Comments: Overreach?

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
Post a comment










Remember personal info?