Afghanistan: Paris plans repatriations, US considers deportation via indirect routes

France is exploring the return of Afghan migrants who lack valid residence permits. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez told parliament that officials were discussing how to return a certain number of Afghans. France does not officially recognize the Taliban government, but it is holding talks with its authorities. The issue matters because returns could expose people to danger in Afghanistan.

The United States is considering a different route. According to the New York Times, citing three US government employees, Washington may send more than 150 Afghans to Pakistan. A direct deportation to Afghanistan is not possible for the US government, so Pakistan would become the immediate destination. The Taliban have urged a responsible and measured approach.

The plans are part of wider efforts to return rejected or irregular Afghan migrants. Germany also holds high-level talks with the Taliban and has made more diplomatic space for them in Germany. The EU and 15 member states discussed returns with a Taliban delegation in Brussels in June. Critics, including rights groups, objected.

An indirect deportation uses an intermediary country. Instead of sending Afghan migrants directly from the United States to Afghanistan, officials would first transfer them to Pakistan. That changes the route, not necessarily the broader goal of removing them from the United States. The article presents this as a response to the reported inability to deport them directly to Afghanistan.

The reported US plan concerns more than 150 Afghans. Pakistan would therefore serve as the immediate receiving country. The article does not say whether Pakistan would later send these people to Afghanistan, allow them to stay, or take another step. It only reports the proposed transfer through Pakistan.

This route could be especially sensitive because Pakistan and Afghanistan already have tense relations. Pakistan has ordered security agencies to arrest Afghan citizens without valid visas. It also accuses the Taliban of sheltering militants responsible for attacks in Pakistan, an allegation Kabul denies. Those tensions could complicate any transfer.

The reported scale is more than 150 Afghans. The New York Times published the figure while citing three US government employees. These people are reportedly at the center of plans to remove Afghan migrants from the United States through Pakistan rather than sending them directly to Afghanistan.

The number describes a reported plan, not a completed deportation. The article gives no further breakdown of the group. It also does not state how many have already been moved, whether Pakistan has agreed to receive them, or what would happen after their arrival there.

The figure matters because the proposed route involves a third country amid serious regional tensions. Pakistan and Afghanistan have faced repeated border clashes. Pakistan has also instructed its security agencies to arrest Afghan citizens without valid visas. At the same time, the Taliban have asked Washington to consider the affected people’s rights and legitimate demands.

The article gives a direct answer: the US government cannot deport these people directly to Afghanistan. It does not explain the precise legal or administrative reason for that limitation. Instead, it reports that Washington is considering Pakistan as an alternative destination for more than 150 Afghans.

The proposed route therefore works through a third country. Afghan migrants would be sent to Pakistan rather than directly to Afghanistan. The article does not say whether Pakistan would later return them to Afghanistan or grant them another form of protection. That missing detail is important when assessing the plan’s real consequences.

The danger in Afghanistan is central to the concern. The article states that those returned to their home country face persecution and violence. AfghanEvac says this includes people who supported the US military before its 2021 withdrawal. Although the Taliban announced a general amnesty, UN reports describe extrajudicial killings, arbitrary justice, and mistreatment.

Returning Afghan migrants could expose them to serious harm. The article says that people sent back to Afghanistan face persecution and violence. This makes deportation more than an administrative decision. It can affect people’s safety, freedom, and ability to live without retaliation after they return.

The danger may be especially acute for people connected to Western forces. AfghanEvac says the risk includes Afghans who supported the US military before its withdrawal in 2021. The Taliban had announced a general amnesty for former employees of Western forces and governments, promising safe return. That promise does not settle the issue.

UN reports cited in the article describe repeated extrajudicial killings, arbitrary justice, and mistreatment. The article also says women and girls have experienced a drastic deterioration in their situation since the Taliban takeover. These facts raise major concerns about returns. Any government arranging them must consider whether people would actually be safe after removal.

Pakistan and the Taliban are already locked in a tense relationship. The two countries have experienced repeated clashes along their shared border. Pakistan accuses the Taliban of giving protection to fighters responsible for attacks inside Pakistan. Kabul rejects that accusation, so the dispute remains unresolved.

This conflict could complicate any US transfer of Afghans to Pakistan. Pakistan has instructed its security agencies to arrest Afghan citizens who do not hold valid visas. People sent there could therefore face detention or other uncertainty, depending on their documents and Pakistan’s policy. The article does not say that Pakistan has accepted the proposed US plan.

The political dispute also affects practical cooperation. The Taliban have asked Washington to use a responsible and measured approach and to respect the rights and legitimate demands of those affected. Kabul says it is willing to cooperate practically on the basis of mutual understanding. However, border insecurity and mistrust could make safe arrangements harder.

Non-refoulement is a widely recognized protection principle. It means a government should not send a person to a country where they face persecution, torture, or other serious and foreseeable harm. The rule is especially important for asylum seekers, because their claims may depend on risks in their home country. A change of route does not automatically remove that concern.

Applied here, sending Afghans from the United States to Pakistan would require officials to examine what could happen there and afterward. If Pakistan might return them to Afghanistan, or if they could face serious danger in Pakistan, the protection question would remain. The article reports persecution and violence in Afghanistan, including risks for some former supporters of Western forces.

The article does not name non-refoulement, but its facts explain why the principle matters. Taliban promises of amnesty coexist with UN reports of killings, arbitrary justice, and mistreatment. Governments arranging returns therefore need reliable safeguards, individual assessments, and protection against onward removal to danger. The article does not say whether the US plan includes such safeguards.