With Broken Promises Like These, Why Would Anyone Help the U.S. in a Conflict Zone?

Breaking pointAsk any immigration lawyer: What the law says and what actually happens in real life can be miles apart, due in large part to competing interpretations — or simply bureaucratic foot dragging — by  various U.S. government agencies.

This is nowhere better exemplified than in the case of the Afghan and Iraqi translators and other workers who helped the U.S. government or military during recent conflicts in their countries. They put their lives at risk, knowing that after the U.S. soldiers went home, they’d have to face reprisals from within their own community.

In what was meant to be a response to their plight, the U.S. Congress created visas within the “Special Immigrant” category. (By way of context, years ago, a similar visa was created for citizens of Panama who put themselves at risk on behalf of the U.S.) See “EB-4 Visa for Special Immigrants: Who Qualifies?” for a complete list of who is covered by this section of U.S. immigration law.

The U.S. government has been very careful to make sure this visa did not create an open door for anyone who might want to come to the United States. It added requirements that both the Iraqi and the Afghan workers “experienced or are experiencing an ongoing serious threat as a consequence of” their employment.  In order to submit a complete application, they must come up with letters of recommendation and assessments of the risk level that they face, from U.S. supervisors and other higher-ups. In other words, they’re far from seeking U.S. entry based on their word alone!

So why is it that only a miniscule number of visas been handed out in this category, which is due to sunset — that is, drop out of the law books, leaving potential applicants high and dry — in mere weeks? The stories are wrenching, as can be seen in such articles as “America’s Afghan And Iraqi Interpreters Risk Lives But Wait Years In Danger For Visas” and “U.S. Soldier Fights For Afghan Interpreter Who Saved His Life.”

The answer can partly be found in another portion of the requirement for these applicants: that they pass a U.S. security check. Given that the countries from which they hail are among those that the U.S. suspects of supporting or sponsoring terrorism, Mother Teresa herself might have trouble passing the security check. And as described in the media coverage above, once your enemies find out you’re trying to head for the U.S., a well-placed call denouncing you may be all that’s needed to seal your fate.

An even more bizarre reason can be found in this 2011 State Department compliance report regarding the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. It states that, “The embassy opposes the brain drain from Afghanistan of rare, highly qualified individuals. It also questions the realities of the threat environment in individual cases and highlights the extensive resources needed to implement the program.”

Excuse me? Congress saw fit to pass a law to specifically protect people whose lives are at risk, and the embassy in Kabul is worrying about a “brain drain?” I cry foul. Now if Congress would only listen, and extend the sunset date on these laws.