Loudoun County Sheriff raises questions about DHS plan to stash 16,000 Afghan refugees near local schools

Sheriff Michael Chapman, of Loudoun County, in Northern Virginia, is raising questions about the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to temporarily house 16,000 Afghans, more than 1,000 per month for the next 7 months, in a local convention center not far from two local schools.

Chapman raised questions about the decision in a press release after he says he was contacted by members of DHS’ Federal Protective Service and given the news. Chapman highlighted the DHS’ lack of planning, saying:

A follow-up conference call with a senior member of FEMA occurred the following day where he raised concerns about DHS’ lack of communication, lack of planning, language barriers, a failure to communicate with a myriad of potential stakeholders, and the NCC’s unfenced proximity to a residential neighborhood and two public schools.

Chapman published his list of follow up questions and DHS’ unsatisfactory responses in his press release. Notably, when asked about the vetting process, DHS informed Sheriff Chapman that the refugees were U.S. military translators. When asked how it was possible they were translators when only a small percentage spoke any English, DHS shifted to admitting that most were “family members” of translators.

The sheriff’s concerns about vetting are well-founded. Despite claims that refugees undergo a high degree of vetting, the reality is that numerous examples exist of “vetted” refugees having ties to terrorist groups or other derogatory information. As the Center noted in August of last year while the evacuation was still ongoing:

Already one Afghan evacuee with ties to ISIS, the same terror group which killed 13 American troops in a coordinated suicide bombing yesterday, has been identified in secondary screening. Another 100 evacuees have reportedly also been identified based on biometric screening. A Pentagon official put the number of flagged Afghan evacuees at .5%, which would represent between 250-350 individuals with suspected terror links.

In France, French intelligence has placed at least 5 Afghan evacuees under surveillance following evidence of Taliban ties.  In the United Kingdom an Afghan evacuee who arrived in Birmingham, England from Kabul was found to have already been placed on the No-Fly terrorism watch list.

Contrary to those who claim that refugee vetting is foolproof, history shows otherwise.

Even outside of the threat of terrorism, concerns abound. Allegations of Afghan refugees sexually assaulting military members, fellow refugees, and civilians have been reported in New Mexico, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Montana, since the evacuation from Afghanistan. In one case, the assailant was a highly placed advisor to a Lieutenant-General. In some cases, Afghan refugees have attempted to use claims that such assaults are permissible under Afghan culture as a defense.

While DHS told the Loudoun County sheriff that refugees would not be permitted to leave the facility, it’s not immediately clear how this would be done. Early in the evacuation, reports were received of over 700 Afghan refugees simply walking off military bases where they were being temporarily housed. Military officials stressed at the time they possessed “no legal authority” to detain Afghan evacuees against their will and there were no laws to prevent it. It’s not clear by what powers DHS’ Federal Protective Service would be able to utilize to detain unwilling Afghans either. The major disincentive for refugees disappearing from government custody is the inability to expedite resettlement paperwork.

Sheriff Chapman also noted that DHS admitted to conducting no coordination with local government services or departments, and while they promise to provide grants to support the cost of stationing the refugees in the county, such grants would not become available until after the refugees were already dispersed throughout the country.

While in theory refugee resettlement is supposed to be conducted “in consultation” with local governments and other stakeholders, in practice the federal government and the private sector “voluntary agencies” that are paid to resettle refugees routinely ignore this responsibility. State and local communities often are forced to incur significant financial hardships to address the sudden influx of new population. In 2017, the State of Tennessee even filed a lawsuit against the federal government over what it viewed as the unconstitutionality of the federal government effectively commandeering state funds to support its refugee program.

It is likely the Afghan refugees will be a substantial hardship for local communities and recipients of significant social services wherever they are finally settled. A Center for Immigration Studies report indicated that Afghan immigrants tend to suffer from higher rates of poverty, lower rates of higher education, and higher likelihood of being welfare recipients compared to non-immigrant populations. “In 2019 65% of Afghan households used at least one major program (Cash, food stamps, Medicaid),” the report noted.

Sheriff Chapman is correct to be skeptical of DHS’ promise that it can guarantee safety as it transits over 16,000 Afghan evacuees through Loudoun County, and that it can minimize any negative externalities with a handful of belated grants. Local communities around the country continue to bear the brunt of the federal government arrogant refusal to properly consult with relevant stakeholders or address their reasonable concerns.

Afghan refugees in Iran by EU Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0