.

  • Written by Kelsey Norman, Fellow for the Middle East, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University
A group of men, some armed, sit on the top of a vehicle.

Amid the chaos that followed the U.S. pullout of Afghanistan[1] on Aug. 15, 2021, the Biden administration declared that evacuated Afghans would be allowed to enter the U.S.[2] via humanitarian parole[3]. The initiative would provide them with temporary access to American soil, but not with a pathway to permanent residency.

In the weeks that followed, approximately[4] 70,000 Afghans seeking to flee the returning Taliban government were evacuated. Nearly half[5] had worked with the U.S. government or American nongovernmental organizations, some were family members, while others had no prior affiliation.

After going through security and health screenings in third countries and on domestic military bases, the vast majority were resettled to numerous states – with Texas, Virginia and California being the top destinations[6].

Humanitarian parole was only ever intended as a temporary fix to an immediate problem; it is only valid for two years, after which an individual must adjust their status.

But armed with popular[7] – and bipartisan[8] – support, legislators in Congress proposed the Afghan Adjustment Act in August 2022[9] to allow Afghans to transition from temporary to permanent residency in the U.S. after further vetting.

Yet two years later, the act has still not passed. As experts on humanitarian rights[10], migration and refugees[11], we see the plight of tens of thousands of Afghans in the U.S. as the byproduct of the American political system in which bills struggle to pass[12]. And the upcoming November elections will add another layer of uncertainty to those currently left in limbo.

Stalling in Congress

The first attempt at the Afghan Adjustment Act coincided with the first anniversary of the fall of Kabul. Introduced by Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the bill proposed expanded access[13] to the already existing Afghan Special Immigrant Visa[14], to evacuated Afghans and offered a separate pathway for some Afghans to adjust their temporary residence to a permanent one.

A group of men, some armed, sit on the top of a vehicle.
Taliban fighters celebrate in front of the U.S. Embassy on the first anniversary of the fall of Kabul. AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi[15]

The Special Immigrant Visa program was created in 2006 to provide Afghans who assisted American forces with a pathway for permanent resettlement in the U.S. Approximately 77,000 Afghans had already been admitted to[16] the U.S. through the program by 2021. But due to bureaucratic inconsistencies and backlogs with the program, at least 18,000 at-risk applicants and 53,000 eligible family members had still not obtained[17] their visas when Kabul fell.

Under Klobuchar’s bill, Afghans who arrived in the U.S. in or after 2021[18] would be able to apply for permanent residency either through the expanded Special Immigrant Visa program or by directly adjusting their status within two years of arriving.

The proposed legislation has since been inserted[19] into multiple spending bills, including[20], most recently, the National Security Supplemental[21] in February 2024. But the measure failed to advance due to Republican opposition[22] to the bill, which amounted to a US$95 billion foreign aid package to assist Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

Partly this is the general rule in American politics: The vast majority of bills fail to become law, and the current Congress has a historically low[23] passing rate.

Yet the act’s failure comes despite[24] bipartisan and wide-ranging popular support to assist Afghans – including among members of the military, veterans, religious groups and refugee advocates. Shortly after the fall of Kabul, the majority of Americans polled[25] favored taking in Afghans who passed security checks. Even two years later, 80% of Americans thought the U.S.[26] should help Afghans who assisted American forces in Afghanistan to resettle in the U.S.

There is also strong precedent[27] for providing expedited pathways to permanent residency. The U.S. has previously passed adjustment acts for Cubans, Cambodians, Vietnamese and Iraqis, among others, allowing them to adjust their status[28] from temporary to permanent residents.

Republican legislators opposing Klobuchar’s bill cited concerns[29] that vetting procedures were not stringent enough, implying that some Afghans could have links to terrorist groups. Advocates for the Afghan evacuees counter that the bill has failed to pass simply because there is not a high-enough powered lobbying effort[30] behind it.

And while allowing Afghans to legally come to the U.S. or obtain long-term residency has bipartisan support, the issue has played into partisan politics concerning executive authority over immigration, with Republican detractors broadly objecting to President Joe Biden’s use[31] of humanitarian parole.

In July 2023, Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican, introduced a competing bill, the Ensuring American Security and Protecting Afghan Allies Act[32]. Rather than granting Afghans a direct pathway to permanent residency after further screening, this would require[33] evacuees to meet the stringent standards for obtaining refugee status. And this could be difficult for many of the Afghan evacuees: Applicants would have to demonstrate individual fear of persecution from the Taliban – a high bar for those who have now been outside of Afghanistan for three years.

Even with its more narrow requirements, Cotton’s bill failed to pass.

Left in limbo

As a temporary fix, in May 2022, the Department of Homeland Security announced that Afghans without permanent legal status in the United States could apply for temporary protected status[34], allowing those with expired or about-to-expire permits to remain in the country for a further 18 months.

In September 2023, temporary protected status was extended for another 18 months, protecting Afghans from deportation but still failing to provide a long-term solution.

Instead, most Afghans have turned to an overburdened asylum system, with a backlog of 2.6 million asylum[35] applications[36] as of mid-2024. Rather than refugees who are resettled to the U.S. from abroad, individuals have to already be in the U.S. to apply for asylum.

In an attempt to speed up the asylum process, U.S. officials exempted Afghans from filing fees in August 2021 and implemented a streamlined[37] application process.

Yet even when Congress directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to issue a final asylum decision on Afghan cases within 150 days[38], only 136[39] and 191[40] Afghans were granted asylum in fiscal years 2023 and 2024, respectively – out of tens of thousands of pending applications.

Afghans present in the U.S. under humanitarian parole can still apply for a Special Immigrant Visa, but without an extension this pathway is only available to those who worked for the U.S. government for at least one year.

The process was revised[41] in July 2022 by combining two steps into a single one, but it remains arduous for Afghan applicants. Long processing times and uncertainty about their future in the U.S. have created structural barriers and psychological fears for Afghans attempting to rebuild their lives. These difficulties are compounded by trauma from years of conflict in Afghanistan and a rapid departure from the country – with many forced to leave numerous family members behind.

How the election may affect the act

So as the third anniversary of the fall of Kabul is marked, what happens next to Afghans still in limbo in the U.S.? The chances of the Afghan Adjustment Act passing under the next administration are uncertain.

Advisors to Vice President Kamala Harris have said the Democratic candidate for the White House[42] is “committed to Afghan relocation efforts and looking for new ways to assist.” As such, a Harris administration could be expected to further pressure Congress to pass the act, emphasizing its moral and strategic importance.

A woman sits in front of an American flag.
Kamala Harris is said to be ‘committed to Afghan relocation efforts.’ AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin[43]

Donald Trump, who slowed down[44] the entry of Afghan allies by adding even more security checks to the Special Immigrant Visa process in 2017, has signaled that, if elected, his administration would prioritize stricter immigration policies. This could reduce the likelihood of the Afghan Adjustment Act being a legislative priority, despite some Republican support.

Just as crucial will be the composition of Congress. If Democrats retain the Senate or gain control of both the House and Senate, the act will have a higher chance.

Either way, we argue that the Afghan Adjustment Act should not be seen as simply an immigration bill. Regardless of which administration is elected in November, we believe failing to support wartime allies and ensure Afghans’ safety sends a damaging message to future partners. Without such assurances, the willingness of individuals and groups to aid the U.S. abroad could diminish, potentially leaving American forces without critical support in future operations.

References

  1. ^ followed the U.S. pullout of Afghanistan (www.washingtonpost.com)
  2. ^ allowed to enter the U.S. (www.dhs.gov)
  3. ^ humanitarian parole (immigrationforum.org)
  4. ^ approximately (apnews.com)
  5. ^ Nearly half (www.washingtonpost.com)
  6. ^ top destinations (www.cbsnews.com)
  7. ^ armed with popular (apnews.com)
  8. ^ and bipartisan (apnorc.org)
  9. ^ Afghan Adjustment Act in August 2022 (www.congress.gov)
  10. ^ experts on humanitarian rights (www.bakerinstitute.org)
  11. ^ migration and refugees (www.bakerinstitute.org)
  12. ^ which bills struggle to pass (www.npr.org)
  13. ^ proposed expanded access (www.congress.gov)
  14. ^ Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (travel.state.gov)
  15. ^ AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi (newsroom.ap.org)
  16. ^ already been admitted to (www.migrationpolicy.org)
  17. ^ not obtained (www.migrationpolicy.org)
  18. ^ Afghans who arrived in the U.S. in or after 2021 (hias.org)
  19. ^ has since been inserted (thewarhorse.org)
  20. ^ including (www.militarytimes.com)
  21. ^ National Security Supplemental (www.appropriations.senate.gov)
  22. ^ due to Republican opposition (www.militarytimes.com)
  23. ^ historically low (ca.news.yahoo.com)
  24. ^ comes despite (www.niskanencenter.org)
  25. ^ majority of Americans polled (apnews.com)
  26. ^ thought the U.S. (withhonor.org)
  27. ^ strong precedent (immigrationforum.org)
  28. ^ adjust their status (immigrationforum.org)
  29. ^ bill cited concerns (thewarhorse.org)
  30. ^ lobbying effort (thewarhorse.org)
  31. ^ broadly objecting to President Joe Biden’s use (thewarhorse.org)
  32. ^ Ensuring American Security and Protecting Afghan Allies Act (www.congress.gov)
  33. ^ this would require (www.congress.gov)
  34. ^ temporary protected status (www.uscis.gov)
  35. ^ backlog of 2.6 million asylum (www.uscis.gov)
  36. ^ applications (trac.syr.edu)
  37. ^ implemented a streamlined (www.uscis.gov)
  38. ^ 150 days (www.cbsnews.com)
  39. ^ only 136 (www.justice.gov)
  40. ^ and 191 (www.justice.gov)
  41. ^ process was revised (travel.state.gov)
  42. ^ said the Democratic candidate for the White House (www.washingtonpost.com)
  43. ^ AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin (newsroom.ap.org)
  44. ^ slowed down (edition.cnn.com)

Authors: Kelsey Norman, Fellow for the Middle East, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University

Read more https://theconversation.com/3-years-after-fall-of-kabul-us-congress-has-still-not-acted-to-secure-future-of-more-than-70-000-afghan-evacuees-in-us-235080

Metropolitan republishes selected articles from The Conversation USA with permission

Visit The Conversation to see more