The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Trump Seeks to Deport Afghans Who Fled the Taliban
Lifting TPS status would make them eligible for deportation to Afghanistan, where the Taliban is likely to persecute and punish them.

The Washington Post reports that Trump will lift Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from thousands of Afghans who fled persecution by the Taliban, after the radical Islamist movement took over their country in 2021:
The Trump administration's move to end deportation protections for wartime allies who fled to the United States after the fall of Afghanistan has infuriated veterans of the 20-year conflict there, who say the U.S. government is betraying a sacred promise made to some of America's most vulnerable partners.
The fear, veterans and other advocates say, is that anyone who returns to Afghanistan will almost certainly face reprisal by the Taliban, the extremist militant group that in 2021 overran the U.S.-trained Afghan military and toppled the government in Kabul…..
Advocacy groups estimate that about 10,000 Afghans in the United States have been dependent on TPS while they navigate the lengthy and complex process for obtaining permanent residency, a process made all the more difficult, they say, by the absolute chaos that defined Afghanistan's collapse — and by the guidance they received from the U.S. government while trying to escape.
The veterans' groups are right. Afghans deported back to Afghanistan - especially those who worked with the US during the war - will indeed face harsh persecution by the Taliban. Deporting them would be profoundly unjust, and also a betrayal of wartime allies that will make it more difficult for the US to recruit local support in any future conflict. If we don't stand by our allies, why would anyone trust us?
I'm old enough to remember a time when Republicans saw themselves as fighters against radical Islamism. Now they seek to deport Afghan allies back to the tender mercies of the Taliban, under the ludicrous pretext that conditions in Afghanistan are improving under the Taliban's rule.
This move is part of Trump's broader cruel assault on legal immigration, which includes barring nearly all refugee admissions, and targeting other groups for deportation back to repressive regimes in their countries of origin. Virtually the only group the Trump Administration sees as worthy of refuge are Afrikaner white South Africans, prioritized for refugee status under a February executive order.
I don't object to admitting the Afrikaners, and doing so might even set a useful precedent. But the idea that South African whites face worse persecution than Afghan opponents of the Taliban and other victims of oppressive regimes is utterly ridiculous. It reflects the racial obsessions of elements of the far right, not any objective reality.
Trump's abrogation of TPS for the Afghans is likely to be challenged in court. But the Supreme Court recently stayed a lower court decision blocking revocation of TPS for Venezuelans (despite the fact that they too face deportation to a brutally repressive government), and it seems likely, even if not certain, that the justices would do the same in a case involving the Afghans.
The lifting of TPS doesn't immediately imperil all Afghans in the United States. Many have parole status, granted and extended during the Biden Administration. But Trump could try to pull that, as well (as he has sought to do in the case of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans), and in any event parole status is only temporary, and will eventually run out.
While Trump deserves severe condemnation for this cruel policy, Congress also deserves a hefty share of the blame. For years, veterans groups and others lobbied them to pass the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would have granted permanent residency rights to Afghans who fled the Taliban. I repeatedly advocated this, as well. But Congress dithered, and so here we are.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
temporary /tĕm′pə-rĕr″ē/
adjective
1. Lasting, used, serving, or enjoyed for a limited time.
2. Lasting for a time only; existing or continuing for a limited time; not permanent.
Did you get the part about them being persecuted if they were sent back? They helped the US here and only the MAGAs can thing of is their own xenophobic hate.
Warning to everyone: Never help thr US military. The US will betray you.
Bush had a bigger heart than brain…he wanted to improve Afghanistan and Iraq and instead he left a trail of death and destruction…but it’s the thought that counts! 😉
Remember the part in Animal Farm about the case of whiskey the pigs bought after Boxer’s promised retirement ended up being a trip to the knacker’s?
That the kind of reward for loyalty we’re talking here.
Biden could have given them refugee status and not TPS.
...OK, his people could have.
Do you want to see them deported because of Biden’s failures?
I don't particularly want to see them deported, but I'm absolutely down with restoring the "T" in "TPS".
The TPS was originally extended on the basis of a temporary condition, threats to safety due to "ongoing military conflict", which are no longer present; There's no ongoing military conflict anymore.
If these people need protection due to some OTHER reason, such as that they'd be persecuted for having been US allies, they can apply for asylum on that basis. They've got a couple months available in which to start that ball rolling, TPS isn't being withdrawn until mid-July.
So let's assume you're correct about what Biden could have done. Why does it matter to you? Either way, the people would be here. Is it just that the phrase "TPS" has the word "Temporary" in it, and it offends your abstract reverence for the dictionary if they're here for a long time?
Or is this just bait-and-switch, that if Biden had "given them refugee status," you'd just be arguing that they didn't deserve that, either?
For someone in a profession whose stock and trade is words and their meaning you are pretty cavalier.
T does mean temporary. It means an ending point.
If Biden (OK, Biden's people) did not think it was serious enough to seek more than TEMPORARY protection, then it was not.
EVERYONE has a reason why THEIR particular temporary status is vital. Enough of it.
No, the USA was in Afghanistan to help the Afghans. Now it is up to the Afghans to fix the country, if possible.
damikesc 7 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Biden could have given them refugee status and not TPS.
...OK, his people could have.
"Did you get the part about them being persecuted if they were sent back?"
Then they should apply for asylum. TPS isn't asylum.
Why are they supposed to know how U.S. immigration law works? Why isn't reasonable to think that the U.S. government should be on their side and help them navigate immigration law? Doesn't that seem like a more morally correct thing for the U.S. government to do compared to looking for excuses to send them back into the hands of a terrorist regime now that we don't need them to help us fight that regime any more?
You mean there are no pro bono lawyers eager to help them out ?
Are you calling Glaucomatose a liar ?
You mean there are no pro bono lawyers eager to help them out ?mcu
"Hey, we don't need the government to have empathy and morals, that's what pro bono lawyers are for!"
Maybe you can answer my actual question now?
You had a number of questions.
1.I believe you get a public defender in a criminal case, otherwise not so much. Reasons of cost.
2. I’m in favor of the US helping foreigners who help us in military situations. Which is some but not all of these Afghans. The help does not need to extend to immigration to the US. We could pay a country nearer their home to take them.
3. Yes I would like the US government to act morally. Also prudently, wisely, sensibly, economically. Not to mention legally. I don’t see any moral problem with not admitting any asylum seekers at all. Which is not to say that it would be immoral to take some. But I take the view that refuge should be organised as cheaply as possible, and without shipping people halfway round the world.
4. Nor do I have any objection to admitting refugees, or economic migrants if it is in our interests so to do.
I certainly wouldn’t want an “empathetic” government. The government is trustee for the citizens. These citizens differ greatly in their empathetic responses. I don’t think Presidents should submit to their own empathetic responses. That would be a breach of trust. They should focus on those other obligations that I mentioned above. Prudence, wisdom, economics er al. Morality sure, but that is not empathy.
Maybe we could just pay Bukele to put them in another concentration camp.
There are insufficient pro bono lawyers. (Because immigration is considered civil, Gideon doesn't apply and the 6th amendment does not give a right to appointed counsel.) That's particularly true for situations like Afghan refugees, where the language resources are heavily constrained. (There are a zillion Spanish-speaking lawyers and/or interpreters. There are not many Dari or Pashto speakers.)
There seem to be few problems with finding these lawyers.
Is there ever anything you're right about?
Yes, because this current administration is well-known for supporting immigrants seeking asylum.
Molly gives betraying Biden a complete pass
A new report released by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee found that as many as 9,000 Americans were left in Afghanistan during the Biden Administration’s disastrous withdrawal. Secretary of State Antony Blinken originally claimed that number was closer to 100-150.
Just for this thread, I had looked up some articles discussing the withdrawal. A representative of a group that advocates for Afghan-Americans (and these people fleeing the Taliban) suggested that people don't bother reading either side of the congressional committee reports, since they are clearly aimed at scoring political points rather than identifying truth.
[Joseph] Azam, [board chair of the Afghan-American Foundation], in a video posted on X, initially encouraged people not to read either report, saying each was designed to land a political blow, pinning blame on the other side while offering little reflection on what could have been done better within their own party.
Afghanistan was a bipartisan, multi-administration failure, and talking about how to fix the parts that can still be fixed — that has to be a bipartisan or multi-administration conversation. And that can’t happen if it’s always drawn into the politics of the moment.
It [dueling committee reports] fell into the same pattern that we’ve been in for over three years, and the Republicans have run away from the fact that Trump negotiated this deal and some Democrats are trying to run away from the fact that Biden executed on it.
The other thing that was really problematic was no one ever talks about the impact on 40 million Afghans...How much longer are we going to pretend like really the only impact from the Afghanistan withdrawal was a political one in the U.S?
People here are also discussing this like no one has been doing anything about it and just wanted the TPS to continue indefinitely.
Advocates for years have been trying to get Congress to enact what was initially known as the Afghan Adjustment Act, legislation that would provide residency to tens of thousands of Afghans who have yet to be given a permanent basis for remaining in the U.S. It also includes measures to bolster pathways for those left behind in the withdrawal to come to the U.S. as refugees. Similar legislation has since been deemed the Fulfilling Promises to Afghan Allies Act.
But it has failed to gain traction, particularly as a few GOP lawmakers raise concerns over the vetting of Afghans – even though allowing Afghans to seek citizenship would kick off additional security reviews for a group of people already in the U.S
I'd hold my breath while we wait for politicians to deal with the actual issues, but I think I'd rather live.
Is this something new, or is this reference to a "new report" actually about an old report, a February 2022 report about Americans remaining in Afghanistan? Because if so, it would seem that an honest person would not call it that, because it was not in fact a "report released by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee," but rather a minority report from committee members.
Moreover, the summary above is a lie; Blinken at no point claimed that the number of Americans still in Afghanistan was "closer to 100-150." Rather, he estimated that this was the number left behind who wanted to get out. (Why would anyone want to stay? As you can imagine, Afghanistan wasn't much of a tourist destination; Americans there were generally in one of three categories: (1) those working for the U.S. government; (2) those working for humanitarian NGOs; and (3) Afghan-American dual citizens, whose families were there.)
They they apply for asylum instead of relying on TPS forever. Did you not realize that?
asshole /ˈasˌhōl/
noun
1. a person's anus.
2. a stupid, irritating, or contemptible person. See MAGA.
I'm sure that would have been considered very witty in the 4th grade. Coming from someone claiming to be a legal professional? I'll be nice and call it an embarrassing disgrace.
I think you posted your Resume’
But why are they here ?
In many cases, because they actively assisted US troops during and after the US invasion post-9/11, working in jobs ranging from translators to guides to cooks.
Bullshyte.
They are here because they pushed to the head of the line and got onto an airplane.
NO ONE was checking to see who they were -- and many are Taliban.
SEND THEM HOME....
I spent two years working with an Afghan translator for the US army working to get him and his family refugee status and permission to enter the United States. The claim that "NO ONE was checking to see who they were" just shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
MAGAs are hateful lying shits. Never forget that.
All you logicians, this of course means not you but MOLLY decides if you are MAGA. Nixon said women could be much more hate-filled as leaders than men. Nixon, meet Molly
In 2020 Trump allowed an Iraqi terrorist intent on assassinating Bush into the country…that’s why Lizard Cheney and George P Bush didn’t advocate for the SVI program because one terrorist getting through could ruin a career…except Trump supporters don’t care. 😉
The label "Dr. Ed" at the top of a comment just shows he has no idea what he's talking about.
Good for you -- and credit people like Glen Beck who is trying to get our legitimate allies out.
But no one was checking in the madness...
Why do you make claims that no one can check? Are you literally asking everyone to "take my word for it."
He’d probably be happier in Canada/UK/Australia, we’re a bunch of Moose-lum hating rednecks
Out of interest, during these two years in which you were trying to get this Afghan translator and his family refugee status and permission to enter the US - where were they ?
In Afghanistan, in hiding, for most of the process; then in Turkey (I think - this was a few years back) for the last few months.
We should trade a thousand Crazy Eddie’s for one Afghan who took our side.
The suffering is the point.
They are not the ingroup; they are to be bound but not protected.
Mercy, responsibility, solidarity...those are not for anyone but that one small group that's a white nationalist Cause célèbre.
That poem on the Statue of Liberty can get fucked. America today is angry and fearful hostile to everyone including ourselves.
Fuck the Statute of Liberty -- FRANCE can take them in.
France can have even more terrorists lighting its substations on fire...
Fuck the Statute of Liberty
Freudian slip.
So hawt.
I don't think one could better encapsulate MAGA in 5 words.
I need to correct this. "The Cruelty is the Point" is also five words, and better describes MAGA. (I guess the distinction is that the former is what MAGA themselves would say, while the latter is what an objective third party observer would say.)
So, enforcing the law (ignored by previous administrations) is cruelty?
It certainly can be.
Newsflash: laws can indeed be cruel.
More applicable to this situation: choosing whether, when, and how to exercise discretion can also be cruel. The administration is not "enforcing the law" by canceling TPS status for Afghan refugees. No law requires Trump to do that, and thus Biden did not "ignore" the law by maintaining it.
To be clear, though, I wasn't talking solely about the Afghan situation; virtually everything MAGA supports fits that characterization. Immigration is the most egregious context where that applies, but the whole DOGE thing, too. There are reasonable ways to cancel stuff and unreasonable ones, and in every case this administration deliberately chooses the latter because it causes more suffering. They positively revel in it. "Did it upset liberals/Democrats/progressives?" is the metric they use.
Who wants the world’s muddled Asses yearning to eat for free?
David the Hater, so happy to abominate everyone.
We have enough wretched refuse. The poem is not even on the statue.
And it wasn't approved by Congress.
As David said…They really are deplorables.
Deplorables, worms, cultists. All equally applicable.
I missed the part of our constitution where our 21st century immigration policy is dictated by a 19th century poem.
I sure as hell didn't vote for that.
I missed the part of our constitution where our 21st century immigration policy is dictated by a 19th century poem.
I missed the part where anyone claimed that it was.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Perhaps what I haven't been paying attention to is whatever social media posts or right-wing commentators you follow that have been saying that "the left" makes that claim.
The poem was written by a feminist socialist.
Kind of like the pledge of allegiance, also written by a socialist.
moved
As usual, the Marxist law professor wants us all to suffer to benefit citizens of some country on the other side of the world.
He’s making an argument based on honor. Not that you’d recognize it.
“also a betrayal of wartime allies that will make it more difficult for the US to recruit local support in any future conflict. If we don't stand by our allies, why would anyone trust us?”
You have it backwards. The USA was in Afghanistan to help the Afghans. Those Afghans were not doing anything to help the USA. Somin is not helping the USA either.
I know you're literally retarded, since you can't tell the difference between libertarian and Marxist, but this may be even worse. The U.S. was in Afghanistan to help the U.S. (You may remember 9/11?)
Whatever his intellectual abilities, and they are obviously quite dismal, Roger's moral values are lower than those of a garden slug.
Of all creatures, only humans can really be morally odious, and he is plainly very near the bottom of the scale.
Yeah, 9/11. Afghanistan was alleged to be hiding Osama bin Laden, but he was killed in Pakistan in 2011. Did any Afghans actually help kill OBL? I doubt it.
BUT BUT BUT
A new report released by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee found that as many as 9,000 Americans were left in Afghanistan during the Biden Administration’s disastrous withdrawal. Secretary of State Antony Blinken originally claimed that number was closer to 100-150.
Repeating the same comment won't make it less dishonest.
This guy, calling Somin a Marxist, you may or may not like Somin, but he consistently argues against statism.
This little brown shirt turd…
No, Somin argues here in favor of statism to force Afghans on the American public. Most of his posts favor statism.
Whoops; here's yet another example of retarded Schlafly. The state not rounding people up to send them home is literally the opposite of statism.
The Afghans are only in the USA on temporary visas. Unless the statists and Marxists like Somin get their way, the Afghans have to go back.
I can only imagine the vacant, slack-jawed stare that accompanied the typing up of that comment.
When I was in high school I read about a tribe in New Guinea that believed that the greatest virtue of all was treachery -- making someone think you were their friend and then betraying them. When the Christian missionaries showed up and told them the story of Jesus, they all thought the hero of the story was Judas Iscariot. The name of the book is The Peace Child and it's an interesting read if you're into that sort of thing.
Until Trump was elected president, I did not think it conceivable that a Western democracy would adopt the same position and treat treachery as something to be proud of. I never thought that I would see the day that I would be ashamed of my country. Today, I am.
The door is open to leave. Anytime you want. We will not even slow you down.
You'd like that. Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide what America is or should be for everyone. That is something we all get to decide for ourselves. And we all get to decide whether we want to use our voice and our vote to try and change things.
Temporary Protected Status is not Asylum. They are different categories, with different purposes.
Temporary Protected Status is designed to be temporary. It doesn't lead to permanent immigrant status. It is decided for temporary conditions in a country. It does not prevent the people who have TPS status from applying for change in status (for example, due to asylum).
In an individual with TPS has a fear of persecution from the government of Afghanistan, the proper recourse is to apply for asylum. That actually can lead to permanent immigrant status and citizenship. A "perpetual" TPS status for individuals just leads to a permanent underclass of individuals in the United States.
There is no functional or formal requirement in the structure of the program requiring it to be ended now.
You play games with semantics because you cannot defend the indefensible. But you still wanna try because you're a tool first, and a moral human way way down the list.
When I was younger, a friend of mine volunteered my services for driving him and a girl he liked around. He wanted to impress her and spend time with her. I was justifiably livid at someone speaking for me however noble the goal was. My friend had no idea whether I had plans or even the gas to drive the girl home.
I had some stern words with him (in private, of course- I wasn't about to embarrass him in front of a girl he liked).
First, our left wing friends offered 'temporary' or 'deferred' status, abused the asylum system, and deliberately overwhelmed our country's ability to absorb the migrants. Then they helped them lawyer up to hide behind every fig leaf to keep them here permanently. Now you have the chutzpah to try to emotionally blackmail people who didn't want mass migration in the first place.
... you're not going to convince people of the righteousness of your cause. The best you're going to get is some tough love and a lesson on the perils of speaking on behalf of others. The left has made an error in making deals with foreigners without getting a consensus with the right half of the country. Like this time. Or this time
Uh, Florida is a solid red state because Republicans encouraged Cubans to come here illegally and then they had fast track citizenship because of a Cold War relic. Those Cubans that came here illegally were by Bush was able to conduct the GWOT that cost 7000 soldiers and $5 trillion and accomplished nothing!!!
You'll find that Cuban refugees often received bipartisan support and approval from Congress. For example, the 1980 refugee wave (under Jimmy Carter no less!) resulted in Congress changing the law a handful of times to allow them to stay.
That's how it's supposed to be done. The right way of going about it is to get agreement with Congress instead of your mouth writing checks that your body can't cash.
But Cubans took advantage of it by entering illegally. And Republicans encouraged Cubans to enter illegally with Clinton and Obama cracking down and attempting to discourage Cubans from reckless behavior trying to get into America.
Sam.are you a teenager? That is the only reason you wouldn't know about Carter letting thousands of the worst Cubans in the world into the country, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, psychologically unstable.
Sep 28, 2020 — In total, some 125,000 Cubans left the island during the Mariel Boatlift: up to 20,000 had criminal records and thousands had served time
Sigh. Once again: Cuba was a communist dictatorship. That someone has a criminal record in a communist dictatorship does not make him an actual criminal, both because those countries criminalize lots of things that are not legitimately criminal, such as criticizing the government, and also because they didn't exactly have a fair criminal justice system. The "worst Cubans" were the ones working for Fidel Castro, and of course they weren't refugees.
The U.S. government found that less than 500 had serious criminal records, and estimated that less than 1,000 total were "security risks."
"You're calling us assholes for wanting to deport refugees to whom we owe a debt… but ha! We're proud of being assholes!"
If the best you have is name-calling, then your argument sucks, counselor.
If not now, then when?
If you want to argue they deserve asylum, then do that, and have them go through the asylum process. A process that can lead to citizenship.
But what you're actually arguing for is a perpetual grey status, where there's no road to citizenship, a class of people with permanent second-class residency who work the "lower class" jobs and won't complain because they can't vote and never will be able to. And that's not right.
Hah. I wouldn't be surprised if he took your offer in a heartbeat because citizenship was always the goal all along. Biden only offered temporary status because that was the best he could do at the time.
Baby steps!
So… Armchair thinks Biden/liberals are bad for not offering Afghan refugees citizenship, and you think that Biden/liberals are bad because actually he/they do have a secret long term plan to get Afghan refugees citizenship.
You have correctly summarized our views on the matter.
10 out of 10.
A gold star for you!
Armchair thinks TPS status is extremely abused by liberals to provide for cheap, pseudo-undocumented labor.
TPS status was granted to El Salvadorians in 2001, due to the earthquakes there. It was extended to 2026.
TPS status was granted to Honduras in 1999, in response to Hurricane Mitch. It was extended to 2025
TPS status was granted to Haiti in 2011, due to the 2010 earthquake. And again...just extended for more than a decade.
It's being abused. Use it for what it's meant for...temporary situations. Like when Kuwait was granted TPS from March 1991 to March 1992. Not a "perpetual" TPS status.
This is chaff. None of it is relevant to your choice and your opinion regarding the OP.
Trump, and the GOP Congress have agency. And so do you.
Post about that for once.
It's entirely documented, and what on earth is this conspiracy theory? Who are these "liberals" in question, and why are they so desperate for the "labor" of a few thousand Afghan refugees?
And your argument seems pretty pretextual. "It's supposed to be temporary, and some places have had TPS designation for a long time… so we're going to end it for places that haven't been designated for decades, like Venezuela and Afghanistan."
" what on earth is this conspiracy theory? "
There's no rational reason for TPS to be extended for over 25 years or more due to an earthquake or hurricane. The temporary issue is long over. Which means there's some "other" reason.
Moreover, the proper usage has been done in the past. Angola had just 3 years due to the Angola Civil war. Rwanda just two years due to the genocide there. Kosovo 2 years due to the war there. Note, all of them had TPS ended when the war was over. It wasn't extended for decades.
The proper way to use the law is to end the TPS status when the crisis is over. The Afghanistan Civil War is over. TPS status should be ended. If individuals believe they will be persecuted by the Afghani government, the proper route is asylum.
The OP,gives the reason. Thst these people will be in danger if deported.
You are dancing around.
Did you somehow miss the last line in his comment?
It does not in fact mean that. You're pulling a Bellmore: "X would not cause me to do Y, so therefore X cannot be the real reason why you chose to do Y. There must be a hidden agenda."
Note that TPS does not work the way you think it does. It's not a "There was a hurricane, so TPS is okay, but once the storm passes, or shortly thereafter, TPS is terminated." It has to do with overall conditions. Honduras did suffer a hurricane in 1999. It then suffered other ones, before it was able to recover. That's why the Bush and Obama administrations bipartisanly repeatedly extended it. ("Conditions in one country improved in a few years, so therefore the 'proper' application of TPS is to end it after a few years" is just not a valid argument. Each country is evaluated independently.)
Look, at some point you're transitioning from, "Honduras just had a natural disaster, so we're going to let some Hondurans shelter here for a bit as a matter of charity." (Which is the statutory purpose of TPS.) to, "Honduras is a shitty place to live, so we're just going to let them stay here for the rest of their lives".
Now, maybe Honduras IS a shitty place to live, but you could say the same of most of the world outside the US. It's a shitty place to live for the people still stuck there, too. Should we invite them here, too?
That's immigration, not temporarily sheltering the victims of a natural disaster, and when it comes to immigration, we vet people on whether their living here is beneficial to US, not to THEM.
People here on TPS are not barred from applying for permanent legal status. And, any of them who didn't want to head back home after a while should have done exactly that! It's not like they have lacked time to do it.
For that matter, if you're here on TPS, you have a big advantage in applying for asylum, too; The deadline for the application is extended an extra year! So maybe they should have done that, if they didn't mean to ever go home.
The bottom line is that this was temporary, they were told when they came here that it was temporary, they had options to make it permanent and didn't take them, and we now have an administration that actually wants to enforce the "T" in "TPS".
"Honduras did suffer a hurricane in 1999. It then suffered other ones, before it was able to recover. "
Now you're just lying. Hurricane Mitch hit in 1998, not 1999. More importantly, Honduras hasn't been hit by a hurricane since 1998. Tropical storm? Sure. But not a single hurricane has made landfall since Mitch.
Then when should it end? The Afghan war has been going on since 2002. Biden pulled out of Afghanistan in 2021.
There is nothing more permanent than a temporary government problem. People like Prof. Somin will do their best to make sure that is the case.
Do you think that Afghanistan has gotten better for people who sided with American troops against the Taliban in the last four years?
Would you still be complaining if a NATO ally agreed to take them in instead?
Would I be complaining if, instead of sending them back to a place where they'll likely be tortured/killed, the U.S. arranged for their safety in another NATO country? I don't see why the U.S. should or would do that rather than just letting them stay in the place they've been settled in, but it wouldn't seem worth complaining about. (The devil is in the details, of course.)
You're mixing two different items, asylum and temporary protected status (TPS).
TPS is due to items like natural disasters or civil wars, temporary in nature. A temporary stay due to conditions in the country being unsafe in general. In this case, the war in Afghanistan is over.
What you're conflating with it is potential persecution of Afghanis in the United States by the current government of Afghanistan. The proper route to avoid this is claiming asylum in the United States.
Two different systems. Two different purposes.
Assuming your analysis is correct, you appear to be arguing the intent of Congress trumps the text of the statute.
Do you believe this?
The proper route to avoid this is claiming asylum in the United States.
But I thought you hated the asylum system. Are you saying you would support the Afghans' asylum claims? If so, then why are you so upset about the TPS arrangement?
These people need safety, and the US owes them. Arguing about what precise legal form that should take may be interesting, but it's hardly germane to the basic issue.
We don’t owe them…they harbored the 9/11 terrorists and you believe they should be rewarded?!? I bet Haiti wishes they could have harbored AQ because from 2002-2009 Afghanistan experienced an “economic miracle” in which the population doubled!! And then when the Taliban returned they didn’t fight hard enough to keep what we gave them which they deserved nothing!!
This must be the dumbest comment on a train of dumb comments:
“[T]hey harbored the 9/11 terrorists and you believe they should be rewarded?!?”
Nobody here believes that because the “they” in question did no such thing. These are the ones who fought for and alongside US forces against the ones who did what you describe. These are the ones who will end up beheaded by the Taliban if they are dumped back there.
But, hey, since you see only an undifferentiated mass, why not send them back to be executed.
Dumbass.
"But I thought you hated the asylum system."
Incorrect. I hate ABUSE of the asylum system. If an illegal immigrant crosses through multiple countries, just to arrive at the US border and suddenly claim "I'm afraid of my home country," but is really seeking access to the US for economic gain, that's an abuse of the system.
It's like with food banks. Food banks are important. If someone really needs food, they can provide help. But if someone says "I'm hungry...now" then gets a week worth of food, eats an apple, then sells off the rest of the food. That's an abuse of the system. And it hurts the entire rest of the system.
Some of these people may need safety. Some...may be fine. That's what the asylum system is for. I don't know which are which. Either do you. Which is why asylum exists.
I've seen people on the left claim that the right thinks this way, but here I'm seeing an example of it.
You seem to suggest that extending a helping hand to people in need should only be done after it's been verified that they really need the help.
Sounds reasonable at first, but then you have to answer this: what if the process of verification means that some people that need help won't get it?
Libertarians especially, and the right more generally, usually think that government bureaucracy is inefficient and/or incompetent. Bureaucrats are the ones that will set up the process and do the verification, so there are going to be mistakes. Which side should be favored in the inevitable errors? Ensuring that more people that need help get it, or that more people that don't need help are excluded?
The people on TPS GOT the helping hand. Applying for asylum would have started a process for determining if they were entitled to KEEP it.
"what if the process of verification means that some people that need help won't get it? "
"Which side should be favored in the inevitable errors? Ensuring that more people that need help get it, or that more people that don't need help are excluded?"
The side that burdens the taxpayer less.
Ah, "I'll help people as long as it doesn't cost me more than my Netflix subscription." Got it.
Or, maybe it's, "I don't really want to pay any taxes to help people, so I'll just assume that we need tight 'verification' of need to avoid fraudsters that I'm just sure are taking advantage of
taxpayersme."You are exceptionally generous with other people's money.
If I was exceptionally generous, I would argue that the U.S. should have universal healthcare, just like every other country on the planet that qualifies as having an "advanced economy" by most definitions. Oh, wait, I do believe that. Maybe you have a point.
Oh, but you focused on "other people's money." Right. But no, not right. Taxes are "other people's money" in the same way that a restaurant deposits its customers' money into its bank account.
You want to pay fewer taxes, and you want the government to not spend what tax money it does collect on something you don't like? You're free to vote for politicians that will do what you want. You're free to speak out and argue that the government shouldn't spend money on those things you don't like at any time. And that is whether the candidates you voted for win or not. You can speak out and argue against that spending even if the ones you voted for did win, but now they aren't keeping their promises to you not to spend money on whatever that was. You even get to speak how you want if you didn't vote at all, or you change your mind.
But it isn't your money anymore once you pay taxes. It isn't my money anymore after I pay taxes. It doesn't suddenly become your money again after you've paid for a meal, but you didn't like the food or service. Nor does not liking it remove your obligation to pay for the meal.
Now, government isn't really like a business where you have total freedom to be a customer or not. But voting and speaking is what we have for making decisions about taxing and spending. If you're really this upset about that, I'd be really curious to learn what you think the better alternative is.
"You seem to suggest that extending a helping hand to people in need should only be done after it's been verified that they really need the help."
Let's be clear....a helping hand has ALREADY been extended in the form of TPS status. But if your argument is " Bureaucrats are the ones that will set up the process and do the verification, so there are going to be mistakes" then you need to ask "Why bother with an asylum program at all?" If the concept is "If they get asylum...great! If not, well, it's probably a mistake by the bureaucrats, so they get asylum anyway"....then there's no point in having the program at all.
Bureaucrats are the ones that will set up the process and do the verification, so there are going to be mistakes" then you need to ask "Why bother with an asylum program at all?"
No, I don't need to ask that. Maybe you think it would be a reason not to have a government program at all if it can't be perfect, but no one rational thinks that way.
If the concept is "If they get asylum...great! If not, well, it's probably a mistake by the bureaucrats, so they get asylum anyway"....then there's no point in having the program at all.
That's a nice straw man. No, that isn't the concept.
When I was making up quotes in replying to Brett, I was being both deliberate and obvious that I was satirizing his statements. You seem to be serious there.
Ilya doesn't even do he own work here. He is relying on a "report by the Washington Post."
He does not present one shred of evidence that one single Afghan has been deported.
So in this article Ilya is making a third-person argument about deportations that haven't even happened.
Is there a commentator on the Volokh conspiracy more consumer with Trump Derangement Syndrome that Ilya Somin?
Is this AI generated? It doesn't make any sense. Prof. Somin didn't say that Afghans had already been deported, so why would he present evidence that they had already been deported? TPS was just terminated for Afghani refugees a week ago, of course they haven't been deported yet. He's arguing that they shouldn't be, not that they have been. Should he wait until after they are to say, "This is bad"?
And what does "third person" mean? Since Prof. Somin is not Afghani, he cannot provide a first person argument. Why would one not rely on news accounts for news events?
And finally: is there a stupider argument than "Criticisms of Trump are 'TDS'"? (No, no, there isn't.) Just admit you like evil, instead of making up fake and unoriginal ad hominem arguments.
While I share your distrust of WaPo reporting, here it is straight from the horse's mouth.
Is the Washington Post still that bad? I thought that Bezos had made sure that it wouldn't get on Trump's bad side anymore.
I don't know, frankly. I formed my negative opinion of the WaPo before the paywall got as high as it is now, so if there's been a change to justify revising it, they've succeeded in hiding it from me.
Would be kind of hard to deport Afghans since we have no extradition treaty or formal arrangement to send people to Afghanistan.
Extradition and deportation are entirely different things, and we do not need a "formal agreement" to deport people. (The destination country can refuse to accept a deportation, but it could do that even if there were a formal agreement.)
[moved]
Evil does not get much more self-evident. This is evil on the scale of turning back displaced Jews who arrived off Miami aboard the, St. Louis in 1939, to send them back to Europe, and later to death in the holocaust for many of them.
That is a case similar to the one now with Afghans and suspension of protected status in the U.S. In both cases bigotry clouded accurate assessments of perils which were already obvious.
Ever since, the U.S, has rightly been ashamed of the St. Louis incident. What makes this situation even worse is that the St. Louis incident has now been a cautionary feature of American history for more than 8 decades.
During that interval the shamefulness of American conduct then has only become progressively more evident. It is part and parcel of the experience which ought to guide decision making in the case of Afghan allies now. It takes moral depravity to ignore such an obvious, long-standing, and well-known proof of the human costs of gratuitous cruelty.
Consider the plight of a MAGA, barely clinging at the precipice of a plunge toward economic and social catastrophe. For that person, maybe it looks like an Afghan granted asylum in the U.S. has been awarded an undeserved deliverance.
Where, wonders that MAGA, is any such deliverance for me? Where is justice? Where is safety? Where is relief, and how much longer can I hold on?
Were precipices equipped with mirrors, the imperiled MAGA would behold an answer to all those questions. But being a MAGA, he would snatch for a rock to shatter the mirror.
If this were a more insightful nation, it would find means to relieve surly MAGA dissidents. But thus take on a tedious burden, to ease corrosive bitterness. MAGAs remain a tribe committed to cherish self-dramatizing peril, and imagined personal hardship, ahead of safety, security, and success. They will not take it as a kindness to be deprived of the former, by infliction of the latter.
Consider the plight of a leftist - outwardly they claim they want countries like Afghanistan to improve, but they want to take away all the people from Afghanistan that could make that happen.
Americans can't make that happen - 20 years of war proved that.
I consider Afghanistan a strange foreign land. It would cause me no unease to leave all of those alone. I disapprove any U.S. foreign policy to intervene in such places.
On the other hand, I do not disapprove any inclination by Afghans to improve their land according to their own lights. If some of them propose to journey to the United States, and to attend Harvard, that too is fine with me. It might even prove a wise thing to do, both for Afghanistan, and for the United States.
"But Congress dithered, and so here we are."
You could just put that on a loop, and play it endlessly in the background; I can scarcely recall a time when it wasn't true.
I posted this in a reply above, but it is a general enough observation that I wanted to post it by itself. (It is past the edit time, so I can't delete the other.)
Just for this thread, I had looked up some articles discussing the withdrawal. A representative of a group that advocates for Afghan-Americans (and these people fleeing the Taliban) suggested that people don't bother reading either side of the congressional committee reports*, since they are clearly aimed at scoring political points rather than identifying truth.
[Joseph] Azam, [board chair of the Afghan-American Foundation], in a video posted on X, initially encouraged people not to read either report, saying each was designed to land a political blow, pinning blame on the other side while offering little reflection on what could have been done better within their own party.
Afghanistan was a bipartisan, multi-administration failure, and talking about how to fix the parts that can still be fixed — that has to be a bipartisan or multi-administration conversation. And that can’t happen if it’s always drawn into the politics of the moment.
It [dueling committee reports] fell into the same pattern that we’ve been in for over three years, and the Republicans have run away from the fact that Trump negotiated this deal and some Democrats are trying to run away from the fact that Biden executed on it.
The other thing that was really problematic was no one ever talks about the impact on 40 million Afghans...How much longer are we going to pretend like really the only impact from the Afghanistan withdrawal was a political one in the U.S?
People here are also discussing this like no one has been doing anything about it and just wanted the TPS to continue indefinitely.
Advocates for years have been trying to get Congress to enact what was initially known as the Afghan Adjustment Act, legislation that would provide residency to tens of thousands of Afghans who have yet to be given a permanent basis for remaining in the U.S. It also includes measures to bolster pathways for those left behind in the withdrawal to come to the U.S. as refugees. Similar legislation has since been deemed the Fulfilling Promises to Afghan Allies Act.
But it has failed to gain traction, particularly as a few GOP lawmakers raise concerns over the vetting of Afghans – even though allowing Afghans to seek citizenship would kick off additional security reviews for a group of people already in the U.S
I'd hold my breath while we wait for politicians to deal with the actual issues, but I think I'd rather live.
*The reports he was talking about had been released recently at the time he was speaking, but I would suggest that it applies to virtually any congressional committee report that doesn't receive at least a couple votes from each of the two parties.
We don't need an Afghan Adjustment Act, because they can all apply for asylum like anyone else. Millions of Central and South Americans have taken advantage of that generous loophole, Afghans are no less eligible.
And the fact that they risked retaliation from the enemy we were fighting in order to help us doesn't warrant additional assistance navigating that process?
No. Bad shit happens to many people.
You are a sick person. Someone gets hurt while helping you and your response is "ha, ha, sucks to be you"?
Well, no, they actually do kind of need one, looking it up, because TPS only tolls the deadline for applying for asylum by one year, so it's already passed for them anyway.
I'd support such an act.
That's wrong. The ordinary deadline is one year from last entry. If one is in TPS, one must file either w/in that year, or within a reasonable time after TPS status ends.
I'm not going to believe these people are "the good guys" or "helped the US" or are in danger upon return, just because Ilya Somin or the Washington Post says so. My guess, at best they're some of the guys who had some Afghan "business" helping us light trillions of dollars on fire in the desert.
Just more examples of why we should stay out of other people's business and not waste $5 trillion on pointless wars in the middle east (the figure for Iraq + Afghanistan).
Es triste ver cómo se politiza la situación de los afganos que huyeron del Talibán, muchos de los cuales ayudaron a EE.UU. y ahora enfrentan la deportación. Esta clase de decisiones no solo afectan vidas humanas, sino que también dañan la imagen internacional del país. Mientras tanto, encontré una página interesante con reseñas de casinos que puede servir para despejar la mente de tanta tensión. Aumenta tus ganancias con códigos promocionales. En tiempos así, es necesario un respiro para poder seguir discutiendo estos temas con claridad y cabeza fría.
Holy shit! AI spam bots posting in Spanish now?