it might not be the way things shake out ultimately, depending on regs issued pursuant to this order. But for the moment yes.
-
-
Replying to @DLind
No. Visitors to those countries are also implicated. Read (12)(A)(i).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
So your reading is that "aliens from" these countries, in the EO, is the same as "visitors to" same countries in the statute?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DLind
The fact it just says (a)(12) and nothing more in the order leaves ambiguity as to the definition of "from," yes.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @DLind
There's enough ambiguity there that I am very uncomfortable saying (12)(A)(i) folks are definitely not included under the EO.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @DLind
Additionally, under (12)(D), the DHS secretary could change his list, which would change this list.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
So do you think it's equally foolhardy to tell ANY foreign national it's safe to leave/reenter US?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DLind
I think it's irresponsible of a journalist to ALL CAPS claim that someone is definitely safe to travel, when you do not know that.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @DLind
You cannot know that they would be fine. You ~could~ say a narrow reading of the order would not apply to them, as things stand now.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
The lawyers I'm in touch with are pretty confident. I will delete it in the interest of not appearing to give legal advice.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Unless the lawyers are Trump appointees in DOJ or are named Don McGahn, I'd think that best.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.