The side-by-side presentation of articles about Afghan immigration and US-military “mistakes” returns us to a theme that has permeated this whole course: during the first class, we discussed how underfunding foreign countries leads to the need to immigrate away from them. This week’s readings felt like an extension, that foreign military destabilization will also always lead to refugees. Even in a case where the United States presents the work that they do as “helping,” (and it ostensibly was meant to) their missteps led to public fear. American conservative voters will sometimes say we have no moral obligation to accept refugees and provide them with comfortable living conditions, but with the damage the US has caused abroad (in aerial violence and the rushed evacuation from Afghanistan) it does feel like we have a need to help. Still, despite SIVs and humanitarian parole, it feels like we’re doing surprisingly little in comparison with Iran and Pakistan. As global leaders, is the US obligated to help more than they would in other cases? What other obligations does the US have? Khan mentions at one point that the military didn’t give condolence payments to the families in Tokhar – is economic repayment a path towards accountability?

I’m also struck by how interrelated all migrations stories are. Afghan immigration is of course not existing in a vacuum; I find it really interesting that PBS reported many are now trying to come in through the Southern Border. And the newest waves of refugees aren’t just coming from Afghanistan, I have to assume many of them are coming from European and Arab countries. How is the issue playing out globally? And more locally, what role do the US government and NGOs play in cross-state migration? Immigrants want to be close to diaspora hotspots (like CA, St. Louis now, and D.C.) but how easy is it to re-resettle? I definitely agree that Afghan media and businesses need to grow roots before migrants will feel fully comfortable, and I wonder how long (historically, considering other groups that have been in their place) that will take? We’ve generally looked at immigration historically, and I’m finding myself curious as to whether any groups have come to the US with similar issues – if education, median yearly household income, and English language proficiency are so low, what historically has been the best way to combat that? And why aren’t we considering Afghans as part of a greater historical trend?

I’m also in love with the way that the second part of Khan’s reporting begins outlining her methodology; it feels like journalism-student gold. (cross-checking information in official reports with civilian reporting, using wayback machine, importing all data to an app where she could access it on her phone). I found it interesting that she also suggests meeting people “unplanned” – not warning them – because this way the information flows the most smoothly and is most reliable. Thinking about her work in the context of our prior harm-reduction, I’m a big fan of the way she presented herself totally honestly, but also imagining it was difficult to keep up contact – how do these families feel about their publication now? Also, she tells Katbeeah what the internal US documents say – is that necessary / does that help? I wonder whether hiding information like that could be better for the victims. I also found it interesting that both Khan and Hays referenced FOIA requests – I understand these vaguely, but I’m wondering at what point they feel useful. They seem outside the scope of what we’re working on, but is there a point as a journalist when that kind of information is necessary? Also, would have loved to have seen how she organized her information (considering there was so much by the end!!) + how she determined which stories to tell, out of so many possible (and deserving) accounts. Starstruck by both of Khan’s articles, lots to think about.