This morning Alana Goodman reported on a maddening, immoral development in the ongoing effort to rescue Afghan interpreters who served the U.S. military loyally, only now to find themselves in grave danger as Afghanistan falls apart:
Afghan translators who worked for the United States military could find themselves ineligible for U.S. visas due to a recent State Department decision that retroactively changed the requirements for applicants.
The rule change, which increased the minimum employment requirement for interpreters from one year of U.S. government service to two years of service, was passed by Congress in September 2015.
Advocates say the State Department has been applying this change retroactively to interpreters who submitted applications months or years before the rule was passed—a decision that could impact as many as 3,300 Afghan translators who are under threat from the Taliban.
Goodman goes on to describe the case of "Dave," an interpreter caught up in the shift whose current situation is so dangerous that we can't publish his real name. The Americans Goodman interviewed about Dave have nothing but praise for his courage and loyalty:
"Almost every mission we got shot at. Almost every mission was a firefight, and Dave went with us," [Beilby] said.
He recalled one ambush in which Dave, who had not been issued body armor or a gun at the time, helped Americans carry two wounded Afghan National Army members to a medical helicopter while under heavy fire.
"Dave was one of the guys running out into the open without any body armor, without a helmet, without a weapon, without anything," Beilby said. "And he was helping carry the stretchers."
Goodman and the Free Beacon's Bill McMorris have been covering the epically shabby, shameful treatment of these interpreters and their families for a year now. There are a lot of Daves out there. Some of them have already been executed by the Taliban, but thousands could still escape to safety, if we would only let them.
Here's what I don't understand. The refugee crisis in Europe has sparked a furious argument in American politics about how many Syrians the United States should accept. For many of our national elites, the answer is effectively "as many as we can." George Clooney lectures us about our failure to do enough; Kanye West devotes a fashion show to the issue (as one does, I guess); President Obama says, "Slamming the door in their faces would be a betrayal of our values." The president promises careful screening for those seeking asylum, but his administration wants to accept an additional 10,000 Syrians on top of the normal quota just this year. How careful can that screening possibly be?
So what about our interpreters? These men are already vetted. The applicants to the State Department program for interpreters (a cumbersome, multi-year, criminally sclerotic process—and that's when it works!) have produced extensive documentation showing their good service to the U.S. during the war in Afghanistan. As far as I know, none who have entered the U.S. through this program have been accused of any involvement in terrorism. Those still in the pipeline each name American servicemen or diplomats who can be contacted for verification, and who tend to be willing to stake their own reputations on the loyalty of the applicant.
As far as careful, thorough screening goes, this is as good as it gets. These men and their families should be at the front of the line for refugee status. They are, many of them, legitimate heroes. Yet we put them through the ringer, while trying to welcome tens of thousands of asylum seekers whom we have much less reason to trust. For the interpreters, where are their movie stars? Where is their fashion show? Why doesn't the president advocate for them? Congress? Republican presidential candidates? The next time the media tries to bludgeon a Republican candidate because of his hesitance to endorse an effectively uncontrolled influx of refugees from one of the nastiest neighborhoods on earth, he should provide this ready response: "What about our interpreters?"
It's their turn. They have earned this, they are in danger, and it's time to bring them home.