After the attacks of 9/11, the United States undertook a military operation aimed at dislodging the Taliban government of Afghanistan, which had provided material support and bases to al Qaeda. That immediate goal was achieved relatively quickly.
What came next was a classic case of mission creep. The U.S. maintained a costly military presence (in terms of dollars and American lives) that lasted for the next two decades. Ultimately, we and the Afghan people failed to replace the Taliban with a viable alternative, leading to President Joe Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from that country in 2021.
Recommended Stories
- Virginia can’t afford to follow Maryland’s energy blueprint
- ICE Tracker: Police shooter and ‘America’s Most Wanted’ suspect arrested
- If Muslims behead Catholics in a church, does it make a sound with legacy media?
In the wake of the Taliban’s violent return to power in May 2022, the Biden administration granted Temporary Protected Status to Afghans who were residing temporarily in the U.S. That status was renewed in November 2023, lasting until May of this year. The Trump administration decided not to extend TPS, requiring that about 11,700 Afghans leave the country.
Advocates for Afghans losing their temporary protection and work authorization filed a lawsuit claiming that “the Trump administration’s attempt to end TPS for Afghanistan and other countries is a racist, unlawful action.” In July, a federal court blocked the administration from terminating TPS for Afghans. However, later that month, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there was “insufficient evidence to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a postponement” of the administration’s termination of TPS, pending a decision on the lawsuit.
The legal battle over the continuation of TPS for Afghans and other nationality groups facing the loss of that status is an example of another sort of mission creep. TPS was created by Congress in 1990 to allow the secretary of Homeland Security to extend the presence of foreign nationals under circumstances that “temporarily prevent the country’s nationals from returning safely.” Such circumstances include “ongoing armed conflict” and natural disasters.
Since the original designation in 2022, the Taliban has solidified its control of the country and largely put down any armed resistance to its rule. Nobody would disagree that the Taliban remains a brutal, despotic, and repressive regime. There is every reason to understand why Afghans who were granted TPS would not want to return to that country. But TPS was not designed to address chronic political, social, economic, or other circumstances that make Afghanistan and countless other countries places where people are reluctant to live.
In the 35 years that TPS has been in existence, it has morphed from a short-term reprieve from returning to a temporary chaotic situation to a de facto refugee program. A natural disaster or a political upheaval in some impoverished, dysfunctional nation becomes a ticket to permanent temporary status in the U.S. for large numbers of citizens of that country.
In the most extreme example, Hondurans and Nicaraguans have been granted endless renewals of TPS status since a hurricane struck those countries in 1998, first claiming that conditions were not suitable for their return and eventually arguing that they should be allowed to stay because they have been here for so long. In the end, Americans assume the unwilling role of Ernest and Daisy Stanley, who are forced to accommodate more than a million Sheridan Whitesides, who decide they’d rather not go home.
The U.S., like other enlightened nations, maintains asylum and refugee policies that protect people who can establish a well-founded fear of being singled out for persecution by their governments. Undoubtedly, some Afghans could qualify for those protections. But permanent resettlement is not the purpose of TPS, which is why the current review of such designations for Afghanistan and other countries is long overdue.
The purpose of TPS is to provide temporary relief in the immediate aftermath of some unforeseen political or natural event, even if those conditions are not successfully resolved in the short term. To do otherwise is to allow mission creep, which ultimately dooms every well-intended program.
Ira Mehlman is the Media Director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform