Across this week’s readings, a common thread was how Afghans who managed to reach countries like Pakistan or Germany, whether in limbo or fully resettled, continued to advocate for others left behind. This can be seen in the case of Shakerah Baresh, who resettled in Germany with her children, pleaded with German authorities: “Please, bring the refugees that are now in Pakistan, especially the activists, to Germany. Because it’s a matter of life and death.” This theme of solidarity “we’re all in this fight together”stood out. Yet I was struck by the absence of voices from Afghans who may not share that perspective, who might reflect the anti-immigrant sentiment the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has weaponized in recent elections, or who might even support restricting refugee programs they once relied on.
The few glimpses of tension appeared in a Reuters article, where some Afghans expressed concern about being unfairly associated with asylum seekers linked to deadly attacks in Germany. One woman, Kimia, living in a guesthouse in Pakistan while awaiting resettlement, said: “I’m so sorry about those people who are injured or killed … but it’s not our fault.” These comments reflect fear and frustration, but not outright opposition to migration.
This anti-immigrant rhetoric from migrants themselves was also scarce and raises larger questions: during migration and resettlement, how much do assimilation pressures, political leaders, or the need to align with majority opinion shape migrant perspectives? The U.S. offers a clear parallel. In recent presidential elections, especially 2024, immigrants were seen as pivotal voting blocs. Despite Donald Trump’s often hostile rhetoric and restrictive policies, many immigrants supported him. They believed that siding with Trump might earn them favor or speed up pathways for long-term residents, even at the expense of more recent arrivals, rather than voting for Kamala Harris, who campaigned on a more pro-immigrant platform.
Yet this strategy I argue backfired. After Trump’s reelection, reports surfaced of immigrants and die-hard Trump towns regretting their votes, recognizing that aligning with the majority did not deliver the protections or advantages they had hoped for.
This dynamic highlights the precarious balance immigrants navigate between gratitude for resettlement, pressure to assimilate, and the risks of political alignment.
What emerges from the Afghan case is a counterpoint to the U.S. example. Afghans in Germany, Pakistan, and beyond largely stood in solidarity with fellow refugees, even amid anti-immigrant rhetoric growing worldwide. Their advocacy underscores that receiving refuge does not obligate political conformity. In the U.S., by contrast, some immigrants align with the majority that ultimately failed to safeguard their interests. Together, these cases show that resettlement may grant safety, but it does not erase the complexity of political identity and retaining that connection to your homeland from far away. Solidarity, assimilation, and self-preservation all remain in tension.
