The Taliban criticize neighboring countries for their mass expulsion of Afghans
The two countries set deadlines and threatened them with arrest or deportation if they did not comply. They deny targeting Afghans, who make up significant numbers in both countries.
Abdul Rahman Rashid, the Taliban government's deputy minister for refugees and repatriation, rebuked host countries for the mass expulsions and described the removal of Afghans as a 'serious violation of international norms, humanitarian principles, and Islamic values.'
'The scale and manner in which Afghan refugees have been forced to return to their homeland is something Afghanistan has never before experienced in its history,' Rashid told a press conference in Kabul.
Nearly 1.8 million Afghans were forcibly returned from Iran in the past three months alone. A further 184,459 were sent back from Pakistan and over 5,000 were deported from Turkey since the beginning of the year. Additionally, nearly 10,000 Afghan prisoners have been repatriated, mostly from Pakistan.
The Ministry of Refugees and Repatriation said some 6 million Afghan refugees remain overseas.
Natural disasters have swelled Afghanistan's refugee population. The ministry's director for policy and planning, Mahmood al Haq Ahadi, said some 13,500 families were internally displaced due to droughts, floods, and storms.
'When combined with prior displacements, the total number of internally displaced families in Afghanistan has now reached nearly 2.5 million,' Ahadi said.
The ministry planned to send delegations to hold meetings with host countries focusing on legal support and resolving the challenges faced by Afghan asylum seekers.
'Our goal is to find sustainable solutions through dialogue and cooperation,' Ahadi said.
Humanitarian agencies have warned that the scale and pace of returning Afghans is overwhelming already fragile support systems.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
31 minutes ago
- CBS News
Judge blocks expedited deportations of those who entered the U.S. legally, possibly curtailing ICE courthouse arrests
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from rapidly deporting migrants who entered the U.S. legally on humanitarian grounds, potentially curtailing arrests at immigration courts that have triggered controversy across the country. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb of Washington, D.C., barred federal immigration officials from using two Trump administration directives to apply a fast-track deportation process known as expedited removal on migrants who were granted immigration parole to enter the U.S. at an official port of entry. Parole is an immigration authority that allows federal officials to admit foreigners on humanitarian grounds, and lets them live and work in the U.S. legally on a temporary basis. If left in place, Cobb's ruling could significantly hinder the Trump administration's aggressive efforts to ramp up its mass deportation campaign by targeting migrants allowed into the U.S. under the Biden administration through the parole authority. The Justice Department is expected to appeal her order. One operation in particular that could be curtailed by Cobb's ruling is a Trump administration effort to convince immigration judges to dismiss the court cases of certain migrants, so that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents can arrest them after their hearings and place them in expedited removal. Unlike immigration court cases, which typically take years to complete due a backlog of millions of unresolved claims, expedited removal allows officials to more quickly deport migrants who arrived to the U.S. in the past two years. Those placed in that process face summary deportation from the U.S. unless they express concerns of being persecuted in their home countries and prove to an asylum officer that their fear is credible. The courthouse arrests have been reported in cities across the U.S., with videos emerging showing ICE officials detaining migrants immediately after their hearings conclude. In some cases, those taken into custody have been seen weeping and visibly distraught. The practice has been strongly decried by Democratic lawmakers and advocates, who say it punishes people who are trying to follow the legal process by showing up to their hearings. In her opinion, Cobb found the Trump administration's efforts to be illegal, saying the lawsuit against the expedited deportations raised a "question of fair play." She noted the plaintiffs in the case, two migrants from Cuba and Venezuela, had "played by the rules," entered the country with the government's permission and attended their court hearings — and were nonetheless targeted for expedited deportation. "This case's underlying question, then, asks whether parolees who escaped oppression will have the chance to plead their case within a system of rules," Cobb wrote. "Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that — as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers — may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?" Stephen Yale-Loehr, an expert in U.S. immigration law, said Cobb's order could mean that "several hundred thousand people will be temporarily spared from immediate removal under the expedited removal procedures." Yale-Loehr noted the ruling is a reprieve for many of the more than 500,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans who were allowed into the U.S. through the parole authority, under a Biden administration sponsorship policy. It also protects some of the nearly 1 million migrants paroled into the U.S. along the southern border under another Biden-era policy powered by a now-discontinued phone app known as CBP One. In a statement, DHS assistant secretary for public affairs Tricia McLaughlin denounced Friday's order. "This ruling is lawless and won't stand," McLaughlin said.
Bloomberg
31 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Columbia Graduate's Legal Fight Creates Tension Among Judges
A US immigration judge accused a New Jersey federal judge of interfering with her authority in the legal fight over the detention and potential deportation of Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil. In a July 31 order, made public Friday, immigration Judge Jamee Comans wrote that she believed US District Judge Michael Farbiarz had gone too far in recent rulings releasing Khalil from custody. Comans said, pursuant to a ruling from Farbiarz, she had withdrawn an earlier decision that Khalil could be deported, but indicated she disagreed with her judicial colleague in New Jersey.
Associated Press
31 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge pauses Trump administration's push to expand fast-track deportations
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge agreed on Friday to temporarily block the Trump administration's efforts to expand fast-track deportations of immigrants who legally entered the U.S. under a process known as humanitarian parole — a ruling that could benefit hundreds of thousands of people. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Department of Homeland Security exceeded its statutory authority in its effort to expand 'expedited removal' for many immigrants. The judge said those immigrants are facing perils that outweigh any harm from 'pressing pause' on the administration's plans. The case 'presents a question of fair play' for people fleeing oppression and violence in their home countries, Cobb said in her 84-page order. 'In a world of bad options, they played by the rules,' she wrote. 'Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here, restricting their ability to seek immigration relief and subjecting them to summary removal despite statutory law prohibiting the Executive Branch from doing so.' Fast-track deportations allow immigration officers to remove somebody from the U.S. without seeing a judge first. In immigration cases, parole allows somebody applying for admission to the U.S. to enter the country without being held in detention. Immigrants' advocacy groups sued Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to challenge three recent DHS agency actions that expanded expedited removal. A surge of arrests at immigration courts highlights the lawsuit's high stakes. The judge's ruling applies to any non-citizen who has entered the U.S. through the parole process at a port of entry. She suspended the challenged DHS actions until the case's conclusion. Cobb said the case's 'underlying question' is whether people who escaped oppression will have the chance to 'plead their case within a system of rules.' 'Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that — as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers without explanation or charges — may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?' she added. A plaintiffs' attorney, Justice Action Center legal director Esther Sung, described the ruling as a 'huge win' for hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their families. Sung said many people are afraid to attend routine immigration hearings out of fear of getting arrested. 'Hopefully this decision will alleviate that fear,' Sung said. Since May, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have positioned themselves in hallways to arrest people after judges accept government requests to dismiss deportation cases. After being arrested, the government renews deportation proceedings but under fast-track authority. President Donald Trump sharply expanded fast-track authority in January, allowing immigration officers to deport someone without first seeing a judge. Although fast-track deportations can be put on hold by filing an asylum claim, people may be unaware of that right and, even if they are, can be swiftly removed if they fail an initial screening. 'Expedited removal' was created under a 1996 law and has been used widely for people stopped at the border since 2004. Trump attempted to expand those powers nationwide to anyone in the country less than two years in 2019 but was held up in court. His latest efforts amount to a second try. ICE exercised its expanded authority sparingly at first during Trump's second term but has since relied on it for aggressive enforcement in immigration courts and in 'workplace raids,' according to plaintiffs' attorneys. ___ Spagat reported from San Diego.
