Bill Kristol’s bold proclamation in August 2021—that the majority of Afghan refugees would prove to be superior Americans compared to Charlie Kirk—has become a focal point for debate as the realities of Afghan resettlement unfold. Kristol’s claim, aimed at both Kirk and the broader narrative of evacuation, marks a turning point that now warrants scrutiny as troubling facts have emerged about the vetting process and subsequent implications for American communities.
The swift airlift of over 76,000 Afghan nationals during the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 was a significant undertaking by the Biden administration. However, a September 2022 report from the Department of Homeland Security paints a concerning picture: many evacuees were not properly vetted before being allowed into the country. “We determined that U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not always have critical data to properly vet evacuees coming to our country,” the report states—a stark omission that raises questions about national security.
This careless vetting process allowed 369 individuals into the United States without essential checks against terror or criminal databases. Alarmingly, 11 of those evacuees were identified by the Department of Defense as potential threats, yet they were allowed entry under Operation Allies Welcome. Such lapses highlight significant failures that could have dire consequences for the safety of American citizens.
In a follow-up report published by the Government Accountability Office in October 2023, it was revealed that nearly 44% of adult Afghan parolees fell out of contact with federal programs aimed at their integration. This situation raises critical concerns about their long-term settlement, employment prospects, and ongoing monitoring—elements essential to maintaining both community welfare and safety.
The evacuation’s speed was, evidently, a contributing factor to these issues. Pentagon communications released later indicated that personnel were instructed to “assume all evacuees were legitimate refugees” and to expedite the evacuation process, often at the expense of thorough vetting. The ramifications of such expediency are now evident, with incidents of crime linked to resettled refugees, including cases of sexual assault and domestic violence, sparking public outcry.
Moreover, the financial strain on local communities that welcomed Afghan evacuees has become increasingly apparent. A 2022 report by the Office of Refugee Resettlement disclosed that over 22% of these individuals remained unemployed well over a year after their arrival, while taxpayers shouldered an average annual cost of $17,000 per evacuee for housing and welfare. Local school districts felt the impact too, as a surge of students with limited English skills flooded classrooms, stressing already stretched educational resources.
The public’s perception of this situation reflects a growing skepticism and concern. A Rasmussen poll indicates that only 34% of likely voters feel the government conducted sufficient vetting for incoming Afghan refugees. Among those aged 50 and older, confidence wanes further to just 28%, signaling a troubling trend in public trust regarding immigration policies.
Kristol’s initial tweet now rings hollow as critics continue to highlight the gap between expectations and reality. The sharp rebuke from Charlie Kirk, who responded with “Politely, go screw yourself, @BillKristol,” encapsulates the heated exchange. Kirk has since reiterated that those who raised concerns about the evacuation’s vetting, including himself, were justified in their warnings about its implications and the toll on American communities.
Kristol’s track record reveals a pattern of contentious views on immigration, often alienating himself from previously supportive factions of the GOP. His insistence on a bipartisan welcoming of Afghan allies contrasts starkly with the reality of who is entering the country. A 2022 briefing from the State Department showed that only 23% of evacuees held Special Immigrant Visas or had verifiable ties to the U.S. government, suggesting that the narrative of rescuing “allies” was overstated.
During a 2022 hearing, Representative Tom Tiffany addressed the disappointment felt by many Americans, asserting, “The American people were told we were helping interpreters. Instead, we brought in thousands with little or no contact with U.S. forces.” This sentiment underscores a significant disconnect between governmental promises and the experiences of those living with the fallout of these decisions.
As the debate around refugee admissions continues, the Biden administration defends its actions as a moral obligation in the face of Taliban violence. However, fiscal conservatives and national security experts argue that the ends do not excuse a breakdown of established protocols. “The data is damning,” stated former Pentagon planner Katherine Zimmerman, emphasizing that the narrative of carefully selected refugees contradicts the realities on the ground.
While some organizations advocating for resettlement attest that the majority of Afghan evacuees are law-abiding and grateful, they also acknowledge systemic failures in handling the influx. A manager from the International Rescue Committee noted, “The system got overwhelmed,” highlighting the challenges faced when overwhelmed systems attempt to accommodate displaced populations.
As states like Texas and Florida introduce more rigorous vetting and tracking reforms, the ongoing conversation around the legacy of the Afghan refugee program remains contentious. Critics are now focusing squarely on factual outcomes: who came, how they were vetted, and the lasting impact on communities. The complexities of immigration policy and its repercussions for neighborhoods and national security must now be confronted head-on.
"*" indicates required fields
