World

Afghanistan is a US election issue. Will its refugees’ voices be heard?

Published

1 year ago

August 30, 2024

Afghanistan is a US election issue. Will its refugees’ voices be heard?

Washington, DC – Nasrin will not be able to vote in the United States elections in November.

Still, the 27-year-old has a message for the presidential candidates, on behalf of Afghans like herself who fled as the US withdrew its troops from Afghanistan in August 2021.

“I really want them to hear us, especially to hear those voices that worked for the US,” Nasrin, who asked to use a pseudonym, told Al Jazeera.

Friday marks three years since the last American soldiers left Afghanistan, ending a two-decade military presence that began with the toppling of the Taliban government in 2001.

But the chaotic nature of the military withdrawal — and the swift reestablishment of Taliban rule — have cast a long shadow over US politics.

A source of ongoing bipartisan criticism, the withdrawal has become a prominent talking point in the 2024 presidential race, with Democrats and Republicans exchanging blame for the lives lost during the troops’ departure.

But Afghans like Nasrin say there is an important perspective lost in the election-year sparring: theirs.

“This election is not only important for America. It’s also important for Afghans,” said Nasrin, who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area in California.

“For Afghans who immigrated here and for Afghans in Afghanistan … especially the women, this election will have a huge impact.”

A 2021 protest in Los Angeles called for an ‘open door’ policy for Afghan evacuees and expedited processing of immigration cases [File: Ringo HW Chiu/Reuters]

Two parties, one controversy

What happened in 2021 is a story that embroils the central players in this year’s presidential race.

In 2020, the administration of Republican President Donald Trump reached a controversial agreement with the Taliban to withdraw all US forces from Afghanistan within 14 months.

A few months later, Trump lost his bid for re-election. His successor, Democratic President Joe Biden, oversaw a mad-dash evacuation of US citizens, coalition allies and tens of thousands of vulnerable Afghans as the deadline loomed.

By August 2021, the Taliban had swept across the country in a lightning offensive, reclaiming its former power. Its forces entered the Afghan capital Kabul on August 15. The last US plane flew out of the city on August 30.

In those final days, a bomb attack killed about 170 Afghans hoping to enter the airport, as well as 13 members of the US military.

Government investigators have blamed the administrations of both Biden and Trump for the chaotic situation: Trump for reaching an agreement seen as favouring the Taliban and Biden for moving forward with the plan without putting in safeguards to stop the Taliban.

Trump has also faced criticism for limiting the pathways for Afghans to escape to the US.

He is now, once again, the Republican candidate for president. Meanwhile, Biden’s vice president, Kamala Harris, is heading the Democratic ticket.

A lingering failure

But advocates say both parties must still confront an enduring dilemma: how to protect the hundreds of thousands of Afghans who fear repression under the Taliban.

Many who were left behind are considered likely targets for the Taliban, especially if they worked for the US military or the US-backed government.

Even among those who were evacuated, many have been left in perpetual uncertainty, with no clear path to US residency or citizenship. Others have found the legal pathways to the US too narrow and have sought more dangerous routes to enter the country.

For her part, Nasrin said she worked as an interpreter for the US embassy in Kabul.

After fleeing, she was able to become a US resident through a “Special Immigrant Visa” (SIV) programme designated for Afghans who worked for the US government.

Another evacuee, who asked to be identified only as Nazanin, fled Kabul on an evacuation flight with her 16-year-old sister following the Taliban’s rise.

She has since been granted asylum in the US, but she said she sees only broken promises from both parties as many other Afghans both in the US and in Afghanistan have been left in the lurch.

“I don’t think Afghan voices are being heard by politicians,” she told Al Jazeera.

“My message to the presidential candidates is that you do not represent the majority of the refugee society or Americans that I know or see their perspective on social media platforms and that your false promises are noted.”

Inadequate immigration pathways

Arash Azizzada — the executive director of Afghans for a Better Tomorrow, an advocacy group — said members of the Afghan community in the US, like him, feel a “sense of anger and disappointment” this election season “when we look at both candidates”.

“We are feeling pretty invisible this election season,” he added.

Azizzada’s group has spent the last three years pushing for more immigration pathways for those fleeing the Taliban, including an increase in special visas for Afghans who worked directly with the US and pathways to permanent residency for other evacuees.

But little progress has been made, Azizzada explained.

“It has been the hallmark of Biden’s presidency to consider anything related to Afghanistan radioactive,” Azizzada said. “And Democrats have gone through this election season with barely any mention of Afghanistan or the Afghan people.”

That includes not mentioning the 160,000 Afghans who have been successfully relocated to the US since the withdrawal, something Azizzada argues could be framed as a victory for Democrats.

The Biden administration has upscaled the processing of Special Immigrant Visa applications, which had all but ground to a halt under Trump.

Still, as of March, 60,230 applicants had submitted all the required paperwork and were awaiting initial approval to move ahead with the process, according to the US State Department. Another 75,000 were also in the process of applying.

The administration has also increased refugee processing for Afghans, with 11,168 refugees admitted so far in fiscal year 2024. That is up from approximately 6,500 admitted in fiscal year 2023 and just over 1,600 in the immediate wake of the withdrawal, in fiscal year 2022.

Critics nevertheless say legal pathways for vulnerable Afghans are still woefully inadequate.

Afghanistan as a ‘cudgel’

While Democrats have been largely silent on the subject of the Afghanistan withdrawal, Azizzada noted that Republicans have embraced the subject this election cycle — but only as a “partisan cudgel and tool”.

That was apparent on Monday, as Trump hosted a campaign event at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. He joined the families of several soldiers who were killed at the Kabul airport for a memorial ceremony there.

Hours later, Trump gave a speech to a conference of National Guard members in Detroit. Faced with military members and their families, he highlighted the Democrats’ role in the Afghanistan troop withdrawal.

“Caused by Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, the humiliation in Afghanistan set off the collapse of American credibility and respect all around the world,” Trump told the crowd.

He pledged to “get the resignations of every single senior official who touched the Afghanistan calamity, to be on my desk at noon on Inauguration Day”.

In a subsequent statement, Harris defended the withdrawal, saying the Biden administration “has demonstrated we can still eliminate terrorists, including the leaders of al-Qaeda and ISIS, without troops deployed into combat zones”.

For Azizzada, one word best describes the absence of any mention of Afghans in the election discourse: “dehumanising”.

A political opportunity?

Still, some advocates have seen reason for hope in the inclusion of Afghans in the Democratic National Committee’s policy platform, released earlier this month.

It calls for the “provisions to streamline applications of at-risk Afghan allies” through the US refugee programme and “a process for Afghan evacuees to have their status adjusted to lawful permanent resident”.

Many Afghans evacuated during the troop withdrawal were granted access to the US through the “humanitarian parole” programme, which allows them to live and work in the country. However, it offers no pathway to permanent residency.

Legislation known as the Afghan Adjustment Act, that would create that pathway — as well as other means of support for Afghans in the US — has continued to languish in Congress.

Joseph Azam, a lawyer and chair of the Afghan-American Foundation, said the legislation has stalled in the “headwinds” of a deep partisan divide over immigration.

Republicans, he explained, have largely opposed increasing immigration. Democrats, meanwhile, “have lurched to the right” on the issue.

“Any kind of signal that they have empathy — or there are carve-outs, or there are people to whom this increasingly extreme approach to immigration does not apply — is seen as politically wrong,” Azam said.

Nevertheless, Azam argued the candidates should view the issue as a political opportunity rather than an albatross.

He pointed out that influential veterans groups support increased immigration pathways for Afghans who worked alongside the US military, including through the Afghan Adjustment Act.

Veterans, he added, are also a powerful voting bloc in swing states like Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia.

“The five or six states that are probably going to decide this election happen to also have some of the largest populations of US veterans,” Azam said. “If you can move a couple thousand people and their families on this issue in a key state, that’s the election, right?”

‘Honours its pledges’

When asked about the issues they want to hear on the campaign trail, advocates for Afghan refugees named a myriad: from immigration reform to increased funding for resettlement services.

In her work, for instance, immigration lawyer Laila Ayub helps lead Project ANAR, a nonpartisan non-profit group that provides legal services to recently arrived Afghans.

She told Al Jazeera that, with few options to migrate legally, Afghans are making treacherous journeys across the southern US border. That leaves her concerned about the emphasis this election season on border and asylum restrictions.

“Afghan Americans, like myself, are voters, and we need to hear proactive support for our community, not just in terms of a national security framing,” she said.

“Our community was impacted by decades of US foreign policy and military presence, and that there’s historical precedent for enacting protections.”

Naheed Samadi Bahram, the US country director for the nonpartisan community group Women for Afghan Women, said she hopes for a presidential candidate who “cares about women’s rights, somebody who cares about the immigrants’ rights”.

She spoke to Al Jazeera just days after the Taliban published a new raft of “vice and virtue” laws, which bans women from being heard in public, among other restrictions.

Bahram added that she would like to see more funding for legal and mental health services for Afghans in the US. Many community groups rely mostly on donations from foundations and individuals, she explained.

“I’m hopeful for this election, and I hope that the election will bring a lot of life into the situation in Afghanistan and to the evacuation process,” she said. Still, she acknowledged, “it will be very difficult”.

Khalil Anwari, who works for the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, a nonpartisan non-profit, said candidates should view support for Afghans as sending a wider message to the world about the strength of US ideals.

“For many years, the US — when it comes to being a place of refuge — globally, it has been the leading country. However, in the past couple of years, based on policies that were undertaken, it has lost that status,” said Anwari, who also fled Afghanistan on an evacuation flight following the Taliban takeover.

Providing opportunities for Afghans to seek safety is a way the US can regain that status and bolster its standing on the world stage, he explained.

“This goes hand in hand with the understanding that the US honours its pledges to their allies,” Anwari said. “That is seen by people all over the world when the pledges that are made are honoured.”

Click to comment

World

Takeaways from AP’s report on the ICE detention center holding children and parents

Published

1 hour ago

February 28, 2026

Press Room

Takeaways from AP’s report on the ICE detention center holding children and parents

Many Americans were alarmed recently when immigration officers in Minneapolis took custody of a 5-year-old boy and sent him and his father to a Texas detention center. But he was no outlier.

The government has been holding hundreds of children and their parents at the Dilley Immigration Processing Center, about 75 miles south of San Antonio. Some have been detained for months.

The Department of Homeland Security has strongly defended the quality of care and conditions there.

Here are key findings from an Associated Press report on how the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement is shaping life inside the facility.

Detention of children has been rising

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement booked more than 3,800 children into detention during the first nine months of the new Trump administration, according to an AP analysis of data from the University of California, Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project.

On an average day, more than 220 children were being held, with most of those detained longer than 24 hours sent to Dilley. More than half of Dilley detainees during the early part of the Trump administration were children, the AP analysis found.

Since being reopened last spring, the number of people detained at Dilley has risen sharply and reached more than 1,300 in late January, according to researchers. Nearly two-thirds of children detained by ICE in the early months of the Trump administration were eventually deported.

ICE holds many children longer than 20-day limit

The government is holding many children at Dilley well beyond the 20-day limit set by a longstanding court order.

“We’ve started to use 100 days as a benchmark because so many children are exceeding 20 days,” said Leecia Welch, the chief legal director at Children’s Rights, who visits Dilley regularly to ensure compliance. In a visit this month, Welch said she counted more than 30 children who had been held for over 100 days.

Many settled families among those currently detained

When the Obama administration opened Dilley in 2014, nearly all the families detained there had recently crossed the border from Mexico.

But many of those now sent to the facility have lived in the U.S. several years, according to lawyers and other observers, meaning children are being uprooted from the familiarity of schools, neighborhoods and many of the people who care for them.

Parents Allege Deficient Care

Parents and children recounted stressful conditions inside Dilley, including experiences that raise questions about the quality of care being provided.

A 13-year-old girl cut herself with a plastic knife after staff withheld prescribed antidepressants and denied her request to join her mother down the hall, the mother told the AP.

Another mother said when her 1-year-old daughter developed a high fever and vomited, medical staff repeatedly offered only acetaminophen and ibuprofen before she was eventually admitted to hospitals with bronchitis, pneumonia and stomach viruses. ICE disputed her account, saying the baby “immediately received proper care.”

Other families described more routine problems, like the difficulty of getting children to sleep in quarters where lights are kept on all night and of stomach aches caused by foul drinking water.

Both adults and children described the often overwhelming stress of being detained that has caused many to despair.

ICE, DHS defend Dilley

DHS did not respond to detailed questions about Dilley submitted by the AP. But both DHS and ICE sharply refuted allegations of poor care and conditions in statements issued this week.

“The Dilley facility is a family residential center designed specifically to house family units in a safe, structured and appropriate environment,” ICE Director Todd M. Lyons said in a statement.

Dilley provides medical screenings and infant care packages as well as classrooms and recreational spaces, ICE said.

Once in full operation, Dilley is expected to generate about $180 million in annual revenue for CoreCivic, the for-profit prison company that operates it under contract with ICE, according to the company’s recent filing with securities regulators.

In response to questions from the AP, a CoreCivic spokesman said no child at Dilley “has been denied medical treatment or experienced a delayed medical assessment.” The company said detainees receive comprehensive care from medical and mental health professionals.

Questions about oversight

The increased detention of families comes as the Trump administration has gutted an office responsible for oversight of conditions inside Dilley and other facilities.

In years past, investigators found problems at Dilley, including consistently inadequate staffing and disregard for the trauma caused by the detention.

A special committee recommended that family detention be discontinued except in rare cases, and the Biden administration began phasing it out in 2021. Dilley was closed in 2024. But in reopening it, the Trump administration has completely reversed course.

World

World leaders split over military action as US-Israel strike Iran in coordinated operation

Published

2 hours ago

February 28, 2026

Press Room

World leaders split over military action as US-Israel strike Iran in coordinated operation

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

World leaders reacted swiftly Saturday after the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran, exposing a deep divide between governments backing the attack on Iran and those warning the attacks risk a wider regional war.

In a joint statement, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney and Foreign Minister Anita Anand voiced firm support saying, “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.” The statement described Iran as “the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East” and stressed it “must never be allowed to obtain or develop nuclear weapons.”

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also endorsed the action, writing on X, “Australia stands with the brave people of Iran in their struggle against oppression.” He confirmed Australia supports “the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” while activating emergency consular measures and urging Australians to leave Iran if safe.

The United Kingdom said Iran “must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.” U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s office said he was speaking with the leaders of France and Germany “as part of a series of calls with allies.”

A person holds an image of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as Iranian demonstrators protest against the U.S.-Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, Feb. 28, 2026. (Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) )

French President Emmanuel Macron warned, “The outbreak of war between the United States, Israel and Iran carries grave consequences for international peace and security.” He added, “The ongoing escalation is dangerous for all. It must stop,” and called for an urgent meeting of the United Nations Security Council.

In a joint statement, the leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom also said they had “consistently urged the Iranian regime to end Iran’s nuclear program, curb its ballistic missile program, refrain from its destabilizing activity in the region and our homelands, and to cease the appalling violence and repression against its own people.”

The three governments said they “did not participate in these strikes,” but remain “in close contact with our international partners, including the United States, Israel, and partners in the region.”

They reiterated their “commitment to regional stability and to the protection of civilian life,” condemned “Iranian attacks on countries in the region in the strongest terms,” and called for a “resumption of negotiations,” urging Iran’s leadership to seek a negotiated solution. “Ultimately, the Iranian people must be allowed to determine their future,” the statement said.

European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas described developments as “perilous,” saying Iran’s “ballistic missile and nuclear programmes… pose a serious threat to global security,” while emphasizing that “Protection of civilians and international humanitarian law is a priority.”

Spain openly rejected the strikes. Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said, “We reject the unilateral military action by the United States and Israel, which represents an escalation and contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order.”

Meanwhile, Gulf states responded to reported Iranian missile activity.

Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry said, “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia condemns and denounces in strongest terms the blatant Iranian aggression and the flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Jordan.” It affirmed “its full solidarity with and unwavering support for the brotherly countries” and warned of “grave consequences resulting from the continued violation of states’ sovereignty and the principles of international law.”

The United Arab Emirates’ Ministry of Defense said the country “was subjected to a blatant attack involving Iranian ballistic missiles,” adding that air defense systems “successfully intercepted a number of missiles.” Authorities said falling debris in a residential area caused “one civilian death of an asian nationality” and material damage.

The ministry called the attack “a dangerous escalation and a cowardly act that threatens the safety of civilians and undermines stability,” and stated the UAE “reserves its full right to respond.”

UN’S ATOMIC AGENCY’S IRAN POLICY GETS MIXED REVIEWS FROM EXPERTS AFTER US-ISRAEL ‘OBLITERATE’ NUCLEAR SITES

Smoke rises after reported Iranian missile attacks, following strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran, in Manama, Bahrain, Feb. 28, 2026. (Reuters)

Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar “strongly condemned the unwarranted attacks against Iran” and called for “urgent resumption of diplomacy.”

China also weighed in. A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, wrote on X that Beijing is “highly concerned over the military strikes against Iran launched by the U.S. and Israel.” He added that “Iran’s sovereignty, security and territorial integrity should be respected” and called for “an immediate stop of the military actions” and “no further escalation.”

Turkey’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan held calls with counterparts across the region, a Turkish Foreign Ministry source told Reuters. The discussions focused on “possible steps to be taken to help bring an end to the attacks.”

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy directly linked the developments to Russia’s war against his country.

“Although Ukrainians never threatened Iran, the Iranian regime chose to become Putin’s accomplice and supplied him with ‘shahed’ drones,” Zelenskyy wrote, adding that Russia has used “more than 57,000 shahed-type attack drones against the Ukrainian people.”

“It is important that the United States is acting decisively,” he said. “Whenever there is American resolve, global criminals weaken.”

Russia sharply criticized the operation. Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, said, “All negotiations with Iran are a cover operation.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

An interception is visible in the sky over Haifa during the latest barrage. (Anthony Hershko/TPS-IL)

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam warned, “We will not accept anyone dragging the country into adventures that threaten its security and unity.”

Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said the strike “is not in line with international law.”

Reuters contributed to this report.

Efrat Lachter is a foreign correspondent for Fox News Digital covering international affairs and the United Nations. Follow her on X @efratlachter. Stories can be sent to efrat.lachter@fox.com.

World

Israel strikes two schools in Iran, killing more than 50 people

Published

3 hours ago

February 28, 2026

Press Room

Israel strikes two schools in Iran, killing more than 50 people

State media says Israeli attack on girls’ school in the city of Minab in the south of the country kills dozens.

Published On 28 Feb 2026

An Israeli strike has hit an elementary girls’ school in Minab, a city in the Hormozgan province of southern Iran, killing at least 53 people, according to state media, as the immediate civilian cost from Israel and the United States’ huge bombardment of Iran comes into sharper focus.

Workers are continuing to clear wreckage from the site, where 63 others have been injured on Saturday, said Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency. The strike is part of a wave of joint US-Israeli military attacks across Iran that has triggered an outbreak of regional violence.