The risk of national security is becoming too high — Jamil Changlee — Opinion

The risk of national security is becoming too high

September 13, 2026·2 min read

Published in

Kaieteur News ·Sep 13, 2026

Dear Editor,

When accepting deportees, it is not just the individual that the country is accepting being exposed to, but it is the entire family and network that is linked to that individual. Guyana is familiar with Cuba and has a long history of solidarity without allowing extremism to take root to the extent that anti-capitalist views became dominant. However, Afghanistan is known for extremist views that are anti American and this is part of the reason why the U.S. is being cautious as to who it admits from that country, especially after an Afghan immigrant was linked to an act of terror on U.S. soil.^[1]

In the not so distant past our President expressed deeply felt resentment towards the developed world, which he has since not repeated publicly as he did in a previous video. He has shown a more friendly attitude towards the U.S. since then and has shifted his party from its hardline communist position that has laid the foundation of his party. But we must also remember that the PPP is a multi-religious party and those with ties to Afghanistan may also be linked to individuals caught up in religious extremism. Hence another reason for the vetting being carried out by the U.S.^[2] .The recent anti-Israel demonstrations in our streets where Palestinian flags were flown do raise concerns that seeds of discord may be eventually sown within our nation if Guyana becomes a destination for those from Afghanistan that do not share our perspective on coexistence between Hindus and Muslims. Thus, we must be cautious which risks we allow our nation to be exposed to.

Our porous borders and proximity to the U.S. could encourage activities that make both Guyana and the U.S. more vulnerable, and as the saying goes prevention is better than a cure. In addition, and of more concern is the potential linkage Afghan deportees may have to individuals involved in the opium trade. Afghanistan is the largest producer of this illegal drug and since the war in Afghanistan between the U.S. and the Taliban, there has been an opioid crisis in the U.S. .If the drug can find its way into the U.S. it can find its way into Guyana, which has become known as a trans-shipment point for other illegal drugs. The high level of corruption, low level of law and order, and the historical ties between people with connections and illegality makes Guyana fertile ground for the opium trade to take root. If this does happen it can quickly decimate our country and create additional problems for the U.S..

Nothing personal against those from Afghanistan. Their country has a very attractive culture and a very beautiful heritage, but Guyana is simply not prepared for the exposure to the risks accompanying a deportee with a network that could inadvertently include rogue elements. We must stick to what we are familiar with. Deportees from cultures like ours and places that we have close ties to would be best. If such an option does not exist, then it would be best to not participate in the program. We must be very cautious and extremely selective to ensure that the risk to our people and our nation’s security do not escalate out of control.

With utmost concern,
Mr. Jamil Changlee

References

Secret court orders deportation of Afghan woman accused of terrorism - JURIST - News — www.jurist.org ↩
US to continue vetting Afghans admitted under refugee programs, Noem says - Khaama Press — www.khaama.com ↩

Secret court orders deportation of Afghan woman accused of terrorism - JURIST - News

www.jurist.org · 2026-09-13

# Secret court orders deportation of Afghan woman accused of terrorism - JURIST - News Author: Brendan Hickey | Vermont Law & Graduate School, US Published: 2026-09-13T14:26:10+00:00 Source: jurist.org (jurist.org) Language: en ## Story Secret court orders deportation of Afghan woman accused of terrorism - JURIST - News Secret court orders deportation of Afghan woman accused of terrorism Brendan Hickey | Vermont Law & Graduate School, US September 13, 2026 10:26:10 am The Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC) on Friday ordered the removal of an Afghan woman in its first-ever use, after she had reached an agreement with the US Department of Justice (DOJ). Nazira Haji Zada had been accused of assisting her son and son-in-law in planning a foiled 2024 terror plot and had conceded that she was an alien terrorist. Congress created the ATRC through the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which was one of the responses to the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing in 1995. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the ATRC is a specialized court for deporting immigrants suspected of engaging in terrorist activities. Congress did this because it was concerned that standard deportation procedures would not conceal classified evidence. Congress further tightened protections for classified evidence by limiting immigrants’ access to the government’s evidence against them in a omnibus consolidated appropriations act, Public Law 104–208, in September 1996. Nazira Haji Zada’s deportation was the first use of the ATRC in its 30 years of existence, so the court is still developing its procedures. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court selects the five judges from five different judicial circuits. All of the judges are federal trial court judges who also serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. A case reaches the ATRC in two steps. In the first, DOJ applies by showing probable cause that a person is engaged in “terrorist activity” as defined Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The definition is broad and flexible, in that it can include children and spouses and can include providing any kind of transportation or housing. A “ terrorist organization” is defined as any group of two or more people that have used a weapon or vehicle to damage property. In the second step, an application may reach a removal hearing, which uses a higher evidentiary standard and in which the immigrant may challenge the allegation. However, the court provides immigrants with substantially fewer protections than defendants in regular criminal cases. The standard of proof is only a “preponderance of the evidence” rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at ATRC, and defendants may not object to “the fruits of electronic surveillance and unconsented physical searches.” A single judge hears the case and there is no right to trial by jury. An immigrant would not have the right to confront all of the evidence and the DOJ does not have to disclose or even summarize the classified evidence against an immigrant. However, the Brennan Center notes that this restriction has not been widely tested, and that some courts have held that secret evidence may not be used to justify immigrant detentions. In a press release, Attorney General Todd Blanche called the case, “a win for national security and the rule of law.”

US to continue vetting Afghans admitted under refugee programs, Noem says - Khaama Press

www.khaama.com · 2026-03-04

US to continue vetting Afghans admitted under refugee programs, Noem says - Khaama Press # US to continue vetting Afghans admitted under refugee programs, Noem says By Fidel Rahmati March 4, 2026 Kristi Noem, United States Secretary of Homeland Security, said the United States will continue conducting “rigorous reviews” of individuals who entered the country, particularly Afghan nationals admitted through refugee and humanitarian programs. Speaking at a recent hearing of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Noem said the objective was to ensure that vetting carried out under former President Joe Biden was “complete and accurate.” “We found deficiencies in how this was handled by the Biden administration,” Noem said, without providing detailed evidence during the public session. Responding to a question about Afghan nationals currently housed in a camp in Qatar amid tensions linked to the Iran conflict, she said each case would be individually assessed for eligibility under U.S. law and relevant programs. However, Noem declined to state unequivocally that none of the Afghans under review would be returned to Afghanistan, where rights groups say they could face persecution under the Taliban authorities. The review comes after President Donald Trump ordered a suspension more than a year ago of U.S. refugee admissions for Afghan nationals, with no policy reversal announced so far. Trump recently also ordered a halt to visa issuance for citizens of more than 70 countries, including Afghanistan, a move that has effectively stalled the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program for Afghans. Advocacy groups, members of Congress and retired U.S. service members have urged Washington to resume admissions, arguing that many Afghans awaiting relocation were long-time allies of the United States. The debate underscores continuing divisions in Washington over immigration and national security policy, particularly concerning Afghans who fled after the Taliban takeover in 2021.