Repatriation and implications
Listen to article
The deportation of nearly 880,000 Afghan Citizen Card (ACC) holders, along with all foreigners illegally residing in Pakistan, is underway following the expiration of the official March 31 deadline, which mandated the return of these individuals to leave the country voluntarily. The move has caused considerable "mayhem" — both in Afghanistan and elsewhere — with calls for compassion and refrain from forced repatriation.
But quite interestingly, Iran has expelled over 1.5 million Afghans in the last two years but hardly has it been subjected to the kind of scrutiny that Pakistan is currently facing. One wonders why Pakistan is singled out for a drive that in essence is centred in the need for documentation of every foreigner that enters, resides or leaves the country.
The Interior Ministry defends the crackdown, arguing "sufficient time has already been granted for their dignified return", emphasising that no one will be maltreated during the repatriation process, that began as the Illegal Foreigners Repatriation Program in November 2023. It forced around 850,000 undocumented refugees to return to Afghanistan in the first phase. They largely included hundreds of thousands of Afghans who fled their country in the wake of its takeover by Taliban in August 2021.
The ongoing second phase is primarily targeting individuals who possess the ACC. The temporary identification document was issued to undocumented Afghans, mostly economic migrants, by the Pakistani government under a programme implemented in 2017 with the support of the International Organization of Migration (IOM) to address their vulnerabilities and facilitate access to services.
Pakistan also hosts nearly 1.4 million legal Afghan refugees with the Proof of Registration (PoR) cards issued by the UNHCR. The PoR cards remain valid until June 30, 2025. Notably, over 60% of these refugees were born and raised in Pakistan.
However, several questions arise based on my extensive experience and observations over the past three decades in and around Afghanistan.
Does the phased expulsion of Afghans address Pakistan's security concerns? While officials have publicly argued that the presence of Afghans, both through PoR and ACC, poses a threat, it is unclear whether this expulsion will effectively address the security crisis.
Secondly, what tangible benefits will be gained by forcibly repatriating Afghans who were born, raised and educated in Pakistan? For many of these young people, Afghanistan is an unfamiliar country.
Additionally, despite the PTI provincial government's policy gaps and execution shortcomings, its standoff with the Centre and security establishment since 2013 has only exacerbated the province's economic woes and deepened the governance crisis, particularly in the six border districts that were merged in May 2018. The province continues to bear the brunt of TTP-led violence that originates from across the border.
It is also important to note that the apex committee comprising the civilian government and the 11th Corps has continued to function effectively, largely due to the military's consistent leadership in addressing issues related to Afghanistan, borders and terrorism.
Thirdly, the air is already toxic, replete with numerous anti-Pakistan narratives, predominantly emanating from Afghans who suffer under the oppressive rule of greedy police or border officials. These officials merely amplify and exacerbate the sentiment against Pakistan. Do they consider the consequences of their decisions, which grant the police unchecked authority to extort Afghans from all corners of the country? In numerous cases, even those with valid documentation, businesses and relationships have fallen victim to the unbridled and high-handedness of these officials, often driven by a voracious desire for money.
Lastly, and more alarmingly, what mindset is currently prevailing in Pakistan? Do officials genuinely seek to protect Pakistan or merely the capital territory of Islamabad?
Internally, the stated intention was to force Afghans out of Islamabad and Rawalpindi and relocate them to other areas. We would be delighted if most Afghans could leave the capital territory and Rawalpindi, as officials in Islamabad reportedly whispered into each other's ears.
The most apparent implied intention, it appears, was to push Afghans from the twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi into the already struggling Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
The province continues to grapple with the repercussions of the two Afghan wars, one against the Soviet Union and the other against Al-Qaeda, commonly referred to as the war on terror. In both instances, KP served as the launching pad, leading to a dilution of the rule of law.
This erosion of law and order facilitated the involvement of both local and foreign state and non-state actors, resulting in countless compromises, relaxations of regulations, interference in the civilian security sector and circumvention of societal norms. The consequences are evident in the decaying governance structures, characterised by bureaucratic lethargy, political expediency and professional incompetence.
The movers and shakers of power need to tread the path carefully to avoid the perception that they only care about Rawalpindi and Islamabad and that they treat KP and Balochistan as useless backyards, where socio-political tensions and economic adversity doesn't seem to bother those who matter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
Taliban hang up Kalashnikovs to pen memoirs of Afghan war
Author Khalid Zadran, a member of the Haqqani network, long viewed as one of the most dangerous militant factions in Afghanistan, is the Kabul's police force spokesman. Photo AFP Since trading the battlefield for Afghanistan's halls of power, some Taliban members have also swapped their weapons for pens to tell their version of the 20-year conflict with Western forces, who they accuse of distorting "reality". A flood of books has been written, mostly from a Western perspective, about the war between the US-led forces that invaded Afghanistan in the wake of the September 11 attacks until the Taliban's return to power in 2021. But in the years since, a proliferation of writings by Taliban figures — praising their exploits and the achievements of the "Islamic Emirate" — is now the reigning narrative in Afghanistan. "No matter what foreigners have written... they have largely ignored the reality of what happened to us and why we were forced to fight," author Khalid Zadran told AFP. A member of the Haqqani network — long viewed as one of the most dangerous militant factions in Afghanistan — he now serves as the spokesman for the capital's police force. In his 600-page tome in Pashto published in April, he recounts US incursions in his home province of Khost, his childhood steeped in stories of soldiers' "atrocities", and his desire to join the Taliban in the name of his country's "freedom". "I witnessed horrific stories every day — mangled bodies on the roadside," he writes in "15 Minutes", a title inspired by a US drone strike he narrowly escaped. Muhajer Farahi, now a deputy information and culture minister, penned his "Memories of Jihad: 20 Years in Occupation" to "state the facts", he said. "America, contrary to its claims, has committed cruel and barbaric acts, destroyed our country with bombs, destroyed infrastructure, and has sown discord and cynicism between nations and tribes," he told AFP from his office in central Kabul. Little attention is paid in either book to the thousands of civilians killed in Taliban attacks — many of them suicide bombings that entrenched fear across the country for nearly two decades. Farahi insists the Taliban "were cautious in saving civilians and innocent" lives, while criticising fellow Afghans who collaborated with the pro-Western police as a "stain" on the country.
Business Recorder
4 days ago
- Business Recorder
Over 200,000 returned to Afghanistan in past nine weeks: interior ministry
Pakistan has repatriated more than 200,000 Afghan nationals since April 1, this year. The interior ministry said that since the repatriation of Afghan citizenship card holders alongside unregistered, illegal foreigners commenced last year in October, 1,102,441 have been returned. 'All illegal foreigners including Afghan Nationals are once again advised to leave the country voluntarily,' the statement read, adding that returnees to their respective countries were being treated with dignity. Undocumented Afghan DPs: deportation deadline extended The statement said arrangements for food and healthcare for returning foreigners are already in place. 'Defaulters who are creating hurdles in repatriation process or found involved in extending employment, rental property, accommodating in hotels or engaging in businesses with illegal foreigners are liable to be dealt strictly as per laws,' the ministry warned.
Express Tribune
5 days ago
- Express Tribune
America's immigration dilemma: Law, accountability, and the crisis within
For decades, America has prided itself as a land of opportunity—a magnet for dreamers, workers, and refugees. But today, under the aggressive implementation of ICE-led deportations, spearheaded by President Donald Trump's renewed enforcement drive, the country finds itself fractured. The issue is no longer just about legality—it has become a battleground of narratives, identity, and accountability. President Trump insists that 'millions and millions' of illegal immigrants—whom he categorizes as violent criminals, traffickers, sex offenders, and pedophiles—have 'invaded' the U.S. According to him, his administration's duty is to remove these threats through mass deportations, often carried out with military-style precision. ICE raids in cities like Los Angeles, where five individuals with criminal pasts were arrested on June 7, are presented as success stories. But a deeper question lurks behind these headlines: if such individuals are indeed dangerous and illegal, how did they get into the country in the first place? As a legal immigrant myself, my family and I embarked on a long and arduous journey. We applied in 2007 for family-sponsored immigration and were not approved until 2024. Seventeen years of background checks, verification of employment, travel history, character assessment, and criminal records—all under the scrutiny of U.S. immigration services. It is a stringent, sometimes grueling, system that leaves little room for error. If followed diligently, it is almost impossible for someone with a dubious past to pass through. This raises troubling questions. How do individuals with criminal records—those labeled as drug dealers, violent offenders, or sex criminals—make it into the U.S. undocumented? What loopholes exist? And more importantly, who allowed it? Beyond bureaucratic lapse, another profound and often overlooked truth must be acknowledged: every wave of immigration has often been triggered by destruction caused by the United States and its allies. The Syrian crisis, spurred by U.S.-led regime change attempts, created millions of refugees—many welcomed into the United States. The U.S. invasion of Iraq unleashed chaos, civil war, and displacement, compelling thousands of Iraqis to seek shelter abroad. Libya, after being bombed into anarchy, witnessed similar refugee outflows. Palestinians displaced by decades of unending Israeli occupation, often with U.S. political and military backing, have also found refuge in America. The collapse of Afghanistan after two decades of NATO occupation led to a mass exodus—especially of Afghans who worked with Western forces. Most arrived with no paperwork or formal identity verification, given the country's primitive recordkeeping systems. Yet, many were fast-tracked into the U.S., bypassing the very scrutiny imposed on legal immigrants from stable nations. This uncomfortable truth demands moral clarity: if undocumented immigrants are subject to the full weight of the law, then those policymakers and officials who created the conditions for their displacement, or allowed their entry without due diligence, must also be held accountable. It is a shared responsibility—one that begins not at the border, but in the war rooms and foreign policy chambers where these crises were ignited. There appears to be no structured inquiry or investigation into the root causes. No commissions, no accountability frameworks to identify the officials, agencies, or politicians who enabled mass illegal entry. Immigration enforcement in the U.S. has historically vacillated depending on who is in power. One administration turns a blind eye, quietly encouraging mass entry. The next tries to reverse it through high-profile crackdowns. But in the absence of institutional accountability, this cyclical dysfunction persists—feeding public anger and polarizing communities. ICE is now being weaponized not just to remove the undocumented, but to reassert political dominance. The use of unmarked vehicles, masked officers, and sudden, forceful detentions—often in front of children and elders—conveys a message of fear. It is not surprising that over 10,000 protesters recently marched through downtown Los Angeles against these raids. Many carried Mexican flags—none carried the American flag. This wasn't just a protest; it was a symptom of deeper social unrest. Critics argue that these ICE actions, while legal under the Supreme Court's allowance of 24-hour deportation notice, are being carried out in a manner that undermines constitutional due process. Rights of asylum seekers, refugees, and even undocumented residents with long-standing ties to communities are brushed aside in the name of executive orders. A nation built by immigrants is now turning its state machinery against them. Supporters of Trump's policy, on the other hand, insist that deporting illegals—especially criminals—is not just constitutional, but necessary. They point to the Clinton-era deportations of over 12 million people, Obama's deportation of 5 million, and Bush's expedited removal protocols. 'This is not new,' they argue. 'It's enforcement overdue.' But many dissenters challenge this logic. They argue that Trump is not fixing immigration—he's weaponizing it. He's framing all undocumented migrants as threats, fueling fear for political gain. His critics claim that this dehumanization is less about justice and more about re-election. Trump's rhetoric plays to a base who feel left behind—using immigrants as scapegoats for economic and social frustrations. This divide is not only ideological—it's generational, racial, and geographic. Many immigrants, including legal ones like myself, find ourselves in a complicated space. On one hand, we support the rule of law. On the other, we reject the vilification of all migrants and the blanket criminalization of entire communities. Let us remember: America is a nation of immigrants. Even Donald Trump is the grandson of Friedrich Trump, a German immigrant who arrived in the U.S. in 1885. The German Chancellor once presented Trump with his grandfather's immigration file during a White House visit—a reminder that no one, not even the president, is far removed from the immigrant experience. The real issue is not race, religion, or ethnicity. The only legitimate distinction should be between legal and illegal entry. But even that must be addressed humanely, within the framework of rights and due process. It cannot become a pretext for racial profiling, family separation, or fear campaigns. The lack of systemic accountability is the root of this chaos. Who failed to enforce border laws? Who allowed the lapse? Was it intentional? Was there bribery? Was it negligence or political strategy? These are the questions no one in Washington wants to answer. The consequences of this negligence go beyond borders. As seen in the Los Angeles protest, foreign governments—like Mexico—may begin to leverage their diaspora as political tools. If unchecked, this tactic could be replicated by other countries, introducing a dangerous element of foreign interference in domestic American affairs. In my observation of reactions on X (formerly Twitter), two dominant narratives have emerged: one, defending ICE's actions and Trump's policies as lawful and overdue; the other, denouncing the excessive force and racial undertones as unconstitutional and inhumane. Some comments suggest this is less about criminals and more about silencing immigrants—legal and illegal alike—through fear and exclusion. What, then, is the way forward? First, no society or country elsewhere in the world may be destroyed, and no country, especially one as powerful as the United States, should ever tolerate illegal immigration. The law must be upheld. But enforcement must be precise, proportional, and humane. Second, there must be rigorous accountability. Politicians, departments, and border enforcement agencies that failed in their duty must face consequences. Only then can the system regain public trust. Third, investment must be made into technology, manpower, and processes that make it virtually impossible for undocumented migrants—especially those with criminal records—to enter undetected. The U.S. has done this before during the post-9/11 anti-terrorism era. It can do it again. This is not just about protecting borders. It's about preserving the spirit of America—a land where laws are enforced, but justice is never blind to humanity. If illegal immigration is the dragon, it must be slain at its roots. Not with brutality, but with policy, accountability, and moral clarity. Let us hope that sanity prevails. Let us hope that the United States rises above political theatrics and embraces a model of immigration that is lawful, just, and worthy of the ideals it claims to defend.
