Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
No One Left Behind – Unless You’re an Iraqi or Afghani Interpreter
This past week, The Federalist featured a story reported by Fox News about an Afghan interpreter, Fraidoon Akhtari, who was finally granted a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) after a five-year wait. Akhtari accompanied US troops in 500 combat missions over 13 years.
In another story, an Afghani translator, Mohammed Janis Shinwari spent five years waiting for an SIV. It took US Army Captain Matt Zeller, who harassed the media, contacted Congressional members, and set up an online petition to rescue the man who had saved his life.
These stories are not news; the topic has been written about numerous times, but Iraqi and Afghani lives are still in danger because the wheels have been turning so slowly.
The State Department is one of the chief culprits. It sets the requirements for the approval process [boldface is theirs]:
You may apply for this program if you meet all of the following requirements:
- You must be a national of Iraq or Afghanistan; and
- You must have worked directly with the U.S. Armed Forces or under COM authority as a translator or interpreter for a period of at least 12 months; and
- You must have obtained a favorable written recommendation from a General or Flag Officer in the chain of command of the U.S. Armed Forces unit that was supported by you, as a translator or interpreter, or from the Chief of Mission from the embassy where you worked.
The requirements are strict, but not unfair.
Unfortunately this website provides conflicting information about the number of SIVs that are issued each year. It shows a chart that states that the processing time for a person who applies through Kabul is 287 days. Although a long period, it doesn’t seem unreasonable, in my opinion (given that we are talking about the US government.) Yet it’s also clear that data on approval rates does not match the reality. Many applicants are waiting years, not months, to be approved.
If you look more closely at the process, you’ll notice that Section 1059 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, which was amended in 2008 to allow 5,000 SIVs to be issued for the next five years, was amended in March 2017 to only 1,500. I would assume this latest figure is correct, but it’s hard to be sure. This change could affect as many as 10,000 applications. According to the NY Times, “It is unclear whether the reported suspension of new applications was related to the number of available visas or to the president’s order reducing refugee intake generally, or to a combination of the two factors.”
The State Department claims that delays can be a result of incomplete applications, applicants not meeting the requirements, or other applicant-related problems. If there are thousands of people who endangered their lives by helping our troops, why are so few even applying? Are they discouraged by the slow pace of approval (even though the system has been improved)? Do they receive any assistance in completing the documentation?
Fortunately one non-profit organization has stepped up to aid Iraqi and Afghanis in this process, once they are here, called No One Left Behind. This is their mission:
The mission of No One Left Behind is to help Afghan and Iraqi combat interpreters with Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) resettle safely in the United States. We bridge the gap that exists between current State Department and NGO refugee relief programs, and provide assistance with housing, employment and cultural adaptation. We treat our clients as the heroic veterans they are.
The organization estimates that there are more than 35,000 individuals who’ve aided American troops, and they and their families are in constant danger for the aid they provided.
Significant issues surface in the face of these endangered interpreters and translators who are left to struggle in their respective countries. Why does the number of SIVs approved keep changing, when thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis and their families are looking for asylum? Do we have an obligation to be more generous in the number of people we approve and the timeliness with which we do it? Since they not only put their lives at risk to assist our troops, doesn’t it matter that they are possibly in even greater danger remaining in their countries? Do you suspect other reasons for the State Department dragging its feet? And it’s not clear whether integrating them into this country is part of the government’s job, or if it should be left to organizations like No One Left Behind.
At the very least, we should be doing a better job of bringing these heroes to safety. They helped keep our troops alive.
Published in Military
This never ends.
We Americans make tremendous human and material sacrifices and turn our own country upside-down (see the election results for conservatives in 2006 and 2008, plus our national debt) in order to bring the blessings of freedom to Third World hell-holes ruled by murderous regimes.
Then, when those efforts fail, due to the corruption of those we were altruistically trying to help as well as by the relentless resistance of the very people we thought wanted to be free, the same do-gooder thinkers that got us into these messes tell us that we owe those we were fighting for a safe harbor.
We owe them.
America, according to this lunatic, self-abnegating way of feeling – I refuse to call it thinking – now has a duty to rescue these “heroes,” all 35,000 of them and their endless families, from their own countries and be the bolthole for Iraqi and Afghan “freedom-lovers” out of the very struggle we thought they wanted our help with.
America doesn’t need more Iraqi-speakers, Muslims or folks from cultures wildly divergent from our own. We’ve got quite enough of all of that thanks to our elitist, delusional leaders, thank you very much. But Iraq and Afghanistan certainly do need more western values-loving freedom-fighters, which is exactly where these heroes should stay.
Give them arms, set them up in mountain redoubts and let them form The Resistance, just like Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, the French during Vichy, Francis Marion and the Bielski Brothers did.
It was Iraqi and Afghani freedom we went 8,000 miles to obtain, not our own. It didn’t work out as we hoped it would. Now it’s up to them.
We owe them nothing.
So if I understand you, Freesmith, we went over to Iraq in particular, uninvited. In Afghanistan, we needed their help to break up terrorist camps. In Iraq, we screwed up, mainly due to Obama’s actions. There were people there who wanted freedom and did support us by putting their own lives on the line by siding with us, and alienating their own people. So, too bad. If you were stupid enough to help us, then you deserve to die.
Realistically, all 35,000 aren’t coming over here. They’ll take their chances. Others may in fact become freedom fighters, rescuing their own countries. But for those who want to come here, who were promised asylum, we should keep our promise. But then, you and I can disagree.
America would do well to keep all of its promises. If we promised asylum, we should deliver. This is what really builds reputations.
The way we treated the South Vietnamese who trusted us was incredibly shameful.
I’m funny that way. I expect to keep the promises I make. And I expect that of our country. Funny how that works. You are so right on the way we treated the So. Vietnamese. It was a travesty. Thanks, iWe.
I said this on more than one occassion. The US is just lousy at doing this and will continue to do this. The fact we could take 25000 refugees from Syria straining our entire system in Canada in one year and the us balked at taking 10000. Shameful.
Why so few, Canada? Sweden took in 169,000 reported Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in 2015 alone, and that is in a country with a population of 9 million.
Canada must be lousy at doing this. Shameful.
Take more. Think of how much more vibrant your cities will become. Diversity is your strength.
Who made those damn fool promises? The US armed forces, in order to entice Iraqi and Afghani nationals to work with our troops, or the US diplomatic corps for the same reason? When did they begin using US residence visas as bribes?
Corruption. No wonder as soon as we drew down the opposition walked right in.
By the way, if you go on the sites of these Iraqi and Afghani SIV organizations, you’ll see they all oppose Trump’s travel ban and want the US to take many, many more “immigrants.” They’re more than happy to use the “translator and interpreter” issue as a front.
I agree. The number should have been closer to zero, although I have sympathy to those who wish to adopt or shelter young orphans.
The adult “fit, young men” or “young, strong men” phrases should strike terror into any sane Americans who doesn’t wish to bring in Muslims from a country which has a deep history of terrorism, Antisemitism, ethnic violence, and who knows what else.
Let the Muslim countries take care of the Syrians. I think most people know that the exodus from Africa and the Middle East has to do with welfare state and transforming Christendom into the Land of Islam. Otherwise, why would Muslims wish to travel to hostile non-Muslim countries where global warming, gay rights, feminism, alcohol consumption, and secularism are the dominant religions?
I always support a thread going in any direction people wish. I will point out, however, that I’m talking about people who supported the US military at the risk of their own lives.
Why does it matter? Either we (the nation) made the promises, or we did not. If we made them, we should honor them. Otherwise, both for practical and righteous reasons, America should be deeply ashamed.
We don’t know at what point visas were offered. Maybe they even did it just to have an income, a job. Doesn’t matter.
The Trump administration should remember that traditionally it’s the job of the Democrats to betray our allies.
But Susan, it does matter…to me and many others. @freesmith asks a very reasonable question. You and @iwe have both stated that we , in effect, owe certain Iraqi’s and Afghan translators for helping US forces fighting in those associates’ countries. You have both either stated or assumed that someone promised these associates visas for themselves and their families for entering and I assume living in the USA. I wondered myself, who made these commitments and under whose authority? You say we must keep our national promises. I agree. But they must be promises given by an authority delegated by the American people to make that promise. I have not seen that yet on this post.
This is not corruption. This is a reward for those individuals who were willing to stick out their necks to help American servicemen do a difficult job in a difficult situation. There was a real risk involved in helping the Americans. In some places there were reprisals, in which natives who worked for the Americans suffered reprisals from America’s enemies.
Of course, the biggest risk was that American voters would give power to the Treason Party and that they would betray America’s friends and allies (which happened).
Just because they favor bad policy is no reason to fault the good work they are doing to aid families who are here because they allied with America in an attempt to improve their homelands. These SIV immigrants are taking advantage of American kindness to start fresh as new Americans. If any Muslim immigrants at all are to be accepted, these are the ones most likely to successfully assimilate.
President Bush signed the act into law (obviously passed by Congress). If you want to read more about it, go here.
As others here have said (@iwe, @susanquinn), we as a nation made a committment to these people when we recruited them to assist us. We aren’t talking simply about refugees (about whom I’m much less sanguine), but about people who partnered with us to help us achieve our mission objectives.
Whether or not one thinks that was a good deal for us to make is irrelevant: it’s the deal we did make.
One of the things that most offended me about President Obama was his willingness to betray those who had depended on us. Whether in Poland, Israel, or Iraq, he reinforced the message that America was an unreliable ally; recovery from that will be slow and difficult. (To Israel’s credit, they understood that it wasn’t America, but rather the Obama administration, that was unreliable. Hopefully others knew that as well.)
If you don’t like the law, change the law. But let’s uphold the integrity of our country and its promises by honoring our committments in a responsible way.
That’s what I needed to know. The POTUS is most certainly a legal authority. And so is Congress. So, yes, we not only promised, but it’s the law, and we should allow them visas post haste (as long as we can verify who they are). Thanks Susan.
I’m just wondering if we are trying to help free those in their own countries from ISIS and other terror groups, would they not want to stay and be a part of restoring their country? If we have troops that have sacrificed for their freedom, and they helped with that, why do they feel it’s unsafe to remain? Can they move to other areas that have been freed and keep up the fight? Wasn’t that the goal?
I think that for some, those helping Americans at any time and in any form was/is considered a betrayal, FSC. I would guess that is even more true, since Obama pulled out our troops and left them hanging. If we can eliminate ISIS (which I’m skeptical about), more of them may be glad to stay.
We either keep our promises or we become a nation of oath breakers. This man shared the hardships and dangers of working with US forces. He kept his word, we must keep our word. He is more than some servant who is to be discarded when he is no longer of any use.
There may be many people who do not belong in the United States and there are some here that are only here by an accident of birth that have contributed nothing other than lip service to the American idea. He served and the vast majority of Americans have only seen Afghanistan on the news, comfortable in their own homes while other Americans risked their lives in combat, as did this man who assisted US forces.
The goal was to keep the Islamicists out of power and to provide a stable and secure environment in which Iraqis and Afghans could re-form governments that would continue a stable and secure environment without providing aid to terrorists abroad.
Our preference is for Iraq and Afghanistan to be peaceful and secure and for all their citizens to thrive. We were on our way to approach the goal.
Then we elected Obama.
In some parts of Afghanistan and in some parts of Iraq, any local person who worked directly for the Americans became a target for reprisal. Those persons would naturally be the ones most committed and we wish they could stay and help rebuild their homelands. But their status as special targets of the bad guys means that they are going to have to leave home or be killed. We offered to provide a haven for those who stuck out their necks to help us. We have not done a good job of honoring our promises.
Ms. Susan Q., thanks for this post.
I still like my idea better. It serves the long term interests of both the US and the two Muslim nations by promoting exactly what the world needs – more freedom-loving, western-oriented citizens and nations.
After all, if the commies could do it – spend years in the mountains slowly gathering enough strength to overthrow repressive regimes with the support of a sympathetic foreign power – why can’t freedom-loving Iraqis and Afghanis?
The whole world views America as an untrustworthy ally.
American power is great, and America can perform some serious heavy lifting to improve lives all around the world. This is often done just as a byproduct of bringing bad guys to justice, and may or may not involve “nation building.” Republican presidents care about actual results, and enable American fighting forces and American allies to spread peace and security and liberty.
Then fickle American voters will return power to the Treason Party.
Going forward, maybe so. But we passed a law and promised these people the safety of a visa in exchange for their help. They helped with great personal risk. Now we need to step up and keep our promise…and obey our law.
Non-starter. While those freedom-loving mountain guerrilla militias are spending years in the mountains slowly gathering strength,
…those repressive regimes are raping and murdering their families and everyone who ever helped America, and rebuilding the terrorist training camps to spread murderous jihad around the world. They will improve their drug-trade operations to provide more funding for new WMD development labs.
Then, if one of those freedom-loving mountain guerrilla forces commits some human rights violation, anti-western street demonstrators in America will lead Democrat congressmen to make sure that all western support for their cause is ended.
I think this typically well-meaning, George W. Bush-sponsored piece of legislation, which our soft-hearted political class eagerly passed – the same duo who allowed our borders to be porous and would open this country to another one-or-two million legal immigrants per year forever – is exactly the kind of bad deal that Trump excoriated the political class over in 2016. Let’s re-negotiate. After all, we have real immigration problems already in the United States.
But I have some sympathy for these heroic Muslims from Iraq and Afghanistan. I favor getting them out of the danger of living in those two nations in question – and shipping all 1,500 or 5,000 or 10,000 or whatever the hell the number ends up being –
To Muslim, “pro-Western” Saudi Arabia.
Problem solved.
Congratulations! You win the “Nothing Can Be Done Except Roll Over” award, handed out regularly by the mainstream Republican Party.
It’s a wet noodle.
Our problem, perhaps, but not theirs. Look, this is not a never ending “deal”. It’s a law that has a finite application and conclusion. I understand your passion and sympathize. This is not a hill upon which I wish to plant my flag. Well actually it is. Let them in.
So let’s end it now, today.
After all, the “Syrians” are already lining up, and who knows what global obligations The Weekly Standard and Commentary crowd are cooking up for America’s armed forces.
Think how many Russian or Iranian translators we might need in the near future.
There you go, making the case for honor. What are we going to do with you?