markets to be “anarchy,” I would not think someone right of center would employ that formulation.)

    4. 1. I am sure that a lot of Afghan refugees do have skills, ability to do useful work, ability to start businesses, etc. And even if it wasn’t their initial inclination, they’d probably do it if it was the only alternative to being murdered by the Taliban.

      2. As the article points out, accepting refugees is in our future national interest because it encourages pro-American factions around the world to cooperate with us. If people know that if they side with America, and lose, they will have a safe haven to flee to, they are more likely to be American allies.

    5. All the help wanted signs show that we do need unskilled people at this time. I know everyone wants to pretend that when the extra unemployment benefits run out that the situation will be resolved but that’s a pipe dream. Demographers have long predicted a labor shortage when the Boomers retire. Covid has accelerated the retirement of Boomers based on a lot of anecdotal reporting. I have several friends whose non-college educated kids in their early 20’s have been able to move from low end jobs to actual career jobs because employers are desperate and will provide training. Employers are hurting because Boomers have decided they don’t need to return to work if they don’t need to. This is only going to continue throughout the 20’s. Those employers who don’t adapt will go down in flames lamenting those days when they had dozens of applicants for every job opening.

  2. I don’t know anyone who would oppose accepting Afghan refugees, except your usual commenters.

    1. i’d just be careful that they are genuine refugees and not Taliban agents.

      1. There is no way to determine that, since we longer control the government in Afghanistan. Wholly impossible.

        1. Right. If we’d wanted to do that, it would have required an orderly withdrawal, civilians first.

          And even then a lot of Taliban would have bribed their way into the list.

      2. Seems the people we need to be most worried about at this time is our fellow Americans. It wasn’t a refugee in a that truck at the Capital on August 18th.

  3. I see nothing moral about sapping talent from a country that could otherwise reform it, making the whole society better for all. in fact, if anything, that is immoral. Why should we be giving a free ride to Afghan refugees that didn’t even try to stand up to the Taliban who just rode over the country in 11 days?

    (I do think there is a moral case for granting visas to those who assisted us in our unwise occupation of the country. Those people have a de facto death sentence on their heads.)

    1. Yes they were indeed helpint.

      As for rolling over quickly, Biden himself said there was no such possibility of success, and that he was hoping they’s throw themselves pointlessly against the Taliban to buy the US a few months, a few weeks, to withdraw.

      And we are shocked, shocked they chose not to do so?

    2. I see nothing moral about sapping talent from a country that could otherwise reform it, making the whole society better for all. in fact, if anything, that is immoral.

      This is a terrible argument. For one thing, it’s bad faith; you couldn’t care less about Afghan society.

      For another, it’s bad faith because it’s clearly an argument in the alternative: first you claim that we shouldn’t allow them in because they’re not talented and don’t have anything to contribute, and then you claim we shouldn’t allow them in because they are talented.

      And for a third, it’s immoral. They’re not owned by the country they come from; they don’t owe Afghanistan the responsibility of reforming it.

      We are not “sapping” talent from the country; they are choosing to leave. For some reason, anti-immigrant people always seem to view pro-freedom policies as if the immigrants have no agency. You people’s rhetoric is always about how Mexico is “sending” people here, or the U.S. is “importing” people, rather than about people choosing to come here.

  4. The only obligation we have is to the people who aided the US, and as a result, have put their lives in danger.

    1. Indeed. Ilya would be more credible about there being a case for taking in Afghan refugees, if there was actually anybody he DIDN’T want to take.

      1. I’m fairly certain Ilya doesn’t give a shit about getting the actual Americans out and back in the country. Everyone else on the planet is another story entirely.

        1. Oh, I’m pretty sure he cares about getting the actual Americans out. What I’m not sure is that he cares more about getting them out than the people who aren’t Americans. That is to say, I don’t think that, though he’s an American, he thinks it appropriate to prioritize the welfare of Americans.

          That was one of the things I liked about Trump: He was quite clear about this: The aim of American government policy had to be the welfare of Americans. That’s what he meant by America first: Governments owe a duty to place the welfare of their own citizens ahead of everybody else. The welfare of anybody not a citizen may be a side constraint, it may even be a nice luxury, but the DUTY is owed to the citizens.

          I think Ilya’s universalist ethics have no room for that sort of loyalty.

          1. Governments owe a duty to place the welfare of their own citizens ahead of everybody else.

            Globalists disagree.

    2. “people who aided the US”

      They were paid. We don’t “owe” them anything, they either knew the risks or are too dumb to be useful.

      If we want to let them in, its purely mercy, not obligation.

      1. Your proud lack of any kind of positive moral quality continues to astound.

        1. Old lady crossing the street is hit by a hit-and-run driver, and lays bleeding in the middle of the road.

          “Call 911,” someone yells out, as they rush over to her.

          Bob from Ohio: “She knew what she was getting into when she tried to cross the street. Screw her. Not my problem.”

          1. To make the analogy on point here, she’s crossing the street because we paid her to do so.

  5. Every freedom-seeking Afghan is worth, what …. a thousand American-hating Democrats?

    A fair trade … and just imagine all of the former Americans saved from racism/sexism/homophobia!

    Win-Win!

    1. That only works if you send the American-hating Democrats to Afghanistan.

      1. Exactly the plan … who could be so cruel to subject Democrats to the evil that is America????

    2. American-hating Democrats

      I didn’t see any Democrats cheering for Americans to lose in Tokyo. It was Trumpkins, led by their Dear Leader, doing that.

  6. Will they be 90% men like the photo?

    1. Military age men too.

      1. Yeah, what would those sorts have to offer?

        1. Nothing. Refugee programs are for humanitarian purposes. Anything else is what regular immigration is there for. Typical shifty shifty from you.

          1. I’m just meeting you on your own argument.

            You seem to be insinuating that every Afghan we take in is a military threat or something?

  7. If they actually significantly aided Americans and I have my doubts about plenty of our so called ‘allies’ than maybe thats different. But its pretty rich for the neocons and leftists to break things and then try to guilt trip us to take advantage of the chaos. I didn’t bomb the homeless Afgan villagers houses. Let them stay in Bush’s or Somin’s house if you really think they should be compensated for it.

  8. An Islamic terrorist can be distinguished from a refugee how, exactly?

    1. The same way Tim McVeigh could be distinguished from a stop the steal loon.

      1. Good Response.

      2. You mean we give each refugee a full jury trial?

        1. After, and if, one commits a crime in this country? Yes.

          1. they no longer put people in jail for small crimes, It is too expensive to the state to house and feed people for committing small crimes. Better to let them go back to committing small crimes then pay big expenses to maintain a prison.

  9. Vietnamese immigrants have become valuable contributors to America’s economy and society, despite being from a poor society with many cultural differences relative to the US. There is every reason to expect that Afghan migrants can follow in their footsteps.

    There is a reason to think they won’t. Not many countries have studied this issue, but a study done of migrants in the Netherlands shows that Afghans have nearly the worst “support ratio” (comparing the amount spent on them vs how much they contribute back), while Southeast Asians have among the best.

    This site won’t let me put a link here, but just google the phrase “New Dutch Study of Cost of Refugees”

  10. “Vietnamese immigrants have become valuable contributors to America’s economy and society, despite being from a poor society with many cultural differences relative to the US. There is every reason to expect that Afghan migrants can follow in their footsteps.”

    While I strongly support taking the interpreters, there are differences.

    1. Many of the Viets, at least in the first wave were the cream of the country, and more Catholic than the Viet average.

    2. Muslim refugees can be problematic, in the second generation, if not the first. One only need look at the 20 year Somali record.

    1. What is the Somali record. I have never heard much of a problem with Somalis, I am missing something?

      1. Second generation Somali’s joining ISIS or being arrested here before departing.

        1. Sounds a lot like collective guilt based on anecdotes.

          Which a lot of people call racism.

  11. According to this decades-long refugee worker, Afghans are far more criminally inclined than others, including other Moslems or from non-democracies, when in western/liberal democracies.
    https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ive-worked-refugees-decades-europes-afghan-crime-wave-mind-21506?amp
    Interesting and troubling allegations from a practical leftist woman.

  12. New Zealand doesn’t want to give you a permanent resident visa unless…
    A. You have a skill that they need.
    B. You’re 55 or younger.
    C. You speak English reasonably well.

    They may take up to 1500 refugees a year, but for 2020/2021 only took around 750 (Covid, you know).

    Democrats love New Zealand.

    1. 1,500 for a country whose population is the size of New Zealand’s is proportionate to over 100,000 for the size of the U.S.’s. Or, in other words, far more refugees than the U.S. takes in.

      1. No no no. You can not use facts in arguments since that is unfair to the other side.

      2. That’s a play on technicalities. The US doesn’t take as many refugees because we are already struggling with a wave of asylum seekers at our southern border which we can’t handle as it is. That’s not an issue for NZ.

        1. It is not a matter of can’t handle them, it is a matter of politically don’t want to. A country of 320 million with millions of low skill jobs needing filled has plenty of capacity.

          1. You may not know this, but this country doesn’t even have enough fresh water for the folks here now.

        2. Indeed, as the term DN is using it is only applied to people admitted to the US through the process described in the Refugee Act of 1980.
          Illegals that claim asylum after crossing the border do not enter that category, for example.

  13. ” it is unjust to forcibly consign people to lives of poverty and oppression merely because they happen to be born to the wrong parents in the wrong place.”

    And so, every one of the billions of poor people across the planet have a right to live in the United States. And indeed, every poor person in the United States has a right to your stuff, because you – and they – just happened to be born …. Reason – meet Karl Marx. And Pol Pot.

  14. The lesson for future nationals asked to aid the US military in a war zone: Don’t trust promises. Demand the visa in your passport as a precondition to helping save the lives of Americans.

    The US Military handed out billions in cash as bribes. The military should also be authorized to give out valid immigration visas to helpers and their families.

    It is simple quid pro quo.

  15. What about the argument that the US is on the opposite side of the planet from Afghanistan with an entirely different language, culture, climate, moral/legal framework, and all-around philosophy?

    There is no moral argument for picking up people and dropping them half a world away in a completely alien environment. And any claims that it’s “for their own good” are the exact sort of patronizing thinking that caused this mess to begin with. Refugees should be borne by the surrounding nations where they’re more likely to have family, will find it more easy to integrate, less likely to experience significant culture shock, and most importantly are far more capable of returning home once the situation stabilizes.

    Because the end goal for refugees should not be to turn them into another category of immigrants, but to provide assistance to them until it’s safe for them to return home.

    1. There is no moral argument for picking up people and dropping them half a world away in a completely alien environment.

      See what I meant above about anti-immigration people treating immigrants as if they have no agency? Of course there’s no moral argument for “picking up people and dropping them half a world away”; kidnapping is immoral.

      But we’re talking about allowing people in who want to come here. And that’s entirely moral.

      1. I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about refugees here. People being displaced by chaos and war in their homelands. A humanitarian crisis born of desperation in the face of danger.

        If they just want to immigrate somewhere they can apply for a visa like everyone else.

        1. Refugees ask to come here, and then actually get here to ask. They are not picked up and dropped here.

          The refugee system and the visa system have completely different purposes. But conflating them, you are trying to erase the moral one so you can talk only about utility.

          You can’t. You can’t ignore morality.

        2. We are talking about refugees. Who don’t get brought to the U.S. unless they ask to be brought to the U.S. We don’t just pick them up and drop them here.

  16. The U.S. took in only tiny numbers of Jewish refugees before & during WWII. You read histories of the time and wonder how this country – its government and people – could have have been so hopelessly blind to basic decency.

    Then you go thru these comments and see. The same people sneering about worthless outsiders were saying the same thing back then. I imagine their “look out for number one” shtick got heavy traffic in the late ’30s too.

    It’s always instructive to look back thru history and see who was right & wrong. The MAGA forbearers joined the Know Nothing Party in the first half of the Nineteenth Century. They too were hysterical about immigration & refugees. They too classified whole groups of people as being without value; offering nothing to the country; only parasites and criminals. Of course they were taking about Italians and the Irish.

    The facts change but the song remains the same.

    1. “You read histories of the time and wonder how this country – its government and people – could have have been so hopelessly blind to basic decency.”

      You’re joking, right? Our government was run by bloody minded anti-Semites. They just happened to not be bloody minded enough to set up death camps of their own.

      The Holocaust gave anti-Semitism a bad name for a while, suppressed it, but it was very common back then, and is making a serious resurgence today.

      1. Read the comments here. Their America Firstism seems to stray a lot into bigotry.

        Which, of course, has historical precedent.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee

      2. Brett Bellmore : “You’re joking, right?”

        One of us is, to be sure. Your point, Brett, is the anti-refugee policy of WWII was driven by people inside&outside the government who didn’t want “those people” here – and that was indistinguishable from bigotry.

        I don’t deny it a bit. The same thing was true of the Know Nothings, except “those people” weren’t Jews, but Irish & Italians. The same thing is true of MAGA immigration hysteria today, except the “those people” now have brown skin.

        What’s amazing is how closely the rhetoric tracks from age to age, even with a new Other in place of the old. It’s the same demagogues, the same incendiary speeches, the same mob stoked to panic & rage.

        1. With the notable exception of Aktenberg78, who is so conspicuous because he IS an exception, that hysteria about brown skin is all in your head. It’s a reflex that allows you to avoid engaging with discomforting arguments.

          The first concern here is that, while we could have safely brought in a bunch of Afghani contractors under ordinary circumstances, while the current circumstances practically guarantee the Taliban, ISIS, or whoever can slip in sleepers if they want.

          And the second is that there may be a cultural mismatch here that leads to bad outcomes for the receiving country. A mismatch that has nothing at all to do with the color of anybody’s skin.

          1. Brett Bellmore : And the second is that there may be a cultural mismatch here that leads to bad outcomes for the receiving country.

            If you think the above is an original formulation, you’re mistaken. The Know Nothings said the Irish & Italians were a “cultural mismatch”. Anti-Semites here and abroad said the Jews were a “cultural mismatch”. That was their go-to description; their very bread & butter.

            Occasionally you see a commenter here explain who wouldn’t be a “cultural mismatch”. It seems blond & blue-eyed immigrants from Finland fit the bill. You see, Brett, “those people” are ALWAYS a “cultural mismatch”.

  17. If you want to try and limit US Military adventurism, then not letting in Afghani interpreters and others who assisted with the occupation sends a powerful message to future collaborators in other countries that we may invade.

    Also is there really a dearth of people in the US that are willing to sell out the country for cash, such that we have to import even more?

    1. “Also is there really a dearth of people in the US that are willing to sell out the country for cash, such that we have to import even more?”

      Yes, they call themselves Republicans.

    2. MiloMinderbinder : “Also is there really a dearth of people in the US that are willing to sell out the country for cash, such that we have to import even more?”

      Four Points :

      1. Just when you think there’s no original hot take left or any new way to troll, someone finds a way. We applaud MMB for that.

      2. So who exactly is being “sold out” in MMB’s mind? Do we finally have our first pro-Taliban comment of this thread ?!?

      3. I was listening to an NPR story about one person who waits to learn her fate. She’s an Afghan journalist who focused on women’s rights and has already heard threat that “her time is finished”. Another one of MMB’s sellouts, obviously.

      4. It’s hard to work out the ideology behind MMB’s sour-minded piss&vinegar comment. Of course, statistically people who hate America these days tend to be from the Right (though I understand they’re willing to change their minds when Trump gets around to MAGA)

  18. These are the same arguments historically used to try to prevent Germans, Irish, Italians, Jews, Russians, Slavs, Chinese, etc., from immigrating to the United States. Modern day Know Nothings.

  19. Forced association is immoral. If you as an individual want to adopt a “refugee”, go for it. If you are a gang of thugs (“government”) forcing “refugees” on to others, you are evil.

Please to post comments