I had the chance to listen to some refugees who have been resettled in the US by a ministry our church supports last night. One in particular was interesting.
A couple from Afghanistan spoke about their need to escape after the Biden administration decided to let the Taliban have Afghanistan and billions of dollars in military equipment. The husband worked for the US military as a translator and logistics coordinator. When the military left, they left his family high and dry. Forced to wait in a line for over two days, although his pregnant wife physically couldn't take that and had to hide with her cousin. Their family received death threats from the Taliban, which included their two young children, but again the US did almost nothing to get them out. He and his 3 year old daughter, finally made it on a plane and bounced from refugee camp to refugee camp before finally getting to the US. She finally was able to get out with their son through Pakistan, and Spain before (over 2 years later) finally being reunited.
It's a heartbreaking story and a story of the utter failure of the US government to have the backs of their local employees who literally risked their lives for our country.
It's also heartbreaking to think of what this adorable 5 year old girl would be condemned to had she stayed in Afganistan. Condemned to no education, no freedom, and forced into chador. I for one, am glad that she has a much brighter future.
As a final comment, the husband was joking about how much better it was for men in Afghanistan because there men had complete control over women. It made me wonder why American feminists are obsessed with eradicating the "patriarchy" in the American church, but haven't quite been concerned about their "sisters" who live in Islamic countries.
8 comments:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.voanews.com/amp/opposition-to-senate-border-bill-jeopardizes-help-for-afghans-who-aided-us-troops/7472101.html
I could be mistaken, but I think this hasn't passed yet due to GOP opposition primarily.
Fyi,
Dan
Interesting. Your point seems to be that even though the Biden abandoned these people in 2021, and made no provision for their extraction. Despite the fact that they had already gotten death threats. That now in 2024, it's the GOP's fault for not fixing the past. Leaving aside the fact that this "border security" bill is a total piece of crap. Leaving aside Schumer's threats to send US troops to Russia if this bill doesn't pass. You are seriously blaming the 2024 GOP for Biden's failures in 2020-2021? You are seriously blaming the 2024 GOP for the failure of the democrat majorities in congress to do anything in 202, 2021, 2022,2023? What bill(s) did they propose to fix this failure? Please tell me specifically.
Oh, by the way. You got so sucked in by the headline, that you didn't read the article.
1. "Tucked inside the sprawling package is a measure that would provide a long-awaited pathway to residency for tens of thousands of Afghan refugees who arrived in the U.S. on military planes after the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021."
This bill doesn't do anything for the Afganis that worked for the US that were abandoned in 2021. That's lie #1.
2. "But the measure may fail if members can't agree on the bill's larger, unrelated provisions. Democrats, especially members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, have voiced opposition for what they call the extreme, far-right border policies in the legislation that they say do nothing to help fix the country's broken immigration system."
Lie #2, it's NOT the GOP (only) that is blocking the bill.
3. "Conservatives have said the package does not go far enough in limiting the number of daily migrant crossings at the southern border."
This says "conservatives" not republicans. Theoretically there are likely still a few "conservative" dems left. Not quite a lie, but not quite 100% True either.
Your pathological need to blame everything on the GOP, even things that are out of their control, verges on monomaniacal. The reality is that this bill is a sham that does very little about securing the US border, and way to much about securing the borders of Ukraine (or the offshore accounts of the Ukrainian rich and powerful), and Israel (which seems to be doing just fine with it's border.
But really, it's a valiant effort to move blame from the Biden administration for abandoning these Afganis, to the GOP for opposing a bad bill along with democrats.
It's typical...and mostly of the Dems...to pile on crap to a bill to which no rational person could agree in order to then both disparage those who do reject the bill as well as to pretend it is they who care and are doing something. This is just one of the many ways Dems lie to the stupid. This bill is solving the border crisis by allowing 5-8000 invaders to continue crossing our borders every day/month (neither is good). And of course, the Actual-Liar-In-Chief pretends he needs Congress to grant him power and authority to do something about the border he and his Homeland Security liar have been insisting is secure, and somehow now is not. Yet what Congressional aid did he await before reversing all the effective border securing measures Trump managed get through despite constant obstruction? None. Thus, he can simply reverse his own stupidity and put everything back as it was. Maybe even put the border wall materials in place if they haven't rusted beyond any use.
This BS bill, as I understand it, covered three significant areas: our border, the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel. Each of these deserve their own specific bill on which the merits of spending and action should be openly debated in Congress...not lumped together for political games.
Except for a few Republicans, and possibly one or two Dems who won't expose themselves as being in agreement with intelligent people, there is blame aplenty to go around for the current invasion of lawbreaking aliens. But to pretend it's the GOP preventing real solutions being put in place is just modern progressive lying, a real problem with no sign of abating in what remains of my lifetime. Biden created this mess by pretending reversing Trump policies was actually a good and intelligent move. This is Biden's mess...the Dems' mess.
As to your story of the Afghani refugee, this would be an actual case of someone fleeing danger given the aid he gave American military forces prior to the withdrawal. There are scant few other examples amongst the horde of invaders, and even among those who were flown here during the draw down period, how many have actually been properly vetted? When we think about who is actually threatened by thugs in power, is not wholly accurate to say that the entire country is threatened...even some who are among those doing the threatening. Are we to open our doors and resources to entire countries? If not, why not when they are all under threat? While some are indeed directly threatened, the rest are still potential victims of the same threat...and this assumes all who claim to have been directly threatened were really threatened. Even amongst thugs, not every threat is meant to be carried out, even when those threatened don't adjust their behavior as demanded.
But these are the questions when morons open our borders to the world as Democrats are intent to continue doing. It becomes far more difficult to separate the truly threatened from those who are simply gaming the system.
Among the morons are those who are willfully working to given themselves advantage and exploiting foreigners for the purpose, without any regard to the true consequences. Then there are the other morons who exploit the situation created by the morons in power they elected, in order to posture as compassionate, while never having any way to confirm they're compassionate towards those deserving of it.
And the nation suffers.
Art,
As I tend to do, I am not extrapolating this individual families story out beyond the specific situation they experienced. Although, I can't believe that they were the only US support staff who got abandoned in Biden's headlong rush to run away. If they were employed by the US military, they would have already been vetted to some degree. Further, there were public promises that they'd be taken care of, which were either broken or bullshit.
Are you stupid? This is NOT an invitation to entire countries, it's a reminder that real refugees are a thing, and that American didn't always abandon people who provided necessary support to our military. I'd also point out that the threats in this case were a direct result of working for the US military, not the more general threat that the Taliban posed to random Afganis.
My point is that there is a space in between Dan and his "let 'em all in no matter what." insanity, and your "shut and lock the damn door" extremes. The reality is that this couple jumped through every hoop required of them after being abandoned by the Biden administration, and came her the right way. It took over two years for the wife and son to get here. It's not the same things a a coyote smuggling a bunch of peons across the TX border.
Maybe you missed the point that this was as much about the morons in the Biden administration who broke their promises and abandoned these people to death. Maybe you missed the important role in the US military mission. Maybe you've simply lost the ability to understand that different circumstances require different solutions.
I don't know.
"Are you stupid?"
Depends on from whom you get your information.
"This is NOT an invitation to entire countries,"
I looked over my comment and can't find anywhere I've implied that was your point. You must be in a hurry.
" I'd also point out that the threats in this case were a direct result of working for the US military, not the more general threat that the Taliban posed to random Afganis."
AH! THERE'S a point I did make!
"My point is that there is a space in between Dan and his "let 'em all in no matter what." insanity, and your "shut and lock the damn door" extremes."
Yeah. I get that. My point is the best course begins with "shut and lock the damn door" and proceed from there. We can always unlock and open it when we feel justified in doing so. Is that problematic? Certainly some will be lost, but we must operate on the basis that immigration policy...including refugee/asylum policies...must be for OUR benefit above all else. Thus, before we unlock the door and open it, those seeking to enter must not be a threat in any way or have a true threat behind them compelling them to seek our aid.
"Maybe you missed the point that this was as much about the morons in the Biden administration who broke their promises and abandoned these people to death. Maybe you missed the important role in the US military mission. Maybe you've simply lost the ability to understand that different circumstances require different solutions."
None of that is remotely true or even so much as hinted at in my comments. Though a bit clumsily stated, my point reflects the understanding of different circumstances quite well. It was also a slam against the "everybody's a refugee fleeing danger and oppression" line. I simply suggested that in a shithole country, everyone is threatened but not always directly and thus not worthy of asylum or are true refugees simply because they say so. I would agree the example you gave was likely vetted by the military, but there were a few of those who turned.
While our people must keep promises made to those who agree to render aid to us, I would hope those promises are not thrown about willy-nilly, or simply to procure aid the lack of promises would fail to acquire. But assuming all is on the up and up, keep those damned promises.
"AH! THERE'S a point I did make!"
Yet, that point wasn't clear. One job of the US military is to protect. I'd argue that (much like in Viet Nam) when the US military hires locals for any role, that they have an obligation not to abandon them when they pull out. Especially, if the promise of protection was made.
" Is that problematic?"
Yes. Because when you "shut the damn door", there are going to be people that die because of that. Because it's not just one "damn door". Because (for example) the winter sports industry in the US couldn't function without people from overseas.
Again you seem to have read into my post that I was saying that "everybody's a refugee", which is completely wrong. I am saying that despite this avalanche of people falsely claiming refugee status with no repercussions, we can't ignore those who are truly refugees. Especially when they're refugees directly because of US policies.
I'd argue that the US's failure to keep promises made, including treaties that should have been legally binding, is one of the biggest stains on our history. When the US officially makes a promise, it should be kept.
No, Craig. I most certainly did NOT read into your post that you ever said "everybody's a refugee". Moreover, I corrected that false statement in my last comment and you still say I was putting that on you. I did not and I don't. I was speaking of open border supporters like Dan who presume all who say they're fleeing danger are truly fleeing danger directed specifically at them...such as the Afghani you highlighted.
And my position doesn't ignore true refugees and asylum seekers simply because I insist the door must be shut and locked. AGAIN...as if I wasn't clear enough the first time...we can open the door on whatever terms we choose, which would and should be to allow those who are actually threatened, not just saying they are.
My position has always been to seal off the border as tightly as possible across its entire length leaving the only way in or out official ports of entry where those seeking entry can be scrutinized and dealt with. Right now, that would mean massive lines of people waiting for an extremely long time for their turn. I think many would turn back. Eventually, the wait won't be so long because there won't be the understanding that getting to be here won't be assured if they can't just walk over the line. That's the goal. That has nothing to do with how we handle people actually fleeing danger.
We once had a policy (it might still be in place but ignored these days) by which refugees would be allowed entry with the understanding that whenever whatever natural disaster or war sent them is resolved, they were to return home. Many refugees don't necessarily want to come here, but are forced. Asylum seekers are a different story. They come for protection whereas refugees are simply displaced. The danger they flee is specifically directed toward them, as with your Afghani example. Different situations, different policies. Everyone else comes through the front door and waits their turn.
Post a Comment