Taliban voices concern over US plans to deport Afghans

Washington is reportedly planning to remove some Afghan immigrants from the United States and send them first to Pakistan. Their eventual destination would be Afghanistan. The plan matters because some are relatives of Afghans who helped US forces before the 2021 withdrawal, raising concerns about their safety.

Pakistan would serve as the transit and expulsion route. Anonymous US officials told The New York Times that Pakistan would oversee sending the Afghans onward to Afghanistan. The United States reportedly cannot arrange deportations directly to Afghanistan, so the route would pass through Pakistan.

The plan remains a reported proposal involving more than 150 people. Taliban authorities have asked Washington to coordinate decisions and consider the individuals’ rights and demands. Pakistan has also been arresting Afghans without visas under its wider repatriation policy, making the route especially significant for those without legal status there.

US media reports and AfghanEvac say more than 150 Afghans in the United States could be deported through Pakistan to Afghanistan. The reported group includes relatives of Afghans who assisted US forces before the Taliban takeover and the 2021 US withdrawal. The figure highlights the scale of the reported plan.

Those relatives may be especially exposed because their family connection to former US allies could place them within the group facing removal. AfghanEvac, an organization supporting former Afghan allies, identified such relatives among those expected to be deported. The article does not provide a separate number for them.

Their reported destination raises further concern because the Taliban now control Afghanistan. The Taliban announced a general amnesty for people who worked with Western-backed forces, but the United Nations has recorded killings, detentions, and abuses. Advocacy groups therefore warn that removal could endanger former allies and their families.

Deportation generally means a government requires a noncitizen to leave its territory, often because the person lacks permission to stay or has lost legal protection. It is an official removal process. In this case, reported deportations would move Afghans from the United States through Pakistan and eventually to Afghanistan.

Voluntary return is different because the person chooses to leave rather than being expelled. A voluntary return may still happen under pressure or difficult circumstances, but it is not the same legal action as a government-directed deportation. The article describes officials planning removals, not Afghans choosing to travel home.

The distinction matters because deportation can remove someone before they have secured another legal status or assessed the risks of return. Advocacy groups warn that former Afghan allies and their families could face danger. Taliban promises of amnesty have not removed concerns recorded by the United Nations.

The main feared consequence is danger to former Afghan allies and their families after return to Afghanistan. Advocacy groups have warned that people connected to Western-backed forces could face threats to their lives. This concern is especially serious because the reported group includes relatives of people who assisted the US military.

The risk exists despite Taliban promises. After regaining power, Taliban authorities announced a general amnesty for Afghans who worked with Western-backed forces and governments. They have also repeated promises this year that former foes could safely return home. Those assurances are intended to support the claim that deportees would not be targeted.

However, the United Nations has recorded reports of extrajudicial killings, detentions, and abuses. These reports create a gap between official promises and conditions documented by international monitors. Advocacy groups therefore oppose removals that could send people back before their safety and legal protections are adequately considered.

Taliban authorities say returnees would be safe because they announced a general amnesty after regaining power. The amnesty covered Afghans who worked with Western-backed forces and governments. Taliban officials have also repeated promises this year that former opponents could return home safely.

Those assurances are meant to show that former allies would not face official retaliation. The Taliban’s foreign ministry spokesman, Abdul Qahar Balkhi, urged the United States to make decisions with coordination and attention to the rights and legitimate demands of the people involved. He also said the Afghan side was ready to engage practically.

The United Nations has reported developments that raise serious doubts about safety. It recorded reports of extrajudicial killings, detentions, and abuses after the Taliban returned to power. The article does not establish that every returnee would face harm, but these documented reports explain why advocacy groups oppose forced removal and demand careful coordination.

Pakistan has been pushing Afghan nationals out through a years-long repatriation policy. Earlier this year, its government ordered law enforcement nationwide to arrest Afghans without visas. The policy has already pushed back millions of Afghans who fled there during decades of war.

This policy could affect the reported US deportees because Pakistan is expected to receive them and oversee their expulsion to Afghanistan. People without legal residency documents in Pakistan would be especially vulnerable to removal. The United States reportedly cannot deport these Afghans directly to Afghanistan, making Pakistan the necessary route.

Relations between Pakistan and Taliban authorities have been strained since the Taliban took power. They worsened after deadly border clashes last October. The fighting led to the near-total closure of the border, complicating movement and coordination. These tensions make any transfer through Pakistan more politically and practically difficult.

Legal residency is official permission to remain in a country. Refugee protections are safeguards for people who cannot safely return home, while a special immigrant visa is a particular immigration route available to eligible applicants. These statuses can determine whether a person may stay, work, or avoid removal. Exact rules depend on the country and program.

The article shows how status affects risk. Some Afghans in Pakistan reportedly lacked legal residency documents, making them vulnerable to removal. In the United States, some Afghans received special immigrant visas after the 2021 Taliban takeover. The Trump administration also sought to end deportation protections for some Afghans.

If protection expires, is denied, or cannot be obtained, officials may begin deportation. A valid visa or residency document can support lawful stay, but it does not automatically guarantee permanent residence. The reported cases show why people’s documents, eligibility, and protection claims matter before any transfer is carried out.