Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64
I would be for it. Assuming they can be vetted, no problems in bring in translators etc. and their families to the US.
I think I read somewhere that they would be put someplace outside of the US while we go through the vetting process.
|
As I see it, we have (had?) to answer this question. Are we trying to protect the Afghan translators and their families or are we trying to protect ourselves?
We have already vetted the translators. They have been vetted enough to allow them to translate for us and be informants for us. That and that alone puts their lives and their lives of their families at risk. If we are more concerned with having their back, we put them on a plane and we bring them to Atlanta, New York, Tampa, Des Moines, etc. We bring them to the United States proper and we go from there. Does that put the country at risk to potential terrorist activities? Absolutely! Will the Afghans who helped us be safer than they are now? Absolutely!
If we are more concerned with protecting ourselves, then we go through a full vetting process similar to what we would do for any immigrant to the country. That seems to be what we are doing for the translators. Does that make the country safer? Absolutely! Will more of the Afghans who helped us dies before they get here? Absolutely!
I am not saying these are easy choices. Actually it does not have to be an A/B question necessarily. Maybe more of a scale with these being the extremes is more appropriate. Sure, we can place people in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and have them wait while we go through the vetting process. We can shorten the vetting process. No matter what we decide, it comes with more risk being taken by either the Afghans or us.