Experts suggest Donald Trump’s Afghan refugee policies may herald a stringent stance on immigration [File: David Goldman/AP Photo]
Washington, DC – It was a rainy September morning in 2023 when Ruqia Balkhi first set foot in the United States. After a journey fraught with uncertainty, she was welcomed by a federally funded resettlement agency, one that would become her lifeline in this foreign land.
At 55, Balkhi, an accomplished engineer, was amidst a cohort of Afghans who had stood shoulder to shoulder with US military forces during their prolonged two-decade sojourn in Afghanistan. For them, the fall of Kabul in 2021, under the grip of the Taliban, was more than a geopolitical event—it was a turning point of peril.
With the walls closing in, Balkhi saw no choice but to flee to the United States. Upon her arrival, the first 90 days were a blur of activity—temporary housing, language classes, essential supplies, mental health resources—it was a whirlwind of new beginnings. Even her 15-year-old son found a new academic home at a Virginia high school, a sanctuary from the turmoil they had left behind.
However, when her husband, Mohammed Aref Mangal, arrived under the same visa program in January, it was as if the wind had stopped. The orchestra of support had fallen silent. Donald Trump had just assumed the presidency, and with his entrance, federal funding and immigration channels constricted swiftly.
“It was a complete reversal,” Balkhi recounted, describing the stark contrast in her husband’s experience. Their tale underscores how even in bipartisan arenas, Trump’s sweeping policies might send ripples.
Veterans and allies of various stripes had universally championed the cause of Afghan allies, recognizing their service beside American troops. Yet, within days of reassuming office, Trump’s administration had put the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) on ice, leaving many Afghans, authorized to enter yet left stranded overseas, in dire straits.
With an executive order that also froze foreign aid, operations crucial to programs like the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) went into disarray. For Balkhi and Mangal, despite some familial footholds in America, the transition was a fraught endeavor.
“Without the agency’s support, survival would have seemed impossible,” Balkhi admitted to Al Jazeera in Dari, her voice filled with the somber weight of translation by Lutheran Social Services of the National Capital Area.
Are these mere teething problems of a nascent administration? Critics ponder if Trump’s uncompromising policies will test the resilience of what once seemed like established compassion for Afghan allies.
“My hope is that the government does not discard its promises to those who stood with them,” Balkhi asserted, a request threaded with poignant urgency.
First-term oversight?
Donald Trump’s campaign had laid bare his intent to reshape the American immigration framework, fortifying it against what he termed an “invasion” of migrants. Yet, his vocal critiques of the tumultuous US withdrawal from Afghanistan had stirred hopes amongst advocates for Afghan support services.
Shawn VanDiver, founder of #AfghanEvac, a resettlement advocacy group, weighed in: “Trump campaigned vehemently against the withdrawal chaos. One would think he harbors no intent to forsake our allies. Maybe an initial blunder?”
Throughout his campaign, Trump acknowledged those ensnared by the events of August 2021, when a devastating bombing took 13 US service members and 170 Afghan lives. Trump took aim at Joe Biden, dubbing it the “Afghanistan calamity,” while paying respects at the graves of three soldiers involved.
For VanDiver, how Trump navigates Afghan resettlements moving forward is crucial. “Should his policies pivot, that’s a hopeful beacon. If inertia prevails, we may deduce intent,” he reflected.
While Trump’s directives haven’t halted SIV processes outright, they’ve certainly ensnared those seeking sanctuary through the program, a venture contingent on federal apparatus.
Directives instructing ten national organizations to cease refugee services have robbed intending immigrants of essential assistance—Vandiver describes it as a matter of life and death, leaving the vulnerable imperiled.
Refugee impasse
Not only has the SIV faced peril—the larger refugee resettlement process is similarly ensnared. Under the previous administration, extrapolated pathways—P1, P2, and family reunion categories—ensured safe passage for Afghans under threat. Those avenues have now dissipated amidst a broader refugee program suspension.
Kim Staffieri, helming the Association of Wartime Allies, advocates for continuity akin to SIV recipients. “Those striving for US refuge have contributed immensely. Yet, they’re constricted by the SIV’s strict thresholds,” she lamented.
Unexpected roadblocks suggest the administration may have either underestimated or overlooked the repercussions of their sweeping policies.
Veteran endorsement
Consistent polling demonstrates robust support for relocating Afghan allies who served in parallel with US military forces. Such sentiment resounds strongly in veteran circles, which, despite political leanings, underscore the issue transcending aisles; indeed, it’s an intersection of honor and obligation.
Andrew Sullivan of No One Left Behind connects his own Afghan war experiences with current advocacy, anticipating administrative adjustments. “Given the veteran make-up, carve-outs for Afghans seem inevitable,” Sullivan posits.
Conversely, skeptics like James Powers express apprehension over immigration hawks like Stephen Miller exerting influence, whose previous tenure saw SIV processing nearly grind to a halt. Troublingly, the concerted efforts under former President Biden, including bipartisan legislative achievements, now hang in the balance.
Recent expansions in refugee admissions and SIV issuance signify years of collaborative progress—advocates hope these gains won’t just unravel overnight. For Powers, the Trump administration must capitalize on bipartisan expertise to rejuvenate a beleaguered structure. Can collaboration and compassion prevail? The stakes couldn’t be higher.
Source: Al Jazeera
Edited By Ali Musa Axadle Times International–Monitoring
