This can't be right

[Sean Miller Fan]

The US is deporting Afghans back to be killed by the Taliban? These Afghan refugees were the allowed to come here because they assisted US efforts in Afghanistan and they likely would have been killed had they stayed. Similar to South Vietnam refugees when the North took Saigon.

If there is any refugee group more deserving of being here, its these Afghan folks who assisted the US war effort. What am I missing here because this seems insane to me.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/12/temporary-protected-status-afghans-00342250

 

[ratking17]

What religion are they? What color is their skin? (Hint....that's the answer.)

 

[caleco's]

Typical SMF bull crap
The program was for temporary status. We are HELPING them get home. They are going there to die?? You are close to the biggest moron on here.

"Noem said in a statement that the conditions in Afghanistan have improved sufficiently to warrant the program’s termination"

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Typical SMF bull crap
The program was for temporary status. We are HELPING them get home. They are going there to die?? You are close to the biggest moron on here.

"Noem said in a statement that the conditions in Afghanistan have improved sufficiently to warrant the program’s termination"

Oh, the dog killer with too much filler said that? Its good then, right?

Buddy boy, they assisted the American war effort and were fleeing death or imprisonment from a brutal Taliban regime. They CANT go home. They are seen as traitors and will likely be killed or imprisoned.

Can you name a refugee group more deserving a being here than folks who literally assisted the US military during a time of war?

I guess Texas US Rep Michael McCall is a crazy lefty because he said:

"The Taliban “have made their thirst for retribution against those who helped the United States clear,” McCaul said. “Until they demonstrate clear behavioral changes, I urge the administration to continue prioritizing the safety of the Afghan men and women who risked their lives to help our troops.”

This is maybe the worst decision made by the Trump administration on anything. These people helped the US and we are sending them to possible death. Meanwhile, we let in a bunch of white farmers because a farmer was killed in a random attack by a criminal a couple years ago and the South African government has a plan to take their land though it hasn't happened yet. There is no "genocide."

 

[pittbb80]

Hero’s I tell ya Find yourself a woman who will love you as much as libs love illegals and foreign shit bags

 

[pittbb80]

Not one lib is as outraged but the genocide going on in South Africa.

 

[WeaverIsComing]

I actually don't want to employ afghani to kill people then bring them to our country forever as a reward

 

[pittbb80]

I actually don't want to employ afghani to kill people then bring them to our country forever as a reward

Send them all to Mt Lebanon and Martha’s Vineyard. We’ll see how much the libs ove these shit bags

 

[pittbb80]

 

[Pittisit4me]

View embedded media

Actually, all democrats care about is power. Since Trump and the Republicans currently have it, they must disagree with everything he is doing. They have gone so low as to stick up for illegals who are committing serious crimes. They have taken common sense and thrown it out the window. They are sick in every way, but, somehow they try to convince Americans that they are right about everything. I hope they continue their nonsense. If they do, it will be a long time before we see them regain power.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

If there is any refugee group more deserving of being here, it’s these Afghan folks who assisted the US war effort. What am I missing here because this seems insane to me.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/12/temporary-protected-status-afghans-00342250

You and I agree here. Totally.

And I’m sure there’s more than what Politiko is sharing.

 

[jtownknowitall]

How many high school girls did we deport today?

 

[Millerton]

TikTok - Make Your Day

 

[Millerton]

Everyone needs to play that video ^.
Dude brings it.

 

[BPKY]

I actually don't want to employ afghani to kill people then bring them to our country forever as a reward

That's what I was wondering about. Motivation matters. I would vett Afghanis in this situation rather than deport them en masse. SMF raises a fair point of concern IMO

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

You and I agree here. Totally.

And I’m sure there’s more than what Politiko is sharing.

The only thing I can think of is that maybe these are like cousins, aunts, uncles of the Afghans who were employed by the US government. Or maybe they had fake papers that got them here. We need more information because there's no way we can deport former US Government employees/contractors.

 

[joeydavid]

Typical SMF bull crap
The program was for temporary status. We are HELPING them get home. They are going there to die?? You are close to the biggest moron on here.

"Noem said in a statement that the conditions in Afghanistan have improved sufficiently to warrant the program’s termination"

I heard the taliban is not so much a terrorist groups these days, and more of an ensemble theatrical troupe

 

[WeaverIsComing]

That's what I was wondering about. Motivation matters. I would vett Afghanis in this situation rather than deport them en masse. SMF raises a fair point of concern IMO

quite the odd deal, to fight a war for someone, then continuously reapply for temporary protected status instead of obtaining a longterm solution. maybe some dei govt employee was telling them why temporary was the best solution and they should go for that one, then keep applying, forever.

 

[BPKY]

quite the odd deal, to fight a war for someone, then continuously reapply for temporary protected status instead of obtaining a longterm solution. maybe some dei govt employee was telling them why temporary was the best solution and they should go for that one, then keep applying, forever.

Well, I wasn't aware of this being the situation. Thanks.

I'd presume there were Afghanis who just helped Americans for money, but also those who were patriotic Afghanis who wanted their country to adopt democratic ideals and therefore assisted the American soldiers. Those of the latter persuasion who want to become Americans and embrace our culture (at least the good parts) should be rewarded with a chance for citizenship.

 

[WeaverIsComing]

Well, I wasn't aware of this being the situation. Thanks.

I'd presume there were Afghanis who just helped Americans for money, but also those who were patriotic Afghanis who wanted their country to adopt democratic ideals and therefore assisted the American soldiers. Those of the latter persuasion who want to become Americans and embrace our culture (at least the good parts) should be rewarded with a chance for citizenship.

That's what the SIVs are for

Green Card for an Afghan Who Was Employed by or on Behalf of the U.S. Government | USCIS

www.uscis.gov

If they aren't qualified for that they can seek asylum, but if they got kicked out of the taliban for a week of US service, tough luck

 

[caleco's]

I heard the taliban is not so much a terrorist groups these days, and more of an ensemble theatrical troupe

Talk to your buddy Biden about that. He armed them

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Well, I wasn't aware of this being the situation. Thanks.

I'd presume there were Afghanis who just helped Americans for money, but also those who were patriotic Afghanis who wanted their country to adopt democratic ideals and therefore assisted the American soldiers. Those of the latter persuasion who want to become Americans and embrace our culture (at least the good parts) should be rewarded with a chance for citizenship.

So, even if these Aghanis only helped the Americans for money, that is still a pretty big deal. I dont think we can say: "you only helped us for the money, now go back." For me, the deal has to be the same as in Vietnam. If you were "Team USA" during the war, you get American citizenship if the opponents eventually take over the country. That seems more than fair. You won't find a more deserving group of immigrants than folks who literally helped the American war effort.

 

[BPKY]

So, even if these Aghanis only helped the Americans for money, that is still a pretty big deal. I dont think we can say: "you only helped us for the money, now go back." For me, the deal has to be the same as in Vietnam. If you were "Team USA" during the war, you get American citizenship if the opponents eventually take over the country. That seems more than fair. You won't find a more deserving group of immigrants than folks who literally helped the American war effort.

Were they helping us? I seem to remember North Vietnam was at war with South Vietnam and we were helping them.

 

[pittguy81]

View embedded media

How were people supposed to get into Western Carolina to help with bridges washed out and road destroyed? Victimhood signaling for stupid people.

 

[pittguy81]

Actually, all democrats care about is power. Since Trump and the Republicans currently have it, they must disagree with everything he is doing. They have gone so low as to stick up for illegals who are committing serious crimes. They have taken common sense and thrown it out the window. They are sick in every way, but, somehow they try to convince Americans that they are right about everything. I hope they continue their nonsense. If they do, it will be a long time before we see them regain power.

I refuse to believe you MAGA guys on here are entirely devoid of common sense and reason. Sticking up for adhering to the Constitution and for Rule of Law isn't sticking up for illegals. Get rid of all of them, but do it within the bounds of existing law and process. This is America, not some tin pot dictatorship......yet.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Were they helping us? I seem to remember North Vietnam was at war with South Vietnam and we were helping them.

We decided to make the Vietnamese Civil War our own war to stop the spread of Communism so at that point it was US (with some help from South Vietnam) vs North Vietnam + Viet Cong. So yes, many South Vietnamese helped us with what became our war.

 

[BPKY]

We decided to make the Vietnamese Civil War our own war to stop the spread of Communism so at that point it was US (with some help from South Vietnam) vs North Vietnam + Viet Cong. So yes, many South Vietnamese helped us with what became our war.

Nice spin. 👋

 

[caleco's]

Nice spin. 👋

He fell into that one. He can't help himself. He's better than a pretzel baker

 

[BPKY]

He fell into that one. He can't help himself. He's better than a pretzel baker

I give him credit at least for manufacturing history in order to validate his positions. I think most of the other libs are simply comfortable just making stuff up. Cultists gonna be cultists.

 

[jtownknowitall]

How were people supposed to get into Western Carolina to help with bridges washed out and road destroyed? Victimhood signaling for stupid people.

Good help is there before it’s needed.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I give him credit at least for manufacturing history in order to validate his positions. I think most of the other libs are simply comfortable just making stuff up. Cultists gonna be cultists.

What did I manufacture?

 

[BPKY]

What did I manufacture?

Sorry for the delay. I was looking for a source to add more background that I had on MACV but couldn't find it. So I'll just say this.

When you said about Vietnam, " If you were "Team USA" during the war, you get American citizenship if the opponents eventually take over the country."

That's nonsense. Just because we aid a country being invaded in no way obligates us to take in its populace if the war is lost. Yes, we fully committed to their resistance effort. But that was never a part of the deal in such a situation for any country in history.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Sorry for the delay. I was looking for a source to add more background that I had on MACV but couldn't find it. So I'll just say this.

When you said about Vietnam, " If you were "Team USA" during the war, you get American citizenship if the opponents eventually take over the country."

That's nonsense. Just because we aid a country being invaded in no way obligates us to take in its populace if the war is lost. Yes, we fully committed to their resistance effort. But that was never a part of the deal in such a situation for any country in history.

Ok. We'll agree to disagree. The way I see it is that its a moral issue. Being a good Christian if you will. The North Vietnamese and the Taliban took control shortly after we left or while we were leaving. Those folks assisted the war effort. Its not a guarantee that all of them would have been killed or imprisoned had they stayed but surely, some of them would have. So yes, I firmly believe that in these 2 wars, which did not result in a permanent victory, for lack of a better term, we owed it to those who assisted us to take them as refugees. As for citizenship, ok, we can compromise and maybe not give them citizenship but we cant send them back to the regimes they helped us fight.

I'd be willing to bend a little if the US began diplomatic relations with Afghanistan and their government provided assurances that these folks wouldn't be killed or imprisoned. But we have no diplomatic relations with them. And no assurances have been provided. Its going to be a simple "thanks and good luck." I'd assume you are a Christian, correct? This is where the Christian in you has to come through. Its morally wrong to send these folks back.

 

[BPKY]

Ok. We'll agree to disagree. The way I see it is that its a moral issue. Being a good Christian if you will. The North Vietnamese and the Taliban took control shortly after we left or while we were leaving. Those folks assisted the war effort. Its not a guarantee that all of them would have been killed or imprisoned had they stayed but surely, some of them would have. So yes, I firmly believe that in these 2 wars, which did not result in a permanent victory, for lack of a better term, we owed it to those who assisted us to take them as refugees. As for citizenship, ok, we can compromise and maybe not give them citizenship but we cant send them back to the regimes they helped us fight.

I'd be willing to bend a little if the US began diplomatic relations with Afghanistan and their government provided assurances that these folks wouldn't be killed or imprisoned. But we have no diplomatic relations with them. And no assurances have been provided. Its going to be a simple "thanks and good luck." I'd assume you are a Christian, correct? This is where the Christian in you has to come through. Its morally wrong to send these folks back.

Fair enough. I'm not so much opposing you on taking in Afghanis. We rummage through the middle east nowadays and in basically force the native population to choose a side. But I'd vett anyone brought over.

I jumped in when you brought up Vietnam. That was a different situation. And we had our hands tied so that we couldn't win. It was the beginning of the modern day war for war's sake method of generating profits.

And just for the record, I see no Christian duty to take in immigrants.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Fair enough. I'm not so much opposing you on taking in Afghanis. We rummage through the middle east nowadays and in basically force the native population to choose a side. But I'd vett anyone brought over.

I jumped in when you brought up Vietnam. That was a different situation. And we had our hands tied so that we couldn't win. It was the beginning of the modern day war for war's sake method of generating profits.

And just for the record, I see no Christian duty to take in immigrants.

We took in far more refugees from Vietnam, and not just folks who worked for the US government. I am OK with limiting it to civilians who worked for us. However, I dont think the reason for war, for corporate profits as you say, should determine whether or not we take in refugees who helped us.

I'd like to hear more about the last paragraph though. "Regular" refugees, ok, I can understand you there. Maybe for those folks, like if there's some massive earthquake, we can provide assistance for them to stay in their home country instead of letting them come here. We are still being Christians in helping them. However, for refugees who are legitimately trying to escape death, you don't think we have a Christian duty to take them? I'm not talking about Latin American asylum seekers, most of which claims are bogus. I'm talking about folks who have a real, verifiable concern of death at the hands of their government such as Afghanistan, Vietnam, or when real genocides are taking place such as Rwanda or I'd even go so far as to include the South African farmers here if you want. I suppose you are against these farmers coming here? For me, they are fleeing random violence in a poverty-stricken country, not a genocide, similar to Latin American "asylum" seekers. So, I wouldn't take either of those.

 

[BPKY]

We took in far more refugees from Vietnam, and not just folks who worked for the US government. I am OK with limiting it to civilians who worked for us. However, I dont think the reason for war, for corporate profits as you say, should determine whether or not we take in refugees who helped us.

I'd like to hear more about the last paragraph though. "Regular" refugees, ok, I can understand you there. Maybe for those folks, like if there's some massive earthquake, we can provide assistance for them to stay in their home country instead of letting them come here. We are still being Christians in helping them. However, for refugees who are legitimately trying to escape death, you don't think we have a Christian duty to take them? I'm not talking about Latin American asylum seekers, most of which claims are bogus. I'm talking about folks who have a real, verifiable concern of death at the hands of their government such as Afghanistan, Vietnam, or when real genocides are taking place such as Rwanda or I'd even go so far as to include the South African farmers here if you want. I suppose you are against these farmers coming here? For me, they are fleeing random violence in a poverty-stricken country, not a genocide, similar to Latin American "asylum" seekers. So, I wouldn't take either of those.

Good question Sir. No country can take in everyone, so my first axiom is that a country may enact immigration legislation based on any qualifiers.

If the South Africans screwed up their own country, why is it "Christian" to exempt them from karma? Or maybe their class indeed are innocent victims of a murderous government. Then shouldn't they simply revolt?

There's no example in Scripture I can think of where Israel accepted refugees. The accepted immigrants who sought to embrace their culture and their progeny maybe were allowed to gain full citizenship after a few generations.m

Shouldn't the first qualification be whether or not the immigrant adds value? Why should someone be accepted based solely on the fact that they are persecuted?

Obviously, the left likes to ignore the fact that it takes tax money to naturalize refugees. And, as usual, the left expects other citizens to share this cost regardless of whether other citizens want to accept refugees.

Read your Constitution. The preamble states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

A nation is more than a nebulous incorporated political entity that anyone can join, yes? Is it not a group of individuals United by common factors?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Good question Sir. No country can take in everyone, so my first axiom is that a country may enact immigration legislation based on any qualifiers.

If the South Africans screwed up their own country, why is it "Christian" to exempt them from karma? Or maybe their class indeed are innocent victims of a murderous government. Then shouldn't they simply revolt?

There's no example in Scripture I can think of where Israel accepted refugees. The accepted immigrants who sought to embrace their culture and their progeny maybe were allowed to gain full citizenship after a few generations.m

Shouldn't the first qualification be whether or not the immigrant adds value? Why should someone be accepted based solely on the fact that they are persecuted?

Obviously, the left likes to ignore the fact that it takes tax money to naturalize refugees. And, as usual, the left expects other citizens to share this cost regardless of whether other citizens want to accept refugees.

Read your Constitution. The preamble states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

So if you let me make and enact all the rules, I say:

- Afghans and Vietnamese civilians who helped us: no question you take them. Whether they eventually become citizens is another issue but they cant go back unless some assurances are made or some deal is struck

- all other refugees from natural disasters, potential government persecution, or fleeing gang violence, I have 2 answers:

1. As a Christian, we have the obligation to help people that TRULY need it. I'll chip in the $50 in extra taxes to help these people whether that be by providing them assistance to live here, at least temporarily, or helping them in their own country with food/housing assistance so they can rebuild.

2. The (non-Christian) Nationalist answer is "screw them." Whether they live or die isn't our concern. Tell them to do bring about change in their own country. This was my problem with the gutting of USAid. Should the US Government be helping 3rd world citizens? Maybe not. Should Christians? Yes. In fact, we donate to an organization who works (or used to work) with USAid.

The Republican descent from Christianity and Christian values is probably the #1 reason I changed parties. I am a Christian first, American 2nd. That may be right or wrong but that's how I feel. So this bragging about USAid cutting or these folks wanting to hurt the poor more by cutting SS or Medicaid, it just doesn't jive with my Christian values. But I guess I understand that these folks are Nationalists before they are Christians, if they are Christians at all. That's fine, I guess.

 

[BPKY]

So if you let me make and enact all the rules, I say:

- Afghans and Vietnamese civilians who helped us: no question you take them. Whether they eventually become citizens is another issue but they cant go back unless some assurances are made or some deal is struck

- all other refugees from natural disasters, potential government persecution, or fleeing gang violence, I have 2 answers:

1. As a Christian, we have the obligation to help people that TRULY need it. I'll chip in the $50 in extra taxes to help these people whether that be by providing them assistance to live here, at least temporarily, or helping them in their own country with food/housing assistance so they can rebuild.

2. The (non-Christian) Nationalist answer is "screw them." Whether they live or die isn't our concern. Tell them to do bring about change in their own country. This was my problem with the gutting of USAid. Should the US Government be helping 3rd world citizens? Maybe not. Should Christians? Yes. In fact, we donate to an organization who works (or used to work) with USAid.

The Republican descent from Christianity and Christian values is probably the #1 reason I changed parties. I am a Christian first, American 2nd. That may be right or wrong but that's how I feel. So this bragging about USAid cutting or these folks wanting to hurt the poor more by cutting SS or Medicaid, it just doesn't jive with my Christian values. But I guess I understand that these folks are Nationalists before they are Christians, if they are Christians at all. That's fine, I guess.

So, do you support USAid programs the support trans and LGBTQ programs in other nations?

How do you justify voting Democrat when imthey promote trans and LGBTQ issues and abortion to the time of delivery.

Asking for a Buddhist friend. 😉

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

So, do you support USAid programs the support trans and LGBTQ programs in other nations?

How do you justify voting Democrat when imthey promote trans and LGBTQ issues and abortion to the time of delivery.

Asking for a Buddhist friend. 😉

I am torn on abortion because I am pro-life but I also believe the government shouldn't regulate women's bodies. So I dont know where I stand on that anymore. I don't like abortion but I also don't think the government has a role in a woman's medical decision. If the ultimate goal is to prevent abortions, I'd rather offer something like a 5K or 10K baby bonus if put up for adoption. As someone who thought we may have to go that route, I can tell you that the wait list is LONG.

I am pro-do whatever you want to do. If you are LBGQT, cool. You be you. Walz had a great line when he said something like the government has no business in your bedroom. Republicans are so BIG government, they want to control every aspect of your life.

The USAid question, I wouldn't support sex changes for minors. Do they really do that? Cut out some of the wacky stuff. Maybe it needed reformed. But I understand the (non-Christian) nationalist point of view there. Its not our country, so whether they live or die isn't our concern.

 

[BPKY]

I am torn on abortion because I am pro-life but I also believe the government shouldn't regulate women's bodies. So I dont know where I stand on that anymore. I don't like abortion but I also don't think the government has a role in a woman's medical decision. If the ultimate goal is to prevent abortions, I'd rather offer something like a 5K or 10K baby bonus if put up for adoption. As someone who thought we may have to go that route, I can tell you that the wait list is LONG.

I am pro-do whatever you want to do. If you are LBGQT, cool. You be you. Walz had a great line when he said something like the government has no business in your bedroom. Republicans are so BIG government, they want to control every aspect of your life.

The USAid question, I wouldn't support sex changes for minors. Do they really do that? Cut out some of the wacky stuff. Maybe it needed reformed. But I understand the (non-Christian) nationalist point of view there. Its not our country, so whether they live or die isn't our concern.

You're refreshingly candid on abortion. We're not that far apart.

Neither do I want to peep in anyone's bedroom window. But public policy is another thing altogether. If we can outlaw beastiality and statutory rape and pedophilia, why not other aberrant sexual practices. These practicees were outlawed for over a century. How did sexual protected classes ever become legitimate?

There's no authorization in the Constitution for any foreign aid whatsoever. USAid or other

But again, I appreciate your candor and reasonability