Anonymous wrote:Although it's true you have to reimburse in general for evacuations, I thought they had waived this for the Afghan collapse.

It is frankly absurd and offensive that Afghans, especially those who were just refugees, would not have to pay, and American citizens would.

I mean, I understand feeling this way, but refugees are being accepted into the country under specific conditions and if the USG chooses to transport them then the USG should bear the cost. A massive evacuation like Afghanistan or Vietnam is a generational event. It's not normally how refugees arrive in the US.

If you don't like it, lobby your lawmakers to change the law.

Anonymous wrote:Although it's true you have to reimburse in general for evacuations, I thought they had waived this for the Afghan collapse.

It is frankly absurd and offensive that Afghans, especially those who were just refugees, would not have to pay, and American citizens would.

Why? People literally had MONTHS of warnings. And even with that you had people taking their kids to Afghanistan in JUNE to visit relatives. I mean, there is only so much the USG can do.

Anonymous wrote:Although it's true you have to reimburse in general for evacuations, I thought they had waived this for the Afghan collapse.

It is frankly absurd and offensive that Afghans, especially those who were just refugees, would not have to pay, and American citizens would.

I mean if you are a private citizen choosing to stay in a country that the State Department warns about when you have the ability to go back to the United States, then that's a choice that taxpayers should not be on the hook for. If you're a refugee, you're fleeing your home. Charging a fee to refugees that have nothing is pretty awful.

Although it's true you have to reimburse in general for evacuations, I thought they had waived this for the Afghan collapse.

It is frankly absurd and offensive that Afghans, especially those who were just refugees, would not have to pay, and American citizens would.