February 1, 2017

Overreach?

Any possibility of rapprochement? I am proposing "RESOLVED: President Trump badly overstepped in his immigration EO. He rushed to keep a campaign promise, but overstepped both because it was rushed, and because he and his team have a predilection toward enforcement." If you'll join me there, I will drop my accusation of "malevolence."

We may disagree on refugees, but is there appetite around here to deny re-entry to green card holders?

Another huge overreach which should be corrected immediately is to exempt interpreters and military officials, many of whom risked their lives to further American agendas. WSJ:

BAGHDAD--Gen. Talib al Kenani commands the elite American-trained counter terrorist forces that have been leading the fight against ISIS for two years.
"I'm a four star general, and I'm banned from entering the U.S.?" he said.

His family was relocated to the U.S. for their safety, and he'd had plans to see them next week, until he was told not to bother.

"I have been fighting terrorism for 13 years and winning," he said. "Now my kids are now asking if I'm a terrorist?" . . .

"This ban needs to be reviewed," Kenani said. "We thought we were partners with our American friends, and now we realize that we're just considered terrorists."


Not. Good.

UPDATE: Trump's Travel Ban Forces Elderly Green Card-Holder to Stay in Iraq. She Died the Next Day

Trump Agonistes Posted by John Kranz at February 1, 2017 12:04 PM

Policy by anecdote?

Okay, does the general not have a G-1, G-2, G-3 or G-4 visa? Perhaps if he waits until the next business day he might also request an exemption under paragraph (g):

...the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

Okay, I admit that, in hindsight, it would have been preferable to risk a few more terrorists sneaking in than to spring the policy unannounced.

But what about the counter-factual? Suppose the new policy had been announced in advance? I submit that the sturm and drung would have been even worse, and the predictions of impending doom far exceeded your two sad anecdotes. Then what?

Posted by: johngalt at February 1, 2017 3:44 PM

Did somebody say overreach?

Rep. Joaquin Castro warned Tuesday that if the White House has ordered the US Customs and Border Protection Agency to ignore judicial stays against the controversial refugee travel ban, Congress must begin the process of formally censuring — and potentially impeaching — President Donald Trump.

But, from the same piece:

CBP spokesperson Gillian Christensen denied the agency was directed to ignore court orders halting enforcement of the executive order.

"CBP officers are not detaining anyone. Green card holders who arrive in the US have to go through secondary screening but that process is working smoothly and relatively quickly," Christensen said. "Furthermore, visa holders who would be affected by the executive order are being denied boarding at their point of departure so they are not even making it into the US."

"Secondary screening" does not equal denial of freedom of movement.

Posted by: johngalt at February 1, 2017 4:13 PM

Please pardon my Germlish. That should have been "sturm und drang."

Posted by: johngalt at February 1, 2017 6:01 PM

"Wie wir auch unsern Schuldigern"

I'll concede a tactical question of forward announcement. I'm more concerned that it was not reviewed by anybody. It was not clear who was affected and who not. It should have been vetted internally.

Posted by: jk at February 1, 2017 6:25 PM

Update Update.

Reason has corrected its own article:

(Updated: Family Imam Says Story is a Lie, She Actually Died Before the Ban)
Posted by: johngalt at February 6, 2017 2:50 PM | What do you think? [5]